Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

Mmm, gosh it's so tricky.

Having looked at only the first few I'd say they not sit comfortably with me.

I think the pictures do look quite sexualised - the dark background, they way they are lit & the way they are posed in some of them.

OTOH, it's such a shame - bodies are beautiful and it shouldn't really be a big deal to look at them and appreciate their beauty.

It's certainly one that can be debated on and on.

nothing stops a paedophile doing it too, but that doesn't mean we should stop an artist doing it. We are not a society of victims and perhaps if we weren't holding on to the idea that nakedness is inherently sinful then people wouldn't deveop such twisted views in the first place.I think a suppressed society encourages perversion rather than fixing it.

'they do not'

x posts - I was correcting my own post there!

I wouldn't have been happy letting my child pose for them, and I don't have any want to see them. I agree with gobble that they do look sexualised and it makes me feel uncomfortable.

not obvious to me cuckoo - i have found some statues very offensive and why is photography different?

But why is it ok for an 'artist' to take naked pictures of children but not a peopdophile?

absolutely MissBliss. I find it strange that some posters are unable to differentiate between a child playing happily on the beach, and a posed, naked photograph, enlarged x 10 times and entered in to a controversial exhibition..

Well, I wouldn't allow my 12 yr old to be photographed for such an exhibition. 'Art' for Sydney's theatre going types to discuss and argue over, well that probably passes the time at dinner parties, but at the expense of 12 yrs olds' privacy and innocence.

Do you think they just go back to school and blend in unnoticed? Would they be perceived to me more sexual, more precocious, more sexually active than the other 12 yr olds?? By their peers? By the teachers?????

gobbledigook - I think you've hit on it- I think those photos capture the beauty of the body. I particularly like the second photos of the boy's (I think?) face.

Perhaps it would have been 'safer' therefore to have shot them in a less controversial way. But I still think its a shame it's controversial at all. And agree with luckylady that there's the idea that nakedness is sinful or dirty or something.

Luckylady74, what a ludicrously obtuse argument.

A statue offends you. ok, I think I'm with you so far... Has anybody's childhood or privacy or dignity been compromised?

I think the body at any age can be a beautiful/ interesting thing that can be viewed as an thing of aesthetic interest without focussing on the real individual behind the potrait/ photo whatever.

"for that bearded creep."

How do you know he's a creep?

Why? Because he has a beard?

That's what I thought notdoingthehousework - one of a boy about 4 shots in. I stopped looking after that.

Well yes - women who posed for the degading sexual postion of the statue-i didn't like what it was saying about the postion of women in general - I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse just stating my opinion. I've never studied art so I may well not haVe a coherent argument, but I do believe in what I'm saying.

Exactly Dittany. Anybody who thinks that those children are going to go back to school and blend straight back in with their peers is in cuckoo land. They will 1) be assumed to be less innocent & more precocious or 2) they will inadvertently live up their image..

But surely the children would be consenting? No way would I have done it at that age but they can't have been forced can they?

Agree - cannot make any comment on the photographer's agenda. My assumption is that he thought they were beautiful photographs - my first thought is NOT that he had some dark intention.

But the parent's will have signed model release forms etc. So presumably they (and the children) don't feel abused. It's not as if they've been photographed and exhibited without their knowledge.

OK I only just found the button to view more than the first one And the are horrible. The girl is swinging wet hair around, crawling(!?) across the floor. Of course they are supposed to be sexual. If you are disturbed by statues surely you would be disturbed by these?

Agree Gobbledigook. I can see that some will find the potograaphs disturbing (as evidenced by this thread) and I could believe that the photgrpaher may be trying to be controversial (although who knows) but it's a big leap to assume he's some sort of perv.

Yes, it's some of the shots - the way they are posed that are questionable.