Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

I think they are beautiful photos actually, though I agree with dittany's point about all being conventionally beautiful (ie. skinny).

I have a dd that age, and there is something very lovely about that mixture of childishness and adolescent self-awareness. I think my dd and her friends are all gorgeous and I really like watching them playing/mucking about (fully dressed, of course). Dd will still sometimes walk around the house naked (though not in front of dh) and I think there is something very beautiful about that stage.

So on that level, I don't think the photos are sexual per se. BUT I can't see any way that my dd would let herself be photographed like that, even if she were offered large amounts of money -- most young teenagers are hugely self-conscious about their bodies. Try suggesting to the average 13yo that they should strip off for a bra fitting! Nor can I see myself agreeing tbh.

I think there's a difference between appreciating the beauty of puberty/adolescence within an intimate family context and making it an object for public display.

Who decides its 'art', 'challenging our perception' yada yada.. Just because it's done by an 'artist' and put in a gallery doesn't make it art. There are always those who will say 'oh you just don't get it' becase it makes them feel superior.

What's wrong with a nice landscape anyway?

I do agree with your post frogs.

but isn't not allowing it in a public art context making it seem forbidden/wrong?- - I appreciate the intimate family context but I think banning it is sending the wrong message.

LL -I mean, by electing to shoot these kids with a dead background, dramatic lighting etc in the style of some sort of fashion shoot, he is presenting us in one respect with the kind of images we see everyday. As someone mentioned earlier, we see 16yr old models presented in this way on a daily basis.

By using models who are a couple of years younger and who are at that pubescent stage in life, he's showing us that we can choose what images do.

got to dash, that's me tea ready, will be back 'ere long.

but dittany- that was my earlier point about consent. The laws etc (and tbh general practice) around consent are so careful now (as they should be) that I just couldn't see this taking place without full and proper consent from parents and children.

Maybe I'm naieve.

JimJam, to answer your question, I think there could be an innocent reason to photograph a twelve yr old child, yes, but to put together a group of photos in an exhibition is... well, exhibitionist!

A 12 yr old's body is undoubtedly beautiful, but to put it out there, for public consumption...... that's not.

Jimjam, with regard to the issue of consent... what they really focus on is getting that signature, the 'yes'.

Any parent who really thought it through, hmm, some paedophiles as well as 'artists' will attend this exhibition.... will my child be able to return to their peers without being viewed as precocious? Will they become body conscious? Either awkward, or feeling the 'power' of their body........

Any parent who really, really sat down to think about all of these potential pitfalls wouldn't put the tick in the yes box.

So I agree with Dittany, it'd be a strange parent who'd give their consent to it.

Dittany are you looking down on me for not objecting to the photos? I'm trying to argue a side of the discussion because I believe it and enjoy debate - not looking down on people and not being titilated.

I think they are fabulous
I don't see the overtones a lot of posters are discussing
but there is certainly an edge to them - it doesn't feel entirely comfortable to be even looking at a pubescent child's body at all - how can that be? that just seeing a naked child of this age has become a taboo thing? but also I think the children are teetering on the edge of becoming adults physically and that gives some kind of frisson (perhaps not the right word) to the photos
they are beautiful, aren't they?

I also found the 'bearded' comment very

I also found the 'bearded' comment very

yes they are Franny

Right on Franny.

Haven't read the thread,

Looked at the photos and to me they aren't 'innocent' at all.

They are not kids just having fun or being kids that happen to be naked.

They look sad and abused and some of the positions make me feel uncomfortable.

I am NOT uncomfortable with naked children, but I am with those photos.

I don't really get the thing about it looking like there is someone else there?
I don't think I am seeing what some of you are seeing

Dittany, what if the photographer had been a woman?

Don't say your reaction and accusations would be the same - think about it.

well, was that really why you mentioned it dittany?
not just that beard = shorthand for pervert?
you didn't need to mention his beard to point out that he was an adult male, IMO

Ah F&Z has said what I have been trying to say but far better.

I wonder how they would appear to a culture that doesn't notice nakedness?