| Question Home |
Position:Home>Visual Arts> Do you think there can ever be a circumstance where phortoes of naked children 1Question: Do you think there can ever be a circumstance where phortoes of naked children 12 to 13 years old could ever!? be considered "Art"!.
Police in Australia have closed down a gallery and will lay charges against various individuals including the photographer for displaying these nude photos of tweenies (girls)!. The photos were taken with the parents consent!. Frankly I think they are all sick and twisted pond scum!.!.!.especially the parents and the gross bastardsss that went to view the exhibition!. !. what is your view!?Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: When it comes to children I'd prefer to err on the side of safety!.Www@QuestionHome@Com On the one hand, I think the human body is a beautiful thing and the only reason it is supposedly so damaging to have it portrayed in the nude is that it is socially unacceptable to be comfortable with your body!. On the other hand, I think these "artists" who concoct totally illegal displays mostly to selfishly get attention regardless of who or what is hurt as a result, should be forced to become part of their own art!. There was supposedly another artist somewhere who captured a stray dog, chained it to a wall, and let it starve to death in the name of art!. The guy with the dog should be chained to a lamp post in the middle of the city with a fence around him so he can't be fed!. The photographer should be publicly humiliated, with photos of the humiliating event being distributed freely for the rest of his/her life!. These people are on a par with Mark David Chapman!. Publicity stunts shouldn't hurt random innocent people and animals to promote the ego of the artist!. Let's coin a new term!. Phony artist, or phartist!. lmao But I agree with you!. Until perceptions of nudity change, that is totally unacceptable!.Www@QuestionHome@Com This same question was asked yesterday!. I agree with your assessment of the parents and the photographer!. Had the photographer posted the pictures on the Internet he would have been called a pedophile!. By displaying them in a so-called "art gallery" he was attempting to hide his own latent pedophilia!. Fortunately, his clever ploy failed and he and the "parents" of these children have been exposed as the child exploiters they are!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I think it would largely depend on the photographs and the poses!. I don't have huge problems with nudity, particularly if it's done tastefully!. I agree that kiddie porn is sick and should be shut down, but that is an entirely different thing!. I probably wouldn't want to attend this gallery, but I would not paint the parents and attendees with the same broad brush you use!. If the photos are indeed obscene I would consider this kiddie porn and--of course--I'm against it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Something can be considered art without necessarily fitting into society's view of acceptable, or our own views of what is acceptable for that matter!. Personally I do not think it is acceptable to present children in this way at all!. Labelling something as art, (even if it is art) does not make it right!. That label does not necessarily reflect the quality of the content ! So while I agree that it's unacceptable, I disagree that it's correct to hold the title of "art" as something that is subject to moral or social judgement!. The only problem I have with your statement is labelling!. The exhibition will not reopen, and it looks like the people involved will (rightly) be prosecuted, according to this article: http://optuszoo!.news!.ninemsn!.com!.au/arti!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I saw this story on the news tonight!. And some of the images were shown in the story!. Some were also censored (black bars over certain parts)!. They were all photographed in black & white and I must admit they were all done in a very high quality and 'artistic' style!. HOWEVER!.!.!.these 'models' are all underage (some 12-13yrs), so it really creeps me out a bit!. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter to be displayed in such a way (artistic or not) for any old Tom, Dick or Harry to see!. Oh, and the photographer!.!.!.Did you see him!? He really DID look kind of creepy!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Art is in the eye of the beholder, and (on the surface, since I haven't viewed the images) these eyes don't consider it art!. If tastefully done, maybe!. I photograph the Earth's beauty!. Not sure if 12 - 13 YO would fall into that category!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Definintly viewed as erotica and NOT art!. Personally I think its sick people find pleasure in it, but for kids to walk around without shirts, (Young kids 2-6) its not uncommon!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Yeh they are bloody money hogging bastards!.!.!.whaen those kids are older they r gonna hate their parents for giving the photographer consent!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Kids are kids thats why we have appropriate ages for all types of activities ie!. drinking, driving, etc!. Children are beautiful but not at all sexual!!Www@QuestionHome@Com I don't think so!.!.!. Maybe if they are taken tastfully and the don't expose anything that can't be shown on cable!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Never should happen!.!.!.never!Www@QuestionHome@Com No never! that's just not right !.sorryWww@QuestionHome@Com |