# Art or pr0n?



## CAB SAV (8 July 2008)

So now society accepts 6yr old children to be photographed nude for Art's sake. Rather see a 20yr old. What do u think? OK?

Took my dog for a walk at the beach this morning, he makes some beautiful art work on the sand, but the council makes me put it in a plastic bag.


----------



## sam76 (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*

CRACK!!


That's the sound of another can of worms being opened up. opcorn:


----------



## Tysonboss1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*



CAB SAV said:


> So now society accepts 6yr old children to be photographed nude for Art's sake. Rather see a 20yr old. What do u think? OK?
> 
> Took my dog for a walk at the beach this morning, he makes some beautiful art work on the sand, but the council makes me put it in a plastic bag.




I think it is complete madness,...

I don't think taking photo's of nude kids for general display is right at all,

Why is that we stop parents taking photo's of there kids at school funtions and sports days, But then we allow full frontal nude shots of other kids to be on display.... crazy.


----------



## Speewha (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*

Hello 
You can’t photograph you own child at a school sports day?  That is very sad, I am sorry for the parents of today’s kids . 

Regards


----------



## nomore4s (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*



CAB SAV said:


> So now society accepts 6yr old children to be photographed nude for Art's sake. Rather see a 20yr old. What do u think? OK?




My problem with it is, while the artist and publishers don't view it as pr0n and it is all done as "art", sick minded people will turn it into pr0n and/or post it in the wrong places on the web and use it as a sexual image. I wouldn't be letting my daughter do it I know that.

Also how long will it be now before we see the "it's art" defence in court when someone is now caught with child pr0n on thier computer?



CAB SAV said:


> Took my dog for a walk at the beach this morning, he makes some beautiful art work on the sand, but the council makes me put it in a plastic bag.




lol


----------



## agro (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*

i think its sick..

1 - at age 6, i for one was happily riding my bike and out in the yard playing not posing nude

2 - that girl, quiet clearly, has been manipulated by her parents and brainwashed


A 6 year old doesn't have the capacity to make a decision like having nude pictures taken.


----------



## Ashsaege (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*

Agreed. To the artists it may be art. But to the sick minded people it is pr0n.
Its unfortunate for the artist, hopefully they have done it under good faith, but id rather them not to do it and not create more material for the 'pedos'


----------



## MattB (8 July 2008)

i havn't seen the pics...   but, were genitals shown? does it get classified, under law, as child pr0n? parents take photos of their naked babies *all the time*, with the doodle showing...    OF COURSE if it gets into the wrong hands it could be mis-treated...   ANYTHING in the wrong hands can be abused & mistreated _( you can murder someone with a fluffy pillow! ) _.

hmm - how about this, the sound of women playing tennis could be deemed as very sexual, the heavy grunting they do, the short skirts they wear that reveal their sports knickers, the sweating,the panintg... oh my!  I don't care if most of you think it's "sport",  because _"...to the sickos" _it's soft pr0n broadcast nationally!!!  omg, saves us from this immoral display!!  

where does it end? when can we just accept things for what they are and not always collapse into this nanny state "its the worst case" train of thought?  

I think the real "sickos" are all of those who even had the degenerate thought of it being interpreted as pr0n.


----------



## MattB (8 July 2008)

*Re: ART or pr0n*



Tysonboss1 said:


> ...we stop parents taking photo's of there kids at school funtions and sports days,



Is this for real? Parents are robbed of preserving memories of their children playing sport? unbelievable...


----------



## agro (8 July 2008)

MattB said:


> i havn't seen the pics...   but, were genitals shown? does it get classified, under law, as child pr0n? parents take photos of their naked babies *all the time*, with the doodle showing...    *OF COURSE if it gets into the wrong hands it could be mis-treated...   ANYTHING in the wrong hands can be abused & mistreated* _( you can murder someone with a fluffy pillow! ) _.
> 
> hmm - how about this, the sound of women playing tennis could be deemed as very sexual, the heavy grunting they do, the short skirts they wear that reveal their sports knickers, the sweating,the panintg... oh my!  I don't care if most of you think it's "sport",  because _"...to the sickos" _it's soft pr0n broadcast nationally!!!  omg, saves us from this immoral display!!
> 
> ...




whats the bet it already has.. you do realize people sell these kind of pictures on the internet among pedophilia rings??

and, if its ok for a 6 year old, is it ok for a 16, 20, maybe 60 year old? what about if they are handicapped or disabled - i spose thats ok too?

queit clearly, at 6 she has no mental capacity to make an informed decision only based on what her parents tell her

where does one draw the line between art and pr0n?


----------



## explod (8 July 2008)

The issue comes down to content (what the picture is saying) which then flows to intent.

Now having done fine art to Masters level I can assure you there are PHd papers in abundance argueing and presenting further questions on just this connundrum.

So I wish you all luck.    As far as each individual work is concerned it needs to be viewed individually on its own merits for clues to its intent, sometimes that requires knowledge of the artist or presenter, and then everyone will still have a differrent opinion.

A socialogical nightmare.


----------



## sam76 (8 July 2008)

explod said:


> The issue comes down to content (what the picture is saying) which then flows to intent.
> 
> Now having done fine art to Masters level I can assure you there are PHd papers in abundance argueing and presenting further questions on just this connundrum.
> 
> ...





Post of the day.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2008)

seem to recall we discussed this elsewhere, Germaine Greer posting photos of young boys etc.   One big difference, I would say, - maybe others would disagree - is that she didn;t have their permission to do so, lol.

But the question of permission by 6 yearolds (in this recent case) has gotta be contraversial.   The loophole probably in this current case (was it a setup? lol) being that the mother took the photos - and she could no doubt answer for the kid I guess.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Greer

PS back to Germaine,  she seems quite happy to portray young boys as "sexual objects"    - and you reckon she's not a fruitloop . :venus:  :viking:


----------



## tadpole (8 July 2008)

hi,

have just watched the interview with the girl on the front cover of the magazine. i feel nothing but pity for her.

as for bill henson, if he approached me to do nude picks of my daughter, he'd be shown the door quick smart, with the sharp end of my stiletto jamed up where the sun don't shine.


----------



## saichuen (8 July 2008)

My personal view is that this is getting just a little too weird for my liking. There is just so much so you can tolerate in the end.

What is freedom without control? Chaos?


----------



## pepperoni (8 July 2008)

Art shmart.  If I kill someone in the name of art is it somehow OK.

The pics are exploitation of the sexuality of a minor IMO.  The latest ones are sick publicity/attention stunts ... imagine how you would feel now if your own parents had pulled that stunt and sold out your childhood innocence!!!!!!!!!?????

Take the pics if you want but why publish! Having said that, anyone that takes those sort of pics of prepubescent children in private is still a sick ****.


----------



## explod (8 July 2008)

saichuen said:


> .
> 
> What is freedom without control? Chaos?




There can be no freedom till there is complete education for every individual to at least 3rd year uni with social science components and then there would be no problems and the debate would be understood

These types of threads are wrong because only a few experts can know the truth.

The rest is pure speculation which is akin to cr p in the current debate.


----------



## Timmy (8 July 2008)

Well maybe it is art, but it is pr0n too.
6 years old?
Sorry, that's sooooo wrong.

Will sell more of the magazine, which I am sure is the real intention.  Sickos.


----------



## Snakey (8 July 2008)

We let our kids play naked on the beach. No problem for most. but when a tasteful picture is taken of a naked child all of a sudden its pr0n???? does this mean that all naked pictures or paintings of naked adults is pr0n???
if pedophiles want material they will go to the internet and get some real kiddy pr0n. not some nice tasteful picture of a naked child.
big deal... get over it.
nothing wrong with it.
whats wrong is what average people(that dont under stand art)  turn it into.


----------



## Snakey (8 July 2008)

What is pornographic about this???
Very tasteful IMO
Weird but not pornographic


----------



## Surly (8 July 2008)

I think it is another case of political correctness gone mad.

How many of you have seen pictures of workmates children on their desks? One of my bosses had a very cute picture of his daughter in a flower pot with a gumnut hat on her head but no top on. Is this considered pornographic or just representative of the sort of pictures parents have of their children? Should I have called the police?

There is a park near my house where children play softball. I wanted to go there and practice some action photography but decided better of it for fear of being reported as a pedophile.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Julia (8 July 2008)

MattB said:


> i
> where does it end? when can we just accept things for what they are and not always collapse into this nanny state "its the worst case" train of thought?




This is my feeling also.   I don't see anything sexual in the photograph but at the same time it's rather unnatural looking, very 'posed' which seems a shame with a child of that age.

It seems the editors of the magazine have done it as a protest against the whole censorship of art question which has arisen from the Bill Henson photographs.  I can understand that.  Next we will be removing the paintings of the Old Masters from art galleries throughout the world because they depict naked people, both adults and children.

This hysteria over imagined sexuality in innocent pictures of children is way out of control.  If we are going to run our society on the basis that some perverted, aberrant paedophiles are going to manage to find some prurient pleasure in seeing these photographs, then heaven help us.


----------



## professor_frink (8 July 2008)

I don't really care either way, I wouldn't really call it porno, but then again, nekidd kiddies isn't what I look for when choosing my, err, "adult" entertainment.

I did have a good chuckle at the mag doing it for what can only be described as a publicity stunt, and to try and piss off the PC crowd. *"won't someone please think of the children!"*

What I would find even funnier is if the stunt backfires, the mag loses it's govt funding and has to shut down


----------



## Timmy (8 July 2008)

Article in the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/im-offended-by-rudd-says-girl/2008/07/07/1215282747275.html

From the article:
"it was the context in which the photographs were published alongside other more disturbing sexual images in the magazine that needed to be taken into account, said the director of Women's Forum Australia, Melinda Tankard Reist.

"The little girl is in there along with bondage images, including one of a Japanese schoolgirl in school uniform trussed up in rope while another image shows an adult woman also trussed up, with breasts and genitals exposed."

Ms Tankard Reist said it was hard to talk about art restoring dignity when another image in the magazine showed a woman being fellated by an octopus."

Charming content to include with a photo of six-year old girl.


----------



## bassmanpete (8 July 2008)

Everyone should realise that our natural state is naked and that people in many so called primitive societies live their whole lives naked or nearly so - at least in the warmer parts of the world.

We in the Western world are descended from people who moved into colder areas and clothing was necessary for survival through the winters. It's now so 'normal' for us to wear clothes that we can be fined for NOT wearing them in public places.

Someone commented that the young girl was brainwashed by her parents. Well, we're ALL brainwashed to some extent by the culture we're brought up in. How many of you reading this were taught (and are teaching your own kids) get a good education, get a good job, buy a house in a nice suburb, have 1.68 kids, etc, etc?

So, in answer to the question posed by this thread, I would say it's neither art nor pr0n, it's just natural!


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> ...and that people in many so called primitive societies live their whole lives naked or nearly so - at least in the warmer parts of the world.




bassman 

So is this natural mate  
take the way we look after the planet for example  
(by which I mean that GW is more serious than this thread btw) 

PS that's a good point about kids in poor countries , who run around nude or near nude - 

Trouble is they are the same poor countries where our Aussie paedophiles go for holidays   

On first thoughts, I'm for a bit of "self-imposed restraint" - which of course is an invitation to an artist to flaunt nude photos all over the place lol.    - Maybe I'll just watch this one develop and die a natural death -  from the sidelines


----------



## tech/a (8 July 2008)

I have one opinion.

*UNNECESSARY*


----------



## bassmanpete (8 July 2008)

> take the way we look after the planet for example




I know, but don't get me started on that 



> PS that's a good point about kids in poor countries , who run around nude or near nude -
> 
> Trouble is they are the same poor countries where our Aussie paedophiles go for holidays




Isn't the head of the world's biggest paedophile ring coming to Sydney next week?  And we're not even allowed to protest!


----------



## bassmanpete (8 July 2008)

> I have one opinion.
> 
> UNNECESSARY




Doesn't that then apply to ALL non-functional art?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> 1. I know, but don't get me started on that
> 
> 2. Isn't the head of the world's biggest paedophile ring coming to Sydney next week?  And we're not even allowed to protest!



lol -


----------



## vida (8 July 2008)

I think the photograph is lovely and nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It is fine art and it is no use telling anyone it is if they know nothing about art. It is not pornography and has no resemblance to it. Nudity is not pornography and I don't believe anyone really thinks that or everyone would be guilty of it at some stage. Anyway what is wrong with pornography when I come to think of it. There is all kinds of pornography and it is legal and so what is the fuss about. Besides the fact that these artists are not making pornography, they are not images of any kind of sexual activity whatsoever, just naturalistically unclothed in a very beautiful natural setting as if on a private holiday with family.

It is this panic about paedophiles seeing the pictures supposedly. Its incredible how so many people seem to be an expert on what paedophiles want.  Where do people get these ideas from?  How do they know so much about paedophiles and if they don't know that much then what are they doing pretending they do?  If there is a panic about where this picture is going to show up, then who is guilty in that case?  the media are showing it everywhere and publishing articles and comments to sell their newspapers, then accusing the artists of exploiting the child. How hypocritical and corrupt is that? Then everyone is copying it including people on this site and making unsavoury comments.  That is abusing the art and ignoring how the girl feels about her image being treated like an evil being that is being debated over without considering her feelings at all, and saying she is too dumb to understand. Now I think that this common response is child abuse, insensitive and unnecessary.

If a paedophilically inclined person wants to go into an art gallery and enjoy paintings of nude cherubs etc they can do so and they can be art enthusiasts as well as anyone else.  They are not abusing anyone by doing looking at art and the paintings/photographs look at do not become pornographic because they see them. It is an absurd notion. There are men who go and see the nude Chloe painting at the pub in Melbourne city and I think she was a teenager at the time of the artwork. Now where is the abuse in that?  Is or was Chloe being abused?  No one has ever said anything about that and it is a ridiculous notion. Her painting is not causing men to go out and criminally assault women. It is not pornography just because it is a picture of an unclothed body. My goodness what a culture we have become, I cannot believe what people are saying.


----------



## brettc4 (8 July 2008)

I don't see the picture as pornographic, but nor do I see the girl as art.  I believe he probably did it for shock value, and guess what, he got it.

Brett


----------



## Julia (8 July 2008)

Vida, thanks for such common sense and perspective.


----------



## jwrt (8 July 2008)

Art.

The pictures that paedophiles look at is photographic abuse. I hardly think I need to elaborate on what they might include.

This is art. You don't have to like it, but there is nothing malicious in it.

Chill.....
.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (9 July 2008)

Snakey said:


> does this mean that all naked pictures or paintings of naked adults is pr0n???
> .




we don't let kids drink alcohol till they are 18,.... so why let them pose naked.

I am a pretty liberal person but adult poses for kids are just not right,..


----------



## Snakey (9 July 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> Everyone should realise that our natural state is naked and that people in many so called primitive societies live their whole lives naked or nearly so - at least in the warmer parts of the world.
> 
> We in the Western world are descended from people who moved into colder areas and clothing was necessary for survival through the winters. It's now so 'normal' for us to wear clothes that we can be fined for NOT wearing them in public places.
> 
> ...




Finally some intelligence on this forum
well done bassman ten points to you
you've got my respect


----------



## vida (9 July 2008)

There is nothing exclusively adult about nudity.  Everyone has skin, we are not born in our clothes, its what they call a "birthday suit".  The girl in the photo is in her birthday suit and it has no comparison to alcohol which is addictive, unhealthy and its a drug which has nothing to do with being clothed or not and has nothing to do with photography or art, although artists may indulge. They are not 'adult' poses in those pics in question.  Far from it. I don't know what you are imagining, I think your mind is twisting things into whatever you fancy which has nothing to do with the photo content and if that is the case that is your problem. I think people who see this as pr0n need to see a shrink.

Anyway its not true that kids don't drink alcohol until they are 18.  That is simply the age when they can legally buy alcohol and go to bars etc.  Otherwise there is nothing stopping younger people from drinking alcohol at home or privately elsewhere, in fact it happens all the time.  A lot of parents, especially europeans, bring up their kids allowing them a glass of wine with dinner. Its a way to learn moderation and appreciation as well, rather than abstinence then at 18 BINGE



Tysonboss1 said:


> we don't let kids drink alcohol till they are 18,.... so why let them pose naked.
> 
> I am a pretty liberal person but adult poses for kids are just not right,..


----------



## vida (17 July 2008)

The classification board has not banned the magazine from sale. It is free to air as it should be according to the news today.  Now what next?  The aggressive art prudes will find something else to scream "ban ban" soon.  The PM's taste is well known now to be for Victorian fully garbed head to toe. He probably should be a muslim and put his wife and daughter in a burka, maybe he did in a past life who knows!  I think really he was just bending knee to public opinion ensuring that no one suspected him of being a paedophile. hmm


----------



## Naked shorts (17 July 2008)

Perhaps, the picture was released to spark this exact argument...


----------



## CAB SAV (17 July 2008)

So, on tonight's news, we have a 10yr old girl parading with female adults in a body building competition. Looked great all oiled up & in tiny bikini's (only joking) 
Explotation or OK?
Form of Art?


----------



## chops_a_must (17 July 2008)

CAB SAV said:


> So, on tonight's news, we have a 10yr old girl parading with female adults in a body building competition. Looked great all oiled up & in tiny bikini's (only joking)
> Explotation or OK?
> Form of Art?



Would it have made the news had it been a boy?

If not, why not?


----------



## subaru69 (17 July 2008)

This is a new Barbie coming out in a month or so.
I think I might buy one, not sure if they should be for kids.
It's a character from a comic called _Black Canary_.


----------



## Julia (17 July 2008)

Oh Lord, no wonder kids are confused about how to approach their developing sexuality if that's the sort of doll being offered to them.


----------

