Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

Haven't read the entire thread but have bookmarked it...there was a discussion on MN a little while ago about a kitschy photo/painting of a naked girl and I linked to Sally Mann,the American photographer who photographed her own children..links here sally mann and here

Most photographers would sell prints if they could. I don't as
1/ I take pics of kids
2/ it's commercial fashion
and so there is no market.
I don't understand why anyone would want a faintly provocative photo of a child, that is not their own. on the wall.
The difference with painting IMO, is the lack of realism, and the fact paint work is open to interpretation to an extent.

Now Sally Mann does take some beautiful pics, but she oversteps the mark sometimes as well IMO.
I think the difference is her pics generally tell a story, have attitude and are projecting the personality of the subject.
The Henson pics are projecting his own personality /ideas

I think this is getting a bit confusing. My point about my eldest son being completely comfortable naked was not to do with the children - he is severely autistic so not really relevant to the children in this case - but to do with my reaction to the photos. I was wondering why I didn't have the reaction to the photos that many (although not all) on here have had- and wondered whether its because my experience of a child this age is of one totally comfortable when he's wearing nothing (we get him dressed as soon as we find him naked btw).

I think I'm in danger of being put in a position of arguing for something that I don't really have hugely strong views about so bearing that in mind my take on it is as follows.

1. My first reaction was that the photographs were beautiful and striking and interesting. I didn't see them as sexualised and I don't think the children look abused at all (I still don't).
2. I have assumed that the children have fully consented and were happy for their photographs to be taken. I do think that's possible at this age and is absolutely necessary and essential. I think that's the most important thing about this whole thing tbh. The people that I have known who have posed nude at a relatively young age (youngest 16) have gone on to become artists and seem proud of the paintings. I think I have more reservations in some ways over the Sally Mann pictures as she takes photos of her own children- so it's harder for consent to be refused.

3.No I wouldn't hang them on my wall and no I wouldn't allow my children to take part - but there's lots of art I wouldn't hang on my wall that I like and I wouldn't allow my children to take part in any exhibition.

1. I think it's a bit weird to assume the photographer is a creep. I do think it's entirely possible perhaps even probable he's trying to be controversial though.
2. I've seen some photos that have disturbed me (mainly in a book I picked up from Oxfam- a century of photography- think it's quite a common book - I spotted it on a friend's bookshelf the other day) it was a newsy type book and had quite a few pictures of people dying/being shot etc and that seemed far more intrusive to me than these pictures.

And that's it for me. Interesting discussion though. And reading this thread perhaps it's never OK to take photos of children naked these days. Maybe it's too hard to draw the line as to what's OK and what's not?

If this is art , would it be ok if these pictures were found on a sex offenders computer?
Would they be waved as art ?

If you saw these pictures on a mans computer, who you didnt know, would they stick out to you? For good or bad reasons?

Only if those viewers possess dubious motives. I can see those images as many things, but certainly not titillating.

flubdub. If they were taken without a child's consent and privately on a sex offenders computer then no they would most definitely not be OK. But nor would a picture of a clothed child if taken in those circumstances.

I think the reason they are being taken is key to whether they are OK or not, along with the child's consent (more important than the parents - if the parents agree and the child doesn't then no photo should be taken obviously). Incidentally when I get consent from anyone to use their image (anonymously, academically in everyday environments) it it made very clear that they can withdraw their agreement at any time - as soon as they do so their images and data will be destroyed. It's essential to me that participants understand that and an essential part of agreeing to allow your image to be used in any public way at all imo.

I would hope that in any exhibition involving photos (or paintings) subjects are given the same rights to withdrawal at any time. I know it's standard to have model release forms now for public photography and I would assume some sort of right to withdrawal from public display is included (and if it isn't should be)

Behere- I do know what you mean about providing fodder. A friend of mine posted some family pics on the internet including one of a young naked child. It wasn't freely viewable but nor was it password protected. I was really surprised to be honest and thought it was a bit of a strange decision. I was more taken aback by that than the pics I've seen of this exhibition although I'm not sure why.

This is a really interesting thread.

It made me think of Corrine Days 'third summer of love' photos. One of the most famous is Kate Moss topless on a beach aged 14

www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/photography/magnify.php?imageid=im00061

I've seen this in the V&A and it did make me feel uncomfortable.

I don't like these pictures at all. I am quite astounded that the girl agreed to be photographed like that. I have 13 year old niece and I know she would not in a million years want to be photographed naked. Lots of girls at this age are fully developed, I know most aren't, but it just seems really odd to me. My immediate reaction when I looked at it was to cringe. I almost felt sorry for looking, like I was embarrasing the girl, even though she has obviously given her consent. But don't forget, this girl has relations and friends that are looking at it too. Imagine how her father feels or her uncles. I know my DP would not want to look at my nieces in this way, he would be embarrassed for himself and them. This has actually upset me quite a bit. There is NO NEED for this type of art. It would have been much nicer with clothes on.

Its not just one girl DM, theres a boy in those pictures too.

The pictures, imo, are very beautyful and personally they did not make me feel uncomfortable....I don't think they look pornographic.

But,I don't know how good an idea it was of the artist, because, those pictures viewed by the wrong person (like a paedophile)could be a problem.

What the f**k is ARTY about photographs of naked children?!!!

I find this absolutely outrageous!

This just makes photos of naked children readily available and legal. How is this even debatable?! I'm livid.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2511121/University-tutor-asked-to-photograph-semi-naked-child ren-convicted-of-pornography.html

A similar issue uncovered in the UK. Parents commissioned shots of their children to be made into fairy type picures. Developers alerted police and the photographer now has a criminal record.

the pictures are well lit but, boring.

Stick a couple of pre pubescents in, and bingo. Infamous, and prob more talked about for the subject matter, than for the actual at pains to get effects the images give, technically.

exploited kids, and overhyped photographer.

yawn

of course it's not paedophillia.

In these cases paedophillia is definetly in the eye of the beholder, which makes me a bit sus about them, not the pictures actually.

and lets be clear, paedophillia has definite parametres in sexualising preadoleseant kids, not peri or post. Budding teenage girls are not fodder for paedos.