Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

i think its more about the medium used - and this had already been said on this thread.

photographs are a direct image and i think its v. different than a painting.

we have naed men and women and cherubs on our church ceiling ( repo of cistine chapel) and i think its much different than having pictures of naken men women and babies with wings on

• it just is!

I completely agree with Cammelia's comment too. It seems so obvious.

Cuckcoo, ?Monkeytrousers, do you see no link at all between what is 'normalised' in magazine culture (so to speak) and real life????

I?m not sure I get your point ? not if what we are talking about are few and far between exhibitions in art galleries. The exploration of emergent sexuality is not a black and while issue is that I am saying. It is a tricky area to negotiate and that makes it the perfect preserve of art. Such explorations are absolutely not ?normalised? they are taboo as this thread demonstrates. Porn is perhaps ?normalised? in our culture, but any conflation with this stuff and porn is going on in the head of the beholder. The conflation of erotica and porn is also to blame, but that again is happening in the eye of the beholder. Art asks you to think about what you are seeing, is it porn, erotica? What actually are the differences between the two and should teenagers be allowed to express and explore erotica without fear of it being stigmatised as porn? I think these are very important questions and that art in this area is essential. There images are nor pornographic, you would have to have an incredibly limited imagination to think that, I?m sorry. These areas are the concern of art, what it is to be human ? of any age and especially on the threshold of adulthood and sexual maturity, in a physical sense if not emotional ? these conflicts make it even more the preserve of art to explore. The photos are sexual, but they are not pornography. Young people are sexual animals and they should be allowed room to explore that, especially in the artistic realm. We have all been there, it is part of the human condition and as such is part of our artistic heriatige.

I don?t know what you are talking about with regard to a 14 year old in tegh bath. I am not getting on a slippery slope from a discussion of this art to fall into the realm of unambiguous sexual abuse. That is not the issue here.

Under 16s are protected already. That is a moot point. To suggest that these photos constitute an abuse of that protection is ludicrous.

Should that protection actually mean oppression of exploring their sexualities? That?s what it sounds like.

Neither am I sugegstingt that just becasue someone says it's 'art' that those protections should be cast aside.

I find the poses of Disney princesses more ?offensive? actually, with their obsession with mirrors, cosmetics, corsets and massive come to bed eyes and expressions. These are real young people in all their beauty and awkwardness. I think they are great. Just because something is an exploration of sexuality does not make it sensual. These aren?t to me. The fact that they may be to some other people is neither here nor there. What goes on in peoples heads is their own business.

If these images were found on the PC OF someone I knew then I'd be very very wary of letting my children spend time with that person.

I would not let my child pose for naked photos of this sort.

My conclusion therefore is veering towards paedophilia.

I think that the stage in life at which these photos were taken (period of emergent sexuality) is a point in time when children need privacy to come to terms with what is happening to their bodies rather than exploitation and fear that some of them may regret having agreed to pose for these pictures so it has been done with an adults "benefit" overiding the consideration of the child's needs.

No MT, sadly you don't 'get it'.

They are what I would call 'nude portraits'.

There is a strength in nakedness that our culture confuses with sexuality...I think this is what the photographer was trying to capture. I don't know if he's achieved it necessarily but I can see what he was trying to do.

I view paedophilia as sexual terrorism. Like other forms of terrorism, it is tempting to react by compromising acts of basic freedom 'just in case'. I think showing our children that their bodies are beautiful even when they're transforming and feeling awkward is a positive thing that we shouldn't be scared of. The mainstreaming of porn and stripping culture is to me much more worrying than an exhibition featuring under 16 nudes.

i think they are wrong. but then, i also dont think that adult nudes are particularly artistic either. and when i was in the vatican, surrounded by all the little cherubs, i remember wondering why old men felt the need tobe surrounded by naked bodies of babies. thought it very odd.
children should be allowed to be kids. they should be allowed to cover up. there is a freedom in that.

but stitch, they ARE allowed to cover up...being allowed to be naked and unashamed is real freedom.

it's a provocative subject but those pictures in themselves don't seem intentionally provocative or sexual...they just capture an awkward stage of development.

taking pictures of youths without their permission or in a sexual context distributed for the pleasure of others is another matter.

i also think you can't judge without knowing who the sitters are to the photographer. They could be relatives, family friends etc. I sat for a close relative semi nude when I was an early teen and it was all perfectly above board.

Again Dittany, I will make the point that the kids and their families are not passive abused objects. Imaging they are passive is more of an insult to them than you seem to think, and you don?t come off to well by the assumption either, You are projecting a lot of your own prejudice on to this particular issue. I am mealy trying to separate the wheat from the chaff ? which this debate certainly needs lest it descent into a Brass Eye type hysteria, the irony of which seems lost on all but a few anyway.

I?m not going to rise to your intimations that I am somehow tarnished with the paedo brush by taking a different view from you. The idea makes me laugh ? that it would be your genuine concern for one.

If these images were found on someone?s PC may well make them a cause for concern, away from all the ?projections; that people are talking about on here. That they were done in such a transparent light, with themselves and their families and agents (these kids are professional models and actors) in discussion with the artist, that they then chose to do them (there will have been others that chose not to) is a demonstration of such protections in action. Again, people seem so intent on engaging their spleens that they bypass their other faculties.

So these are ?veering towards paedophilia? ? but not paedophilia therefore? So it is the fact that they somehow remind you of paedophilia that offends you ? even though this may well be one of the things the artist wants to happen ? as someone said further down the thread, if looking at his work in context. Context however, doesn?t seem to have any place here. All the better for pitchfork sharpening. A bit of context has a tendency top dull pitchfork prongs. But that?s good; at least we know our MN context now. I, for simply trying to understand what the artist might mean, have had a few nasty pokes. Thank god the pitchforks are only metaphorical, eh?

And technically, has a specific medical meaning: ?it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children?. These kids are peri and post pubeseant, and so would not do a great deal for the majorityy of genuine paeods out there. That?s an objective fact. Maybe in light of this, it might make people think about this even more.

And technically, peadophillia has a specific medical meaning...