Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

was there not some uproar about naked children photos recently and it WAS a woman artist?

nobody seemed to find it made a difference, IIRC the debate on that one

Yes Franny, I'm trying to remember who...

Yes Franny, the photos are beautiful, the children are beautiful. But recognition or admiration of beauty should never be 'carte blanche' to exploit 12 yr olds. And don't tell me they agreed to it, they're 12! or that their parents agreed to it! We all know that there are some awful parents out there.

These boundaries, the ones that have been pushed back, well their existence is a good thing. I wouldn't favour weakening those boundaries.

These boundaries exist for good reason, thank goodness, and we weaken them at our peril.

i think with the woman artist they were her own children

I would feel the same if it was a woman photographer. What gets me is the children, as someone else said, look sad. Children who are photographed against their will have the same look about them. It looks like this is the type of image he was trying to capture.

actually i found those pictures a bit sad and disturbing
the children look so unhappy

But our culture does notice it. Compare like with like.

JimJam, do you really, truly believe that there is a zero element of gratification or exploitation about this exhibition? Do you believe that not one paedophile will go to the exhibition?

I am prepared to concede that the photos are beautiful, but I believe that there are greater things at stake than art.

"This is a culture that sexualises female youth (it's why there is so much "barely legal" pornography), you can't ignore the context art is created in. It's obviously been an influence on this artist"

Is it so unbelievable to you that this is EXACTLY the culture he is critiquing?

If he's critiquing that culture, why would he feed it?

The persuit of art doesn't give any of us the right to take these photos and exhibit them in such a public and controversial way.

"don't tell me they agreed to it, they're 12!"
what? I don't understand this

"How on earth could beard be shorthand for pervert?"
oh come on, that's a bit disingenuous dittany
we all know full well the stereotypical image of a paedophile is a bearded bloke in a mac

So he's critiquing a type of culture by replicating it? Not really pushing out the boundaries then, is it? He plagarising it.

Oops x-post

He isn't feeding it - that's the point. The guy isn't some marauding pervert sneaking some filthy child porn into a gallery under the guise of some art historical appreciation of the human form or anything like that.

Look at his back catalogue -all of his work is playing with ambiguity, with asking questions, with asking the viewer to fill in the gaps...what we see in these images is actually revealing something in ourselves -not something in him per se.

Franny, my dd1 is 13, so I know loads of 13yo girls, and I can't imagine a single one who would agree to pose for the camera in that way, even with significant encouragement or financial inducement. Nor should they be encouraged to, imo. The whole beauty of the images is based on making public that very intimate moment of transition from child to adult.

I don't think the pornography comparison is that helpful here, actually -- I'd compare it more to the kind of news photos of people who've just been told their loved ones have died, or are being reunited with family they haven't seen for years. Morally wrong per se? No. Intrusive and potentially voyeuristic? Most definitely.

Thank you Umbrella - that's what I think we're all doing - filling in the gaps and coming up with some very different pictures.

Look at Judy Chicago and her referencing of domestic violence. It's a similar approach.

coco - he ISN'T replicating child pornography! Lord, how can you say that!!

''You don't critique the culture of sexual exploitation of young girls and their bodies by sexually exploiting young girls and their bodies.''
agree with you dittany

I would not want dd to be photographed in this way
call me a philistine if you like

beautiful or not these images are a type of exploitation

Pretenious(sp)is the word springing to mind...

god yes they are voyeuristic

most art is voyeuristic isn't it?
I don't see how they can be called pornographic though

I don't expect most 13 year olds would agree to pose like this, no
I don't really know many / any adults who would, tbh
it doesn't mean that there AREN'T any who would consent to it

Those who object to the pictures as being pornographic - have you reported them to MNHQ to have them deleted as inappropriate material?