in english class we are talking about this very subject, with Sally Mann and what are there limits to what constitutes art. my personal opinion about child porn set aside for a moment it does bring up a interesting question. lets say for a moment that Sally Mann's work is true art not kiddy porn, who is to say that some jerk off is gonna go buy her book and then go jerk off. what is the artists responsibilitie when it comes to what others do with there work, and the protection of the young ones that are her subjects? does Sally Mann have to understand in change her work for the sick perverts out there that go for the kid thing?
I can't find the link to sally's site, and i tried searching, sallymann.org is discontinued, ect... however i did come across a few photographs.. From what I saw and how i beleive about child nude photography, i have to say that. It isn't correct to be taking such pictures of children, especially that age. I can understand cutsey baby pictures, as long as its tastefully done, and does not actually show any parts. That is unless your the parents and they're fun little bathtime pics and not going to be shared with anyone else besides family. I stronly support children used and charactorized in art, however, just not in those forms. And i stronly oppose child pornography. But i do think there should be different kinds of limitations of whats acceptable. For instance, im under 18, and im a photographer, however if i want to do anyone remotley close to nude, i have to find models that are over 18, which is no problem. However, when it comes to self photography, as long as I give self consent, the photos are rash, or sluttly, don't show everything, and are done artfully, i don't see why i can't do nude photography of myself. I mean, im concenting, its my own work, and most likley it would only be used for portfolio purposes, and possibly someday when im older be in a show. ...I don't see why it can't be tastefully done at a young age.... *shrugs*. Though most of my art that had me remotly nude, would be to convey certain messages, such as voicing opinions on the beauty of the large persons, or various other issues i address in my work. Idk... the whole concept of nudity and photography is a very touchy and changeing subject in too many ways and forms. It all sort of blows with the wind.
Ooook. There is a tasteful and untasteful ways to take pictures of kids. a mother, taking pics of her newborn baby in the bath, with no sexual intention is fine. Weither someone uses that pic to do somethin immoral doesnt matter. Someone could take anything sexually with any picture online. I mean, someone could be wacking off to your ID picture, you did not post that picture with that intent, but it might be used as something else. You dont know. but my friend has pics of her babies online to share with her family who lives across the country. Weither some sicko takes those and does whatever with them is not her fault. We shouldnt be afraid to live our lives because of some crazy perverts.
alright.. some more thought and still no. anyone under 18 should not be photographed in a pornographic way. as for artisitc, i think that being under 18 extremely limits your possibilities. i cna see some baby photographs being art... but if you take a pic of a 9yo taking a bath or something that just isnt... or at least it is, BUT is open to too many pervs and i dont think it should be
But regardless, so many things are open to perverts. Even a kid clothed or in a bathing suit. So should we stop taking pictures of that too? I think everyone just needs to stop being so uptight about this.