Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

Not remotely shrieky Dittany. Rather tired of going round in circles but not shrieky at all. Good night.

and those examples were only a reaction to missbliss's argument that 'art could be misused'.

He is Boco, unjustified IMO,.. definitely from these... unfortunately not every pic we take is brilliant, we're only as good as our last (published)shoot.

The Art market would already be flooded with these type of images if

a} it was Art

and

b} people allowed/endouraged/coerced their children to be photographed in this manner

Juney-Anne Geddes

Well for a start i don't like her with full frontal nude shost of children.

She is famous for dressing-up babies, as bees, flowers, bears and so on.

She does take pictures of naked babies but theses are nearly always new borns under a week if in remember correctly. Because of the fact that they don't have a bottom and how plyable they are at that age.
They are nearly always sleeping on their tummies. She is very carefull not to allow genitalia in her pictures. I had to do a project on her for A level photog so am fimilar with her work. Comparing her work to the link is a load of tosh.

Boco- the art comment was vallid when it contains real people that are living at the time of buplication. A photograph captures a true moment in time, it is easy to depict the subject. A painting doesn't, however realistic it is, an artist has the ability to add and takeaway. I know photo's can be airbrushed, but they can't undress a fully clothed person. An artist can do this.

People probably missuse paintings of still life. That doesn't directly hurt anyone. so your sweeping statement about banning all art for this reason is tosh also!

Not one person who is for the paintings has told me why it is ok for an 'artist' to take nude photos but not a sex offender.

Would you feel the same if the exact same pictures had been found in the home of a sex offender. Would you still say 'oh they are beautiful though'?

Like i said i'm not against nudes. But you have to draw a line.

• link not like.

• link not like.

Are these remotely like the photos that sex offenders take though? I would presume not.

I wouldn't know i have been lucky enough to not have viewed any.

But sex offenders have been known to pose as photographers. (not saying that is what the artist was doing)

Well sex offenders have been known to pose as cub scout masters and teachers as well. I don't think that really means much at all although there are people on this thread who have assumed he's a creep.

If the photos are not pornographic ( and I don't see them that way at all obviously or I wouldn't be calling them stiking/beautiful etc) then surely they're just photos of the body.

I'm surprised that so many people are OK with nude art, but not photography as often to me art is a) just as recognisable and b) often more full on.

Hmm Behere- but that was my earlier point - I wonder whether that is why I am seeing them as OK- because my kid closest to that age does wander round naked at complete ease with himself.

I am relieved to find that there are others here who see them as striking/beautiful though.

JimJma- would you display those pictures in your home. Especially the full frontal ones?

No I wouldn't. But I wouldn't display a dead fish either, or a tent with the names of all the people I'd shagged emroidered on it. That doesn't make those things worthless.

My friend had huge oil paintings of herself naked on the walls of her house when she was 18. I wouldn't do that either, but she was arty and they were striking pictures.

By which I mean I could see the beauty in the pictures, even if I would never have displayed them.

There is one photo I would display- the one of the boy's face and shoulders where he's looking slightly down (no uncomfortable nudity at all - I wouldn't have nudity on my wall because it would be too much). We have a painting of a (clothed) child in a similar pose and there's something about the 'aloneness' of the painting that I like - it reminded both dh and I of ds1 which was why we bought it.

But you beleive they are asthetically beautiful then surely you would not mind displaying it? I'm not saying they are worthless. Just who do they appeal to?

Would you feel comfortable if you saw these pictures hanging in someone elses home? (not the parents).

I don't think Tracy intended for someone to display her tent in their home.

But did this photographer expect someone to display this work in a home?

There is plenty of art that I like but would never display. I've just mentioned my friend who did display the huge oil of her (actually several) on the walls of her home when she was 18. I thought the paintings amazing but would never have them on my wall.

If I saw someone with these hanging on their walls my first thought would be that they were obviously arty types. And that would be it. But like F&Z I think I'm seeing these pictures differently than some on this thread.

I'm leaving this now. I think i am in the majority. Not that this makes me right.

I might display a nude Lenkiewicz I guess because he's so well known for nudes, and I think a lot of his work is striking. But some of it would be too full on.

I know someone who posed for him at 16- and I think that far dodgier than these photos to be honest because his work was often very sexual.

I just don't get how anyone would get up in the morning and decide that they want to take photos of naked adolescents.

Art or not...what part of his brain makes him want to take these pictures? Is the world a better place because of these pictures?

And really how many of us would be happy for our children to be photographed by this man in this way??

Just one more thing reagrding your friend that doesn't bother me. It's her in the picture. Not a non-(legally)concenting child that is in no way related to her.

If i went into someone else as saw a naked picture of their own 12/13 dc's i probably wouldn't be too concerned, still not to my taste. But if it was someone elses child i'd find it really uncomfortable.

I think that most photographers take photographs with the intention to sell prints. I think in this case it's all for shock tactics, pushing boundries.....

Do arty type photographers take pictures to sell prints though? I think there is a difference between print photography and art photography. And I suspect that;s something about the difference between the CK ad and this.

I am interested in why I personally would be happy displaying a Lenkiewicz and not another nude. I think it's because if people saw it they would say 'oh look you have a t Lenkiewicz' (he's very well known locally) and not 'oh my goodness you have a nude'.

I would be less likely to display any of these photos in my home having seen people's reaction to them. Although my own first reaction was that they were beautiful.