Photography of nude children


decay1134's avatar
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.
Comments255
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
oi101's avatar
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?
Willyboy's avatar
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.
pringkitten's avatar
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.
Ashatay's avatar
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.
FlowersAndRazorwire's avatar
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?
Ashatay's avatar
iunno.. just societies standards drilled into my head and i dont feel like argueing myself out of them tonight. perhaps tmrw i can :P
FlowersAndRazorwire's avatar
Well then, perhaps we shall continue. Perhaps.
Ashatay's avatar
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
FlowersAndRazorwire's avatar
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.
Ashatay's avatar
then go ahead and take picture of your children naked and post them on the internet.....
View all replies
thundercake's avatar
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.
bleedingmirror's avatar
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.
yangfeili's avatar
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.
Siadeug's avatar
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.
Metaphormoose's avatar
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 :)
decay1134's avatar
Thank you for your kind words. There are a few thought out reply like yours, but not too many. So once again, thank you.
Metaphormoose's avatar
hippiejonny's avatar
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.
jacobi's avatar
yes photographing nude children can be art, just like drawing nudes of adults, that doesn't make either one right.
Zanarky's avatar
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.
genoism's avatar
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.
roninbearz's avatar
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.
roninbearz's avatar
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.
roninbearz's avatar
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.