DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Interesting news in Australia
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/23/2008 03:13:38 AM · #1
Breaking Art news here tonight is the following story. I've just seen it on the nightly news and the images have been seized and the artist may be charged with 'Public & indicent article', whatever that means.

Interestingly I just saw some of his images two weeks ago and they didn't grab me at all - tonight the art world is up in arms about this ...

Photographs seized by Police

05/23/2008 05:00:01 AM · #2
Originally posted by The Article:
"This morning police attended the gallery and executed a search warrant and seized several items depicting a child under the age of 16 years of age in a sexual context,'' Superintendent Sicard said.
Police believe the child is a 13-year-old girl, who is not from New South Wales.

She is believed to be the subject in all the seized pictures.

Hard to judge without seeing the images, but I would trust the police on this one. Doesn't sound like the images of naked children by that photog someone linked to here awhile back. Again, hard to form an opinion not having seen the photos.
 05/23/2008 05:05:52 AM · #3
Just think, if it happened in Texas, they would have taken all of the artist's children and their cousins and the children of all the other artists, into "protective custody". ;-)
 05/23/2008 07:44:38 AM · #4
For those interested the news website has censored versions of the photos here!. Personally I think in this day and age this guy definitely pushed the boundaries way too far. They are now talking about charging him. More thought should of gone into this by both the photographer and the curator of the exhibition.

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 07:44:57.
 05/23/2008 07:58:40 AM · #5
Originally posted by Makka:
For those interested the news website has censored versions of the photos here!. Personally I think in this day and age this guy definitely pushed the boundaries way too far. They are now talking about charging him. More thought should of gone into this by both the photographer and the curator of the exhibition.


WOW - over here in Victoria they've got her face covered in the news too - although that may be because they think she's from here. They're saying that as yet they don't know who she is and the authorities haven't spoken to her parents... will be a very interesting case to witness.
 05/23/2008 07:59:41 AM · #6
From the small photos on the web, I have to say that I feel they do raise some interesting questions about the whats and whys of adolesence, and in that respect I feel that artisticaly they are completely valid. BUT, I do wonder about the potential damage to the self-image of the individual child/young person who is the subject. No time to write more, but I shall ponder the issue this afternoon.
 05/23/2008 08:10:54 AM · #7
To me this amounts to child porn, period. Why? Because some sicko will use it as such and there's no way to control that. I do not see the artistic merit except for the exposure of the child's nude body. Sick, and i'm glad the authorities stepped in, I would expect the same treatment here.

Yes my stance is firm on this and there's no in between when it comes to child porn. It's simple, you're photographing a child, naked, that is child porn. No ifs, ands or buts!
 05/23/2008 08:11:53 AM · #8
Interesting by-product of the action taken - this child, naked, will now have more attention drawn to her because the authorities have stepped in to 'protect' her than before, when perhaps just a few artgoers would have seen her in a swanky gallery in Sydney.

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 08:12:07.
 05/23/2008 08:36:20 AM · #9
Art? NO! Artgoers? NO - I can think of a better word for them! From what I seen with the link provided, these pictures are appalling!!

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 08:45:30.
 05/23/2008 12:24:23 PM · #10
Originally posted by Jac:
To me this amounts to child porn, period. Why? Because some sicko will use it as such and there's no way to control that. I do not see the artistic merit except for the exposure of the child's nude body. Sick, and i'm glad the authorities stepped in, I would expect the same treatment here.

Yes my stance is firm on this and there's no in between when it comes to child porn. It's simple, you're photographing a child, naked, that is child porn. No ifs, ands or buts!


Remind me never to show you some of the photos I have of my child.

While I can fully appreciate your disgust with the image shown here, I would venture to say that many a parent has a naked image of their babies, and from my personal perspective, there actions are NOT in any way to be construed as falling within the realm of "Child Pornography".

You are entitled to your views, but your comments are such that you are accusing many a proud parent of being Pornographers and that is truly a sad commentary.

Ray
 05/23/2008 12:26:10 PM · #11
Originally posted by Jac:
To me this amounts to child porn, period. Why? Because some sicko will use it as such and there's no way to control that. I do not see the artistic merit except for the exposure of the child's nude body. Sick, and i'm glad the authorities stepped in, I would expect the same treatment here.

Yes my stance is firm on this and there's no in between when it comes to child porn. It's simple, you're photographing a child, naked, that is child porn. No ifs, ands or buts!


sick? SICK? really? who is more sick - the person who does NOT see anything sexual about a child? or the person who DOES see something sexual?

I have 3 daughters at home, and have seen their little naked butts all over the place, in (nearly) any contortion imaginable. They are CHILDREN, not sexual creatures; adults are the ones who lead kids to think it horrible that they allow anyone to see their skin. I suppose some of you think it pornographic for a woman to breast-feed in public, too?

I have no CLUE how this can be pornographic, especially since there is nothing even remotely sexual in those pics. (ok, ya got me... it does let the viewer recognize the sex OF the child... but there is not one thing 'sexual' about them.)

And people wonder why kids grow up with a bad self-image. Screwed up attitudes like that lead to a 55 year old woman who is ashamed to wear a tank top, cuz "thet's yer nekkidness - the LORD don't wont folks to SEE each uther thet away!!" Well put on a friggin Burka, wouldja? sheesh

No thanks - I'd rather the kids were allowed to be kids (and grown-ups to realize the difference between a child and a sexual being!)

;)

eta - My comments are not specifically aimed @ JAC, nor anyone else. They are an expression of my personal opinion, and the terms 'they / you / etc' are meant in generic terms.

eta2 - yeah, what Ray said :D

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 18:15:44.
 05/23/2008 12:43:05 PM · #12
Some sickos see a picture of a high-heeled shoe and use it to get off. Doesn't mean it's porn. Porn is when it's MEANT to arouse the average person, imo.

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 12:43:55.
 05/23/2008 12:47:30 PM · #13
Well, this is an interesting discussion. It always gets very fuzzy when you try to define porn.

Some sickos see a picture of a high-heeled shoe and use it to get off. Doesn't mean it's porn. Porn is when it's MEANT to arouse the average person, imo.

But surely some art could be meant to arouse without being porn, don't you agree?
Its a very sketchy term, "porn".
05/23/2008 12:49:46 PM · #14
transforming phallic symbols into cute cartoon characters

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 12:50:05.
 05/23/2008 12:51:37 PM · #15
Couldnt agree more with Ray and Ross.

On a lighter note and not trying to start a debate but didnt Adam and Eve start off naked? or were they wearing t-shirts and levis when they were "created" ;)

Just makes me giggle when I hear people talking about the "nude" human form as something to be ashamed of and taboo.

Don't get me wrong Im not condoning the pics in the story by the OP, I only saw the first photo and decided it best to close the browser as Im at work but there seems to be a fine line as to what people consider porn and art. For me anyway the first pic I did see that was censored that showed a 3/4 length body shot to me looked like an attempt at an artistic sort of shot with bad lighting but didnt strike me as porn. Unfortunately there is no real black or white to weather its considered porn or not.

I cant help but think about the story a while back about a little girl sitting outside in the nude blowing bubbles and the photographer was hung out to dry from what was an innocent photo turned in to a pornographic freak show thanks to a sick description by a fast talking liar lawyer.

*edit*

Kinda reminds me of a Brad Paisly song - "Im still a guy", where on line goes "When you see a priceless french painting, I see a drunk naked girl"

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 13:00:39.
 05/23/2008 01:08:28 PM · #16
Originally posted by ososnilknarf:
Well, this is an interesting discussion. It always gets very fuzzy when you try to define porn.

Some sickos see a picture of a high-heeled shoe and use it to get off. Doesn't mean it's porn. Porn is when it's MEANT to arouse the average person, imo.

But surely some art could be meant to arouse without being porn, don't you agree?
Its a very sketchy term, "porn".


Certainly, but porn's ONLY purpose is arousal.
 05/23/2008 01:57:47 PM · #17
Originally posted by Jac:
It's simple, you're photographing a child, naked, that is child porn. No ifs, ands or buts!

Including one of the most famous photographs in the world?

I'll agree it's obscene (for non-sexually-related reasons), but it's not pornographic.
 05/23/2008 02:32:09 PM · #18
It used to be laws were in place to protect children from exploitation. Now it seems the concern is to protect people from their own thoughts.

05/23/2008 02:48:32 PM · #19
Question of the day: What's the quickest way to make a name for yourself in art?
 05/23/2008 02:51:24 PM · #20
As I have posted before in another thread about an artist doing similar things ......why? Of all the subjects he could have chosen why a naked young girl...I just dont get that
 05/23/2008 03:53:00 PM · #21
To any of the proud parents in this thread, while I don't disagree with you on a certain level, would you put those pics of your daughters (or sons) up in a gallery or on the net? See the difference?
 05/23/2008 04:04:15 PM · #22
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
... would you put those pics of your daughters (or sons) up in a gallery or on the net?

Nope. :-)



Isaac's reaction?
05/23/2008 04:05:16 PM · #23
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
To any of the proud parents in this thread, while I don't disagree with you on a certain level, would you put those pics of your daughters (or sons) up in a gallery or on the net? See the difference?


Have you seen Judi's portfolio???

eta: Print Available

Message edited by author 2008-05-23 16:06:14.
 05/23/2008 04:06:33 PM · #24
Originally posted by joynim:
As I have posted before in another thread about an artist doing similar things ......why? Of all the subjects he could have chosen why a naked young girl...I just dont get that


Because this subject generates publicity, which I'm sure is exactly what he wants.
 05/23/2008 04:30:20 PM · #25
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Have you seen Judi's portfolio???

Yes, I have. And I don't get yours, or GeneralE's points. None of the images you are referring to would qualify as either explicit or sexual in nature. Your opinion may differ.

I can see different viewpoints on the issue, while some might appreciate the artistic value in images of naked children in a non-sexual way, there are many who see these as sexual and they do target children for abuse, exploitation or much worse. I err on the side of protection of the children over the artistic expression and accolades of the artist.

I also don't buy the crap that what drives this anti-exploitation (or anti-artistic expression, if you prefer) is a bunch of puritanical prudes. And come on Billy, that it is these prudes that are causing children to grow up with negative self images - ridiculous. If anything, it is the ever growing (legal) sexual objectification of children through pop culture and marketing that is causing that sort of thing.

My opinion anyway, yours may vary and you're entitled to it, as I am mine. :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 02:09:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 02:09:40 PM EDT.