Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
April 18, 2005
Link

Statistics

Replies: 254

Photography of nude children

:icondecay1134:
decay1134 Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2005   Traditional Artist
The question is, is it art or not? Check out Sally Mann's photography. I ask this because I need an opinion page in my art journal for Art Appreciation at NWMSU. So please, state your opinions and please be mature about it, I really don't need this thread to be locked.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconoi101:
oi101 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2009  Hobbyist Photographer
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?
Reply
:iconwillyboy:
Willyboy Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2005
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.
Reply
:iconpringkitten:
pringkitten Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2005
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.
Reply
:iconashatay:
Ashatay Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
while it coulda been art i suppose its too late now, this society and todays world wont have it. i think it shouldnt be put up with. zero tolerance policy so to speak, just to cover bases.
Reply
:iconflowersandrazorwire:
FlowersAndRazorwire Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Photographer
But we look at the ones that were created in the past, and think they're still art. So, why not ones that are new?

And I don't see why putting it on the internet would make it pornography. If it doesn't work that way with 18+, why wouldn't it work that way for minors?
Reply
:iconashatay:
Ashatay Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
iunno.. just societies standards drilled into my head and i dont feel like argueing myself out of them tonight. perhaps tmrw i can :P
Reply
:iconflowersandrazorwire:
FlowersAndRazorwire Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2005   Photographer
Well then, perhaps we shall continue. Perhaps.
Reply
:iconashatay:
Ashatay Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2005
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
Reply
:iconflowersandrazorwire:
FlowersAndRazorwire Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2005   Photographer
I don't think that is what I was arguing about.

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.
Reply
:iconashatay:
Ashatay Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2005
then go ahead and take picture of your children naked and post them on the internet.....
Reply
:iconflowersandrazorwire:
FlowersAndRazorwire Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2005   Photographer
Maybe if I had some children or was interested in photographing children I would. But I'm sure I could find some in the NGA.
Reply
:iconthundercake:
thundercake Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005  Professional Digital Artist
I think it should not be posted on the internet for reasons of model consent. I.E., a child is not going to understand the implications of having his/her body posted all over the internet, especially at age 7. The intent could be purely artistic, I don't argue that, I just think that at some point the child will grow up and find these pictures, and be mortified that a worldwide collection of paedophiles had instant access to his nude portrait, and he had no say in it whatsoever. As for the parents, I think that they should not be able to make that particular decision for their children...one should always think of the future and how a child will feel once he/she is a legal adult.

As for a baby's first bath: I believe these photos should be saved for the photo album, not shared with hundreds of paedophiles (and millions of people who just don't care) on the internet.
Reply
:iconbleedingmirror:
bleedingmirror Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Interface Designer
Well, its not kiddie porn unless its sexually explicit. Parents taking pictures of their kids as babies or toddlers, when they sit around in just a diaper or whatnot, or taking their first bath, isn't child porn.
Reply
:iconyangfeili:
yangfeili Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
Well, seeing as art is subjective, and we really can't impose our values on other people...

Therefore we must assume that if the artist believes that nude pictures of children are art, then we must acknowledge that they are art.

Likewise, if an artist believes that capturing people who take such pictures and integrating their severed limbs into a sculpture is art... well, I fail to see how I can impose my values on the situation.
Reply
:iconsiadeug:
Siadeug Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
It's horrible that society has become so dangerous and paranoid, and oppressive that we have to worry about taking a snapshot of a 6 year old running around a beach naked. Yes, there are pedophiles out there who might come across that photo and masturbate over it - and that would be horrible, but come on.
I think massive repression just aggravates the situation. The more people won't talk about anything, and won't take photos of anything, and won't do anything, the more secrets there are, and the less gets exposed. If everyone's keeping secrets, more kids get hurt by the real predators.
There's a very fine line here. When I was 7 or 8, it was so hot here I used to run around topless. I didn't even have boobs yet, and there are a few photos of me at family parties with no top on. My friends have seen the photos, my family has seen them - for all I know, someone *could* have taken one, scanned it and sold it online. But to be honest, how many true predators really want an innocent shot?
Child porn is so very different from any kind of art photography or family photography. What has to be taken into account is NOT what might or might not happen to the photo once it's taken (in theory, anyone can photoshop a clothed photo of a child anyway, so if you really wanted to eliminate all risk, you'd just have to stop taking any kind of photos of kids whatsoever) - but whether the kid suffered while the photo was being taken, or will suffer after it's taken, or will suffer because of it having been taken, and whether the photo depicts the kid in a sexual situation or not.
I think the whole point is very clearly illustrated in this article: [link]
Another thing to take into account is how condemning innocent photos can affect children's perspectives and emotional balance. If everyone is going around saying these photos are sinful and horrible and nasty and perverted and whatever else, an impressionable child hears that, and believes that. They grow up feeling victimised, and might develop some of the psychological symptoms of some kinds of cases of abuse. Whereas if everyone has a positive attitude, the kids see the positive attitude, and don't worry or feel guilty or anything else negative..
One of the worst things is to make someone feel bad about something they wouldn't have felt bad about otherwise.
Reply
:iconmoosemama:
MooseMama Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow, you really opened a can of worms there, huh? Well, I will throw in my penny's worth, such as it is:

I think it's very sad that photos of naked children, taken in a non-sexual way, have become an issue in this way. I have not seen the particular photos in question but I don't think it's wrong to take pictures of naked children, as such, or even to share them publicly, as in the case of a gallery or art book. I think the photos themselves can be very beautiful and what could be more natural than the naked body?
I wonder how the kids feel about having pictures of themselves made public though. They don't have the same decision-making capability that an adult may have. Unfortunately there are those whose unacceptable desires would be fueled by this sort of thing but can it be any worse than, for example, anime pictures of scantily-clad, busty schoolgirls? And do we really want to make everything that is potentially harmful illegal or forbidden? More people die from car accidents than many other causes but we're not making cars illegal. Do naked pictures cause rape? No. We've always had perverts; that's one of the reasons why burkas were invented. Photos containing naked children do not cause pedophiles, they are merely misused by them.

This issue of whether or not naked pictures of children can be considered art, should just be home photos, or should be illegal, was discussed in Playboy some years ago and I was appalled then by the strict interpretation of what constitutes child pornography and the proposed laws governing them. How awful if we, as parents, could not simply take a snapshot of our kids without thinking of the potentially harmful consequences. I think it is dangerous to suppress art in order to 'protect' people. I agree with those who have stated that if the pictures are non-sexual, then they should be allowed; I see no harm in it for the mentally healthy viewer.

Is it art? (Your real question.) Hell yes.

Hope you get all the material you need for your art journal, and that it teaches you something useful :)
Reply
:icondecay1134:
decay1134 Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Traditional Artist
Thank you for your kind words. There are a few thought out reply like yours, but not too many. So once again, thank you.
Reply
:iconmoosemama:
MooseMama Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005  Hobbyist General Artist
You're welcome :)
Reply
:iconhippiejonny:
hippiejonny Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Writer
First of all, I don't think there is anything sexual about Mann's work. In some instances it's rather beautiful. That said, I'm sure the photos were taken with the children's consent, but they may not have fully understood the repurcussions of their decision. I can't think of a possible negative outcome, but the fact that the children are forced to make a decision they may conceivably regret later on is unfair.
Reply
:iconjacobi:
jacobi Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Photographer
yes photographing nude children can be art, just like drawing nudes of adults, that doesn't make either one right.
Reply
:iconzanarky:
Zanarky Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005  Hobbyist Photographer
The bottom line is that it's okay for you, AS A PARENT, to take photographs of your children, but if you're stupid enough to post them on the internet for everyone to see, then you deserve no sympathy for whatever consequences may occur. That kind of material CAN be used as child porn, and can be called child porn once it is posted in a public setting.

Now if you're a photographer taking pictures of children, someone has to draw a line. If the shot is not sexual in any way, shape or form, then I'd deem it appropriate. Otherwise, it should just not exist.
Reply
:icongenoism:
genoism Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005  Professional General Artist
Personally i think it there is no subjective reasons for you to post it, think about it, all art conveys a message or SOMETHING. There isn't ANYTHING you can't convey with nude kids that you can't without...did i say that right? Basically, the only subjective thing that will ever come out of it is that your sick for looking at it. Pics of nude kids is art however it is illegal for many MANY GOOD reasons otherwise no one would have cared. So yes you can consider it art, but just like freedom of speech has its limits so does art.
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005   Photographer
The hysteria these days over nudity is astounding , it seems very few know the difference between “Pornography” “Obscenity” & “Artistic Nudity” or even care what the differences are. Already I’ve read more than one emotional knee jerk reaction that wrongly & irrationally equates images of nude children with child porn. (keep in mind Sally Mann’s images do not depict children suggested or otherwise, in sexual situations)

The malady that’d program people to believe that the nude human body is something to be ashamed of or otherwise have a need to keep hidden & clothed originates with the religious right down through the centuries. I always say if someone has issues with the Nude human body being depicted in Art that they should complain to the maker (God) & not to the artist whose works may depict nudity.

At this point in Human evolution the species should be more offended by illegal wars, poverty, injustice, hunger, personal liberties & freedoms that are being eroded & not allow itself to get diverted by whether or not someone may or may not be offended by a image of a nude human, regardless of the subjects age.

If someone is offended by an Artists work what then compels the offended individual. To continue being offended by looking at that artists creations? Can’t they find something else to enjoy or something that’s’ more compatible to their aesthetics or paradigms? The objectionable issue lies within the viewers immaturity & undeveloped emotional response, their need if offended is to eradicate the source of what they perceive to be offensive, unfortunately that source is within themselves & not something external . They’re of course under the delusion they’re completely innocent & simply not responsible for their actions or reactions when possibly viewing something they’d find offensive.

In conclusion Sally Man’s works have all been cleared by the fbi & supreme court. Her work has all been found non obscene. What more is it an alleged civilized society to do, when it comes to the fragility of certain individuals who feel the need to be offended by damn near everything they personally don’t agree with?

The clear & apparent danger isn’t within any artists works, whether they’re images depicting innocent nude children simply being themselves chronicling the lives of the Human as it develops or whether the images are of nude senior citizens in the last stages of life. The Danger lies deep within the souls & minds of those who’d want to convince you & everyone else that threes’ some harmful & shameful about looking at images of the Nude Human body regardless of the age of it’s subject.

Clearly no one is arguing here or defending child porn or abuse in any way. To equate nude images of children not engaged in a sexual act as Pornography, is a great sickness & disservice to freedom of Artistic expression everywhere.
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Photographer
Thank you, it's really difficult to believe in this day & age humans are still ruled by dark imaginings. isn’t it?

For people to somehow equate nude images of the Human body w/anything aching to porn or obscenity, is purely their projections of their own discomfort with their personal body image onto the external screens of others.
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Photographer
Thank you, it's really difficult to believe in this day & age humans are still ruled by dark imaginings. isn’t it?

For people to somehow equate nude images of the Human body w/anything aching to porn or obscenity, is purely their projections of their own discomfort with their personal body image onto the external screens of others.
Reply
:iconabase:
abase Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
Wonderfully well thought out post. . . if only there were more like it in this thread.
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Photographer
Thank you, it's really difficult to believe in this day & age humans are still ruled by dark imaginings. isn’t it?

For people to somehow equate nude images of the Human body w/anything aching to porn or obscenity, is purely their projections of their own discomfort with their personal body image onto the external screens of others.
Reply
:iconabase:
abase Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
It's hard to blame them. The sexualization of the human body and the subsequent shaming of anything sexual is a sad truth in Western culture.

It's funny, westerners are so obsessed with sex, but in a twisted kind of way. We think constantly about sex, and are taught to be ashamed of it. We all want sex but we can't pursue sex, we have to pursue relationships and romance (and then we get sex). We can't look at a nude photo (or a nipple that suddenly presents itself during the superbowl) without thinking of it in sexual terms. We want to talk about sex. We're terrified to talk about sex. We're told that we are sexual beings but that we cannot act like sexual beings.

Silly backwards us.
Reply
:iconroninbearz:
roninbearz Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Photographer
I don't believe if we simply accept the position "It's hard to blame them" that then removes all responsibility from the individual to attempt to think in a rationale & logical manner. The first thing most people do is when they for sake of argument, encounter a nude image of a Human being they practically go into a fit of hysterics particularly if it doesn‘t fit into their preconceived idea of reality or their world view & especially if that Human depicted appears to be a "Child" lets say.

Regardless of whatever societal engineering that includes religious dogma, the individual has a responsibility for their actions, including that of their perceptions. While they're response can be seen as understandable given the influences in their lives competing for complete & utter control of the individuals mind & spirit.. However to simply say because they're on auto pilot is not an acceptable answer, or is positive character trait to be cultivated.

If in fact an individual finds nudity offensive, it's then their responsibility to rationally look at it & determine whether for them it's art or not art. If they decide it's not art for them they then need to move beyond it, instead of hold that thing that they find offensive so firmly in their minds, like a rabid dog might clamp down upon a persons leg...in other words the paradox is whatever humans find personally offensive they simply can't get rid of & it'll continue to cause them pain until they decide to no longer cling to whatever it was they found offensive in the first place . We all know most people would rather rot in their own self generated pain than change *LOL* oh we could go on all night hehe anyway have a fabulous week :)
Reply
:iconabase:
abase Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
Hehe, you too.

We'll have to do this again some time.
Reply
:iconselene-vampire:
selene-vampire Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
Mommy taking pictures of her darling while in the tub is fine by me. People taking pictures of minors to exploit them and use it for pedophiles to strung on is NOT art. True art isn't supposed to be an abuse of freedom of speech and of other people (if it is, then we should add slander and libel to the catagory too). The use and abuse of children for someone's sick fantansies is not art, it's a crime of which the perpetrator should be pursued by the full extent of the law. Kitty porn < art.
Reply
:iconfirespiritrei:
FireSpiritRei Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
God, all of these arguing posts are pathetic and childish. I believe that it is alright for a parent to take a child of their infant child and the occasional cutsie moment all chilren have while playing with something messy when they are not wearing clothes -- there are even a few pics of me like that in the family scrapbook. When I think of porn, I think of some kind of suggestive posture while being nude, and I didn't see much of that in Sally's gallery. One can often find pictures of nude children in National Geographic, but they are usually Indian/African/other tribal kind of people and the nudity is normal. *shrug* Somehow it looses the "being right" touch once it hits 6 through 17, though.
Reply
:iconrichardswett:
richardswett Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005  Student
oook, so i didnt read all of the posts...most of them were garbage. what i have to say may not be right, but whatever. i dont think nude anything is the best style of art. i think nudes are used mostly to conjure up emotions from our loins, not our minds. yes, the composition can be nice, the colors can contrast well, etc, but i believe that posing someone naked is an easy way to make something people will look at. im not saying that its not art, it is, seeing as most anything can be deemed as art. aaany way, thats not my point. my point is, nude child photography is just as much art as the next thing, although its purpose may be to create a stir more than create something beautiful. not that all art is beautiful...ya. so its about emotion, as so obviously proved by this *mostly* waste of space thread.
Reply
:icontheotherxiao:
TheOtherXiao Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
I dont think a photo of a nude child is pornography, if there is no sexual content. I guess if you're going to post it up on the 'net then you're probably asking for a little trouble :/
Reply
:icontheotherxiao:
TheOtherXiao Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005
:giggle:

Er... you took that waaay out of context: I meant you'd probably asking for a little trouble if you posted the PHOTOS up on the 'net! ;p
Reply
:icondecay1134:
decay1134 Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2005   Traditional Artist
How am I asking for trouble to myself by posting a controversial topic on the internet for discussion?
Reply
:iconabase:
abase Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
Nude children in photography and other forms of art is relatively common, think of the paintings by many of the great masters full of naked everybody. Nudity in different places and at different times has been quite acceptable. There are many cultures even today where nudity is an altogether natural thing. Even more so the nudity children who are not seen as sexual beings. North American culture is much more obsessed with nudity than many others, but it is an obsession with hiding it. North Americans has so hypersexualized their own bodies, and become so ashamed of that sexuality that there are debates, complaints, and protests everytime a nipple reveals itself at the Superbowl.

Now, the above concerns nudity in photography, adult, child, geriatric, whatever. Nude photography that involves sexual themes is different. A child cannot legally consent to participate in a sexual act, the making of a photo intended to have a sexual theme falls into this category. It's abuse and exploitation (even if the child cannot recognize it as such at the time) to use a child in this way. Later in life knowledge of having been used in such a way can cause severe emotional trauma, and I'm not talking about the mild embarassment we all feel when mom drags out the naked bathtub photos. Think of it more along the lines of the pain felt by any victim of abuse.

As for how people viewing the art react, that is differect. To start, you can't control how anyone will react to anything. This forum itself is a testament to that. A study by Howitt in 1995 challenges the myth that access to pornography involving children increases the likelihood of a pedophile attempting to contact a minor. In its methodology, the study also shows, and I tend to agree, that any image can have a sexual meaning depending on those viewing it. If one is attracted to children, then photos of children, nude or not, can still be sexually exciting.

The argument that people viewing pornography of any kind will go out and commit the acts they’ve seen is false. The two things are correlated however. And studies exist, including that of Howitt, which illustrate this correlation. But correlation and causation should not be confused.

There is nothing morally wrong with taking a nonsexual photo of a nude, be it child or otherwise, but one must keep in mind that if that photo is made available to the public that every person who so desires, be they art lovers or child lovers, can find that photo and enjoy it however they wish.

If anyone is interested this is the reference for Howitt, you can probably find the article in any University library.
Howitt, R. (1995). Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 68, 15-27.
Reply
:iconflowersandrazorwire:
FlowersAndRazorwire Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005   Photographer
This thread was long, so pardon me if this was already posted and I missed it.

[link]

It's called, "Is This Child Pornography?" It's a pretty well-written article about the almost "witch hunt" status that this has become, and how the law is put into the hand of Photo Techs.

Here's a bit of an excerpt from the beginning:

P icture this: A photo of a boy and girl -- unmistakably naked, posed and giggling -- holding two very large sausages (Italian?). The boy is maybe 8, the girl maybe 6. They are not touching each another, nor does the camera seem especially interested in their genitals. What catches the eye are those sausages, but not that they are involved in anything you or I would call, right off, sexual: They are not being licked, stroked or inserted. They are more atmospheric, I guess you could say.

Is this child pornography? Well, if you are a photo lab manager in Burbank, Calif., you follow the in-store policy and ask the store manager. The store manager, noticing the nudity and the meat, follows what he takes to be the law and calls the Burbank police. The police send two undercover cops out with instructions to nab the photographer. The cops then order the photo lab manager to phone the customer, tell him his prints are ready and instruct him to come pick them up right away.


The customer agrees to drop everything and run over, but then doesn't show, forcing the undercover police to cool their heels for six hours before giving up. Later the cops do nab the suspect, who says the photos were taken by the kids' uncle who thought the children's play with the sausages was "funny." The Burbank police decide to let it go with a warning laced with disgust: There's nothing "funny" about photos like these, photos that are indecent, degenerate and, next time, criminal.

As a script written for the Keystone Kops, this much ado about sausages scenario would be funny. But it is a true story.
Reply
:iconelexis:
Elexis Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
I agree with most people here on the fact that it's a grey area and hard to know what consitutes as 'art' and/ or fuel fo peodophiles. So It's hard for me to say, although I adore Sally Mann's photography; I feel she captures the children in a care free and playful way amoungst nature...so I think in that sence it can be a wonderful capture.
But sadly there is the aspect of looking through her work with an artist's eye and the flipside of some dirty old pervert getting perverse pleasure at seeing a child naked when it should be viewed innocently. :( The modern world i guess.

x
Reply
:iconpsyco-giant:
Psyco-Giant Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
Thats fucking wrong, well that depends on the age. But if they're unable to consent or aknowledge what they're doing then they shoulden't
Reply
:iconz0mbiexx:
z0mbiexx Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005  Hobbyist Digital Artist
If its a newborn who doesnt take those their proud parents and want to show off their baby etc..

but if their like 8 -10 or something like that and nude its considered kiddy porn and thats just fucking sick

nudes is for people 18+ if it wasnt kiddy porn would be legal...
Reply
:iconalex999:
Alex999 Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
It should be noted that my opinion above comes from someone who does not, and is not likely to, have kids. And as such should be taken with that in mind.
Reply
:iconalex999:
Alex999 Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
I'd think an artist would have to be very careful about it given today's societal climate. Though no true artist should shy away from controversy.

As for is it objectively art? Give me some criteria to judge art by, and I might try and answer that.

Many cultures have no problems with nudity, to them it may well be utterly different to what is seen through someone coming from a modern western culture.

It's all context and culture, and begs the question whether art can be independent of it's surroundings. I certainly don't have an answer to that.
Reply
:iconlalalottalove:
LalaLottaLove Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and you should not attack them for it. My opinion on photos of nude children is if you take one that is tasteful, not one of the child doing something provactive in anyway and preferably doesn't show the childs 'private parts' and only shows buns then it would diffienetly not be porn. If you had a picture of a mother naked holding her baby, then that would be tasteful. But if you have a full frontal shot of the child doing something that could be taken the wrong way (like sucking on a lollypop or touching themselves oddly, then it is extreamly wrong and should be reported. That is my opinion.
Reply
:iconlook:
look Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
It's the same for asking if nude photo is porn. Sick people will make nothing out of anything, no matter how innocent the original piece is. They can get excited and fume over their mouth by just seeing a child regardless of how much clothes the kids have on, there are so many rediculous porn thing out on the internet, people even make porn out of cartoon shows, and those aren't even real people, much less nudity in them. The point is you cannot blame the picture or the photographer for making sick bastards drool, if the photographer never intend it. Nudity of children could still be art as long as the original intention meant that way, just like any other artistic nudity shots.

And on a side note, the first person who replied your post was rude, but you really shouldn't attack him back with such insult, it's crossed the line. You should've just ignored him.
Reply
:iconlook:
look Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
Ignore that last side note, -___- I just noticed it's not the same person. Sorry bout that.
Reply
:iconviky:
ViKy Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
That was a lot of reading... now to my views.

I see nothing wrong with nude photo's of children, but I don't like the idea of them being widely available to the public. In an art gallery - sure. In someone's private gallery or home - more power to you. Something about placing them online and into books seems to cheapen the innonence of the children in my mind.

That being said. I have many pictures of my son naked simply because he hates clothes. His first picture ever was taken right after he was born, and naturally he is nude in this picture. My mother still has pictures of my sister and me nude HANGING ON HER LIVING ROOM WALLS. There is nothing pornographic about them in my mind. These are not all when we were babies. The vary in age range from about 1-8 I think.

And to Decay and Jono... I'm glad you to calmed down.. you got kinda scary in the beginning.. But at least both of you are brave enough to fight for what you believe in instead of backing down. So kudos for that. :)
Reply
:iconsuki-:
Suki- Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
I have 2 children and I have naked pictures of them in the bathtub, playing in their kiddie pool, etc. Is it wrong? Hell no, I have no problem with people taking innocent pictures of their children. Posting them on the internet however is simply something I personally would never do.
It's not just the weirdos I would be afraid of, it's the fact that it's a nude picture and I don't feel I have the right to post it for the public.
I'm sure these babies if old enough to understand would not appreciate their nude pictures all over the internet.
Reply
:iconxtorturedx:
xtorturedx Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005   Writer
i don't really know. if its scrictly artistic and shows no provocative positions then yes because i take pics of my little sibs and they're wonderful because they're so innocent and untouched. Every one has their own opinion on when to draw the line and mines i think its pretty thin
Reply
:iconsaigonshadow:
saigonshadow Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2005
It's very hard to define what's art and what's child pornography.

For instance the Coppertone Girl was very famous... having the rear of her swimsuit tugged down by a small playful dog to reveal the contrast of her golden tan against her white buttocks. It seemed no one had a problem with a suntan lotion company and their logo which was literally an american commerical icon just as famous and well-known as RCA Victor's infamous dog.

In theory, I would say that such nude art is possible. However, how such a standard would be maintained would be impossible to agree upon. And who would want the awesome resposibility of make such decisions?

I would have stand against... As for Sally Mann... I think the feds were too afraid to challenge her as it would spark immediate interest in her works and would begin a very costly firestorm of activity to define art in the government and in the courts. It would be insanity.

:tea:
Reply
Add a Comment: