Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

but 'ogle' and 'nubile' are subjective statements and suggest I'm looking at them in a leering sexual way - why would I do that - so why is it offensive that I'm looking at it as art rather than a personal photo as it's displayed as art?

There were some CK adds banned because they were basically really creepy. They were challenging the issue of abuse/taking advantage of young models in the industry. CK add you have to view with sound to get full effect.

dittany- children of this age are able to refuse. They provide assent (or not).

Luckylady74, What do you mean, that statues of Mary and Martha at the foot of the crucifix offend you? I'm not sure!

Interesting point here, I think. Even Michel Angelo made 'David's' penis smaller than life size, because he didn't want the eye to be drawn only to that area, or to be always drawn first to the penis. He wanted the entire body to be perfection, and so it is, but with a smaller than lifesize penis.

Why would anyone,male or female, want to view them in a gallery? What would you say about them? I know my DH would feel uncomfortable looking at them.

JimJam, Would you trust your 12 yr old to be canny enough to judge whether it was in their best interests to assent or dissent to photos. I think most 12 yr olds would think, cool £300, what will I spend it on.

I find your assumptions about the artist bizarre dittany.

I work in a field where I need parental consent - if I work with children aged 11+ I need their consent/assent as well. If there are any signs that the child does not want to take part then they don't. People are generally pretty careful about that these days. Presumably the parent's viewed this as art too.

I agree coco. I just wouldn't feel comfortable. They just seem wrong it's not a subject matter i'm interested in nudes as a whole let alone child nudes.

Would anyone be happy displaying a child nude in their house? (not their own child)

What is your field jimjam? For what do you need the child's consent?

My eldest child is 9, completely non-verbal and spends an awful lot of time naked (he strips off). He is completely innocent about his nakedness. Climbs in the bath with everyone and anyone (wearing if you want a bath in peace) has no idea that nakedness is 'sexual' or anything. Presumably never will.

I'm wondering whether that's why I find it difficult to see these images as anything other than art. I am perhaps more used to older children being naked and completely innocent to the fact. DS2 (6) is more aware of his body than ds1.

I see naked teenagers in my job. It is completely different to these posed photos. They are blantly meant to sexual.

And before anyone jumps on me for not being interested in nudes. I've been to life classes. Drawn/painted/sculpted nudes at art college. I can appreciate the human form. I'm just not into it. I wouldn't want a nude in my house adult or child. I have no stigma with nakedness.

I work in research Cuckoo but need consent to analyse video of children with learning difficulties/autism and use photographs in publications etc. Most of my work is limited to children aged 11 and under because the consent issues are far less complex (parent's provide consent - full stop- although if a child objected to being videoed of course they wouldn't be). I only work with video of children aged 12+ if they are capable of providing consent. The parent's have to sign to say that they have discussed the issues with their child.

But in that context, his nakedness is definitely and inarguably entirely innocent JIMJAM. A selection of posed photos to display in an exhibition is not comparable.

Being naked and innocent and relaxed in a natural situation is one thing. But posed photos for 'intellectual' gratification is another thing entirely; fake and dubious!

I don't persuade children to do anything they don't want to dittany

What valuable research JimJam. My own son is non-verbal, at the moment, only 3 but we're doing sign language, and he has been filmed (with me) several times to analyse what I was doing right or wrong to encourage speech. He had on all his clothes though!!

no i wasn't thinking of religious iconsI was actually thinking of a jeff koons statue of a naked women on all fours being a coffee table - i understood the irony - but it offended me nevertheless.

I think you've misunderstood what Im saying cuckoo- I'm saying that perhaps I'm finding it harder to see them as sexualised because I'm around a naked older child a lot more than average.

I don't see the images as sexualised, although perhaps I'm in the minority there.

has anyone managed to view the CK clip. Does that make you feel uncomfortable? Do you think it should have been banned? The models are all of a concenting age (i believe) in the advert and clothed or half clothed but it's still really creepy.

It would have offended me too luckylady!! It sounds horrible! And that was an adult's form.

Oh no, no NO! That big long passage wasnt what I said. It was what someone else posted somewhere else on the subject.

Shocked that a parent would allow their child to be photographed in that way. A few photos were nice and arty - the back shots near the start of slideshow for instance - but in the main I found them to be rather provocative and disturbing.