Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

That makes me want to be back on the beach with my lovely children Veni!

That was a well thought out post. Not in the least bit patronising.

Coco - it's totally DM, because you are all saying he must be a paedophile.

I never once used the word paedophile. I'm saying it's not art.

What is it then?

(Everyone's a critic, arent they? )

I already said. A nice landscape.

I don't think those pictures are pornographic at all. Those that think they are, I wonder if it's possible to take a picture of a naked 12 year old and it not be seen as inappropriate? I think that's very sad, to assume that anyone who would want to is a pervert.

I love Sally Manns pictures - she took a lot of naked pictures of her children, here is her 12 year old Jessie There is no way that this is no different to a glamour model in Nuts like morningpaper said. Her children all have such bold and beautiful expressions, full of attitude. There's one - I can't find it, of a little naked girls stepping over some tomatoes on a table and it's so fragile and yet graceful - I was quite overwhelmed when i first saw it.

I think that puberty adn sexuality and bodies are all rather beautiful and mysterious and interesting. I think that to repress it all and ban it all is far more dangerous. I don't assume that these girls had their picture taken against their will with no consent with terrible parents by a pervert photographer though.

Why would any of you want to see anyone elses naked child i just don't get it?

Why is it ok if they are takeb by an 'artist' but not if it's taken by a convicted peodo? Anyone can become an artist for feck sake.

Is it ok for a man to store lots of non sexualised pictures of naked children on his computer. He finds them sexually pleasing but has never harmed a child. ok?

That's like saying 'why would you want to see a picture of someone else's child?' why would you want to see a picture of a naked woman? why would you want to see a picture of anything? Does not automatically make you into some kind of seedy pervert.

By what you're saying all nakedness is automatically wrong, bad, dirty, to be ashamed of - to look is to be bad.

I think that there is exploitation and cruelty and abuse and all that is wrong, but there is also innocence and humanity and beauty and to look at an image of that and see it as beautiful doesn't automatically make you a freak.

That makes no sense Boco, because if you parade nakedness and innocence (and money is involved) in a public and controversial exhibition, then there is nothing innocent about it any more.

It's not nakedness per se that is questionable. My children run around the garden naked and I let them get on with it. It's this context.

I agree with Dittany. I did ARt HIstory, so my strong feelings aren't because I'm some sort of philestine, incapable of recognising art when I see it.

I do, however, always believe that we should make every effort to put childhood before 'art' and money and entertainment.

Some people don't get that or don't see it or don't understand or don't care.

The word 'freak' was not mentioned my point is that you can't allow certain types, artist to take nude photos of young children and then condem someone for using the material in an inapproriate way.

It's not one rule for one and another for others.

I don't think parents should take staged or posed pictures of naked children really. If someone told me their parent asked them to strip and had taken naked photo's i'd!
I can understand natural nakedness where the child has chosen to be naked or in a natural situation bath, playing in the garden, paddling pool, beach. Not where a child has been asked to remove their clothes for the purpose of the picture. That just seems WRONG to me.

The word 'freak' was not mentioned my point is that you can't allow certain types, artist to take nude photos of young children and then condem someone for using the material in an inapproriate way.

It's not one rule for one and another for others.

I don't think parents should take staged or posed pictures of naked children really. If someone told me their parent asked them to strip and had taken naked photo's i'd!
I can understand natural nakedness where the child has chosen to be naked or in a natural situation bath, playing in the garden, paddling pool, beach. Not where a child has been asked to remove their clothes for the purpose of the picture. That just seems WRONG to me.

I'll say again---- there are boys in these photographs too!

I really think you are seeing what you want to see here. We naturally bring our own experience to images -that's what makes some resonate with us and others not.

I think it's so sad and basic to accuse the photographer of being a creep and a paedophile and the parents of these children of being 'shite'.

If anyone asked me if i wanted to see naked 'artisitic' photo's of their 12/13 year old dd or ds i'd decline every time. Just doesn't appeal.

I don't really understand your argument there cuckoo. An image of beauty and innocence doesn't become something unpleasant because it's in an exhibition does it?

And I didn't look at those pictures and think the girls looked miserable either.

I agreed more with this article that said
the kids here are being kids: dreamy, abstracted, thoughtless in the power of their youth and beauty. They also happen to be naked - as kids sometimes are. And neither in life, nor in art, is this necessarily a case for concern. Lacking any sexual component, the images are merely human.

We live, however, in hysterical times, when the mere notion of a undressed child inspires howls of terror and fury (as photographer Nan Goldin and Annie Liebowitz both found out recently). This moral panic, masquerading as vigilant protection, has a pernicious effect upon society. It debases every relationship, makes every adult a potential predator, turns art into pornography.

I'm with dittany still. Boco, I think there's a difference between celebrating nakedness and thinking children/teenagers' bodies are beautiful and taking photographs of them for public exhibition.

I don't think the photog is a creep or paedo. But there are creeps and paedos who will now be able to access these images. Thats my point. These children will forever have naked photo's of them available for ANYONE to view. That is wrong.

Boco, spot on.

Umbrella and Boco would you like your kids to be the suject of these photos?

Not art. Exploitation.

Therefore, wrong.

There is nothing wrong with nakedness. You see it everyday on the pages of nuts etc.

I'm sure many men wank over these women. That is fine. They are concenting adults they realise that is what they are selling when they pose fpr the pictures. They are aware that they may be objectified.

By mainstreaming naked 'artistic' pictures of children they are likely to be treated equally to these women. Although when they posed for the photo's it would have not been for this purpose.

Frogs, spot on.

I'm going to give up debating this one now. It's quite depressing how many mumsnetter are so unconcerned with it.

Nobody championing the rights of the photographer has gone so far as to say "yes I would encourage my child to be in an exhibit like this". So I think it's ok for other people's children?

Sounds to me like the artist wanted lots of exposure ( no pun intended), the western world is very aware on the very fine line on this subject. and imo has gone out to shock.