When does 'art' become porn?

[Graeme]

Hotly debated over the past week, even involving the Prime Minister and celebrities, such as Cate Blanchett. It started with this...

Police quiz photographer over nude shots - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

...and ended(?) with this..no charges being laid...

Australian Authorities Permit Publication of Nude Photo of 13 Year-Old Girl

If you had a daughter aged thirteen, would you allow her to be photographed nude for 'art'?

 

[Njaco]

A quick response from me would be I can think of no reason that I would allow my daughter at that age to be photographed. Until they reach the age of 18 I'm the adult and guardian of her and I make the decisions. I can't think of anything short of a medical reason. Not art.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

A quick response from me would be I can think of no reason that I would allow my daughter at that age to be photographed. Until they reach the age of 18 I'm the adult and guardian of her and I make the decisions. I can't think of anything short of a medical reason. Not art.

Ditto for me. I do not have children and I view it as extremely immoral.

 

[DOUGRD]

Here's another thought....What is the artistic advantage to photographing a 13 year old rather than an 18 year old? I think if the photographer wanted to capture an innocent pose or flawless skin then there are older (legal) models who could fill the bill. So what's the point? I think he was just trying to "buck" the system.

 

[lesofprimus]

That "Photographer" should be arrexted and bunked up in the same cell as Bubba the 300 pound "Greenbough Ass-Raper"....

 

[rochie]

i agree with les, there is absolutley no justification for photographing minors naked

 

[Lucky13]

With Les and Rochie....

 

[evangilder]

Unbelievable. What I find disturbing is the Australian laws on this. The classification board needs to be looked into.

The board's decision comes only two weeks after they deemed acceptable nude photos of a 16 year-old girl found in Russh magazine. After investigating the pictures, which depicted the girl sharing a bubble bath with a 15 year-old boy and included four champagne bottles in close proximity, the board said the publication "does not need to be classified."

They need to deem these images as completely unacceptable and start arresting these photographers. There is art, porn and child exploitation. There is no reason for a child to have nude photos taken unless, as njaco pointed out, for medical reasons. And then, it needs to be monitored closely.

Being a photographer myself, I am appalled at what some of my fellow photographers will do.

 

[Lucky13]

WTF!

 

[syscom3]

I like what US Supreme Court Justices Potter Stewert said about pornography.

"hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

 

[evangilder]

I don't consider nude photos porn, for the most part. Nude photos of children, aside from medical necessity, is just criminal. It's not "art", it's not "expression", it's exploitation and abuse.

 

[trackend]

I'll go with that Eric. its gratification for some nutters perversion (usually the photographers) they just call it art to hide their twisted minds.
I have done a few nude shoots when I was in a photographic club it was not really my thing as I prefer portraits.

 

[Maestro]

What the fawk ?

Taking a shot of a nude minor is child porn and should be threated as such. You arrest the pedophile photographer and put him in jail... In the same wing that all those Hell's Angels bikers and let him get ass-raped in the shower by all those gang members.

And if you want to know the difference between art and porn, it's rather easy... A nude girl is art. A nude girl with something in her ass or p*ssy is porn.

 

[Soren]

Disgusting. Those photographers should be arrested no doubt about it.

 

[Freebird]

Unbelievable. What I find disturbing is the Australian laws on this. The classification board needs to be looked into.


They need to deem these images as completely unacceptable and start arresting these photographers. There is art, porn and child exploitation.

Australian law? Eric, you do realize that nudity, even of children, is also protected by US law also do you not? In fact even Canada has stricter laws than the US in some ways.

In the USA nudity of children is not pornograpy if it does not involve any sexual content according to US supreme court rulings.

A quick response from me would be I can think of no reason that I would allow my daughter at that age to be photographed.

And no father would Njaco, unless he was a pervert or an idiot!

However, do you think that the parents of Miley Cyrus {Hannah Montana} are much better? They allowed their 15 year old daughter to be photographed naked, with a sheet barely covering the "naughty bits" - in what would seem to be a provocative or "sexual" pose.

 

[Soren]

Freebird,

I googled Miley Cyrus and the picture of her you mentioned (I think atleast) popped up along with articles about it causing a lot of stir. Now looking at the picture is shows nothing other than her back really. Now that having been said it still isn't right, but it's not as vulgar as the case with the art exhibition which I view as downright criminal.

 

[evangilder]

I don't agree with the Miley Cyrus photos either. Anytime a child is exploited like that, it emboldens the next person to take it a step further until it is "normal" by societal standards. It will never be "normal" to me. God help the bastard that even suggests a nude photo of my daughter.

 

[Lucky13]

I hold you hit Eric...what would you like, a nice baseball bat of hickory wood or a more modern one...?

 

[Njaco]

Its putting the thought in children that acting like that is grown up and OK which it is not.

Same for Jon Bonet Ramsey - those people disgust dissgust me.

 

[Lucky13]

...WHO??