- This topic is empty.
art, nudity and child exploitation in one hot topic!
-
what do you reckon? is it just a matter of taste or is this exploitation?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-v-art-critic-over-child-nudity-20080706-32n6.html?page=1
Hi SD,
to most of us we just see a child in a natural type of setting and pose, BUT we all know that there are those who will view it differently!
Therefore, I would firmly believe that this is not acceptable.
I do realise that art is in the eye of the beholder (sic) and therefore there will be those who argue that the “clean minds” should win the day.
The reality of evil is, however, very different, and trades on these naive views!
Ken
8)
I would have quite the opposite opinion to Kenh.
My opinion however is based on the cover shot alone, as I have not seen the others.
This shot is not in any way sexual, so sexual exploitation for me is not an issue. KenH’s argument that there are other people out there who think differently is correct in theory, however these people are not going to get off on shots like these, and there is plenty of places for them to go to get what they want, unfortunately.
Modern society is being driven by fear and consumption, and fear for children’s safety has gone well beyond paranoic proportions, to the point that you can now buy helmets for your children in the States for when they’re learning to walk and crawl…incase they bang their head. There is the exact same risk to children now as there was 10, 30 and 70 years ago, its just that now there is media saturation about everything. News corporations sensationalise every little thing in order to sell copies (in newspaper’s case) and advertising. 24 hour news channels are becoming the norm and the time has to be filled, so we get “razor blade in the candy” syndrome. Everyone is scared of everything.
How many of us remember sitting in a car without a car seat before 12? Cycling a bike without a helmet or knee and elbow pads? Going out on a summers day first thing in the morning and not coming back until after night had fallen without our parents thinking we were cut up and dumped in bins? And hell, I grew up ok…. in the most part :)
As an example, again in the States, you have huge lobbies trying to get guns in households banned because so many children are being shot by other children. How many of them are trying to get swimming pools banned in private homes? None. But more children drown in private pools every year in the States than are shot dead. This is being driven by 2 things, media sensationalism and political point scoring. A politician could get voted in depending on which side of the gun law divide he falls, but his voice won’t be heard if he tries to ban swimming pools.
So Kevin Rudd is coming out and saying exactly what he thinks the people of Australia want him to say, he sees a naked girl (and lets face it, you’d see more of her if you saw her playing on a beach) and its political gold. No one is going to tell him he’s wrong, or if they do its a small minority.
I feel like I should have a neat wrapping up point here, but I’m tired and my brain isn’t functioning properly today.
Hi Jody,
my point of view refers strictly to children and sexual exploitation – not the type of paronoia that you describe, and I am sure we both think is crazy!
I just know that this particular subject is like no other in the type of people that MAY be lurking in the shadows.
I used to have the opposite view, but now believe that some extreme approaches are warranted to counter the problem.
Appreciate your opposing views :)
Ken
Jody wrote:
This shot is not in any way sexual, so sexual exploitation for me is not an issue.
No shot of a naked child is sexual (unless the child is being abused, which is another matter again).
That doesn’t stop a certain type of pervert from wanting to possess shots of naked children. It’s
dangerously naive to publish photos of naked children.There are many men who find photos of women in bikinis far more erotic than hardcore porn shots.
I imagine, for similar reasons, there are paedophiles who are more attracted to “innocent” shots like this
than they are to pay-per-view child rpe sites. Sorry if I use disturbing phrases – with a subject
like this it’s best to make sure everyone knows what we’re chatting about.PeteTheBloke wrote:
Jody wrote:
This shot is not in any way sexual, so sexual exploitation for me is not an issue.
No shot of a naked child is sexual (unless the child is being abused, which is another matter again).
That doesn’t stop a certain type of pervert from wanting to possess shots of naked children. It’s
dangerously naive to publish photos of naked children.There are many men who find photos of women in bikinis far more erotic than hardcore porn shots.
I imagine, for similar reasons, there are paedophiles who are more attracted to “innocent” shots like this
than they are to pay-per-view child rpe sites. Sorry if I use disturbing phrases – with a subject
like this it’s best to make sure everyone knows what we’re chatting about.No need to apologise for disturbing phrases Pete, its cold hard fact unfortunately.
I see your point about the “innocent” shots appealing to some of these…”people”…. I don’t think that should be the reason to stop the photograph being taken and displayed though. This child is not in danger as a direct result of this photograph being taken…on the contrary, if there is any danger to her its because her identity came out as a consequence of the political reaction.
I can’t directly argue with your opinion that’s its dangerously naive to publish naked photos of children. In the digital age putting snapshots up on the likes of flickr is the equivilant of the box of photos our parents have in the attic, which contain that one embarressing photos of us all running around naked that they take out when we’re 18 and have brought home our first girlfriend/boyfriend. But the digital age of uploading these probably doesn’t suit images like these, for lack of privacy alone. However I don’t think it puts a child in direct harm, as most images like that are anonymous, and anyone looking at them who is that way inclined will have little or no chance of finding the child in the photo. I know there’s an argument of feeding their imagination until the go out and find any child, but if they’re that way inclined, they’re going to do it anyway, whether they see photos or not. Watching porn doesn’t turn men into rapists, if they’re that way inclined they will rape whether they see porn or not.
Well argued points, Jody and Pete-
It’s dangerously naive to publish photos of naked children.
Unless you’re being dangerously sophisticated by raising your profile within the Art world-
and crossing over into the real world in the process-j
I see your point and I agree that no child is harmed, but it’s still naive to publish
photos of children naked and claim that it’s acceptable.In the UK there is a move to outlaw the possession of digital art depicting paedophile
pornography. This makes me very uncomfortable because it means that someone could
be prosecuted simply for drawing pictures that betray his or her fantasies, and however
distasteful we find those fantasies, no person has been caused to suffer in any way at
all.Going back to the actual photos, if they are in a box in the attic, it’s a lot different
from the cover of a magazine or even an obscure internet page (which is where
they probably all end up once they are in the public domain because that’s the nature
of the “enemy” in these areas).I must say that it makes me feel uncomfortable, this is a posed shot of a little girl with no clothes on,
way way different to the snapshots most of us have of our own kids in the bath, or
playing in the paddling pool, and calling it art doesnt make it right.I dont see anything wrong in this, Art is all about meanings and connotations. the artist was saying something with her imagery. (not seeing her extensive body of work I can only comment on the one photo). But why should it make you feel uncomfortable. Its a person, like any body’s daughter. A child is supposed to be beautiful and admired. There is nothing in this photo we dont see at the beach in the case of parents, at home.
I walked down the street yesterday and saw a family having lunch in their garden, there were four naked children who had just come out of the swimming pool, should I have felt uncomfortable and asked the parent to dress their children? I dont think so. Its quite a subjective thing with nudity in general.
When is it ok for a person to start nude modeling? on their 18th Birthday maybe? but what has changed since they were 17 the day before.
I just think that if the symbolism and connotations in the photo are for the right reason then why shouldnt the artist use her daughter as a platform for the art when its not harming anyone in any way.
Look throughout history, nudity and children have been used forever, from Madonna and child into contemporary art, why is it only in recent years has this become an epidemic?
I guess I may feel a bit more liberally about such subjects as other people. But I fully support the magazines choice to publish the photo at their discression as long as everything was above board.
Just my ยข2
B
I guess I am a little more sensitive at the moment, as my niece was recently abused
by a man taking photographs of her and a little boy, which was purely perverted and
I still think that this type of picture is fueling such perversion, I am sure not intentionally
but still a very fine line between “art” and child pornography. In my opinion abuse of
children has always been there in history the only difference is that now it is talked about
and in the public eye.lots of very interesting replies. as a mum of a 2 year old and as a person who loves child photography, i find myself looking over my shoulder sometimes because you know someone, somewhere will find it objectionable. but that applies to everything doesn’t it? to be honest, my first impression was, “that was on the cover of a magazine? hell, i could do that!” :) (though i probably couldn’t!)
Just out of mild curiosity what do people think of this photo:
It is a child. It is naked. And was taken by one of the most successful commercial photography artists of all time.
Is it wrong? Will it end up on the back sites of the internet fuelling the disturbing thoughts of the few?
Should these be banned? Why aren’t there open calls for blood against those that sell these images day in and day out?
Just a thought…my two cents :wink:
Jody wrote:
Well its the ugliest child I’ve ever seen for a start!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
