| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2004 01:16:59 PM · #26 |
| Personally, I don't find this image pornagraphic. What disturbs me is the artist-photographer using their own child as subject. There is a conflict between the parent's obligation to protect the child and the artist's desire to be unfettered in their expression. In this situation, as in so many others, society's best interest is not served well by self regulation. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:11:04 PM · #27 |
This photo in question is..well...questionable. ONce you put your work on display then it's open to interpretation. I think we ALL know that what we had in mind for a photo isn't always what others see. And the fact of the matter is, there are alot of sick people in this world, and choosing to display your child this way puts them at risk of sexual predators. We owe it to our children to protect them.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 14:14:26. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:19:02 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Personally, I don't find this image pornagraphic. What disturbs me is the artist-photographer using their own child as subject. There is a conflict between the parent's obligation to protect the child and the artist's desire to be unfettered in their expression. In this situation, as in so many others, society's best interest is not served well by self regulation. |
But... in an ideal republic, we should strive for self-regulation. The conflict you present is brought to the fore (here) by the artist. This, IMO, is a good thing. Openness is better than concealment.
As far as the child's safety and integrity is concerned, one could argue that there are no guarantees. The concerns you describe may well be tempered by living them, as, I believe, an artist should. To combine her motherhood with a perceived role in society as an artist suggests to me a provision via engagement.
An act of courage can sometimes be more effective than one motivated by fear.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 14:19:58.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:30:00 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by pfellner:
Whomever picked the photos for the show wasn't thinking about the public perception. Had they left it out, the photographer would have had a full length show. Too bad. |
However, it would be a full length show of a truncated set of images. I'd assume if the artist wanted to include the image in the collection as a set, she wanted them shown as a set.
Though I also think it is overly harsh to accuse people who voice concerns as being sick - perhaps overly protective, but not sick.
The original source of the complaints was certainly just yet another in a long line of boorish, doltish acts by The Sun in their long campaign to stir up as much reaction, regardless of fact, as possible.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:34:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
But... in an ideal republic, we should strive for self-regulation. |
Why? What do you mean by the ideal republic? If society's interest is protecting the child and there is a perceived threat in the parent vs artist conflict, wouldn't the ideal be to find some source for regulation other than the parent/artist? |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:38:56 PM · #31 |
I just can't believe that picture ended up in a gallery! I don't think it's porn, but it's not art either. It's just a snapshot of an unkept, filthy child.
June
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:40:55 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
I just can't believe that picture ended up in a gallery! I don't think it's porn, but it's not art either. It's just a snapshot of an unkept, filthy child.
June |
Did you look at the entire collection, along with reading the artists intent ?
I think she went along way to achieving what she set out to capture. Also, I actually thought they were some of the better images I've seen of child growing up in a long time.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 14:51:28.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 02:48:57 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
But... in an ideal republic, we should strive for self-regulation. |
Why? What do you mean by the ideal republic? If society's interest is protecting the child and there is a perceived threat in the parent vs artist conflict, wouldn't the ideal be to find some source for regulation other than the parent/artist? |
To define an ideal republic here, Harvey, is probably not practical, but I think it's fair to assume that there is an established consensus that society as it exists would benefit from considering one we can only conceive of, to further what is good and curb that which isn't.
Society's interests may not really benefit anyone. What benefits us, unfortunately, is often not what interests us.
Awareness is needed before we should attempt what you call self-regulation. We cannot have awareness without experience. Thus my advocacy for art and its role in this process.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:04:37 PM · #34 |
zueszen, it's hard for me to understand how what you are saying relates to the situation presented here. Are you arguing in favor of, or against self regulation?
The point I am trying to make is that, due to the inherent parent vs artist conflict, the parent/artist cannot be wholy relied upon to protect society's interest. It is in society's interest that the child is protected from exploitation. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:08:40 PM · #35 |
After looking at the main photo in the collection I can see two different sides to it. I cringed when I looked at it. Just knowing how some of society would look at.
Truthfully, I wouldn't consider it porn myself but then I am sure there are those who do.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:27:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
zueszen, it's hard for me to understand how what you are saying relates to the situation presented here. Are you arguing in favor of, or against self regulation?
The point I am trying to make is that, due to the inherent parent vs artist conflict, the parent/artist cannot be wholy relied upon to protect society's interest. It is in society's interest that the child is protected from exploitation. |
I'm arguing for liberty and art. I do not believe any harm is done to either society or the child depicted in the exhibit. On the contrary, I view the exhibit as beneficial and becoming an open society.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:29:22 PM · #37 |
I don't understand why anyone would even think to use the word porn.
I would not even put this picture in the nude catagory, I would have it in childphotography.
The Photo
This is a very sweet photo showing how inocent the girl is.
ps. everyone I know was laughing at the reaction Janets Jacksons brest got at the Super bowl but thats us in Iceland.
Nude photos do not harm our children as much as violence.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 15:30:38. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:29:44 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
After looking at the main photo in the collection I can see two different sides to it. I cringed when I looked at it. Just knowing how some of society would look at.
Truthfully, I wouldn't consider it porn myself but then I am sure there are those who do. |
Perhaps, but why structure our society based on the feelings of the perverted minority? If they are adjudged to have a "problem," any response or remedy should infringe on their rights, and not those of the "normal" majority.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 15:34:28. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 03:41:14 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by siggi:
Nude photos do not harm our children as much as violence. |
Many people view pornography -- at least some forms -- as a "toned-down" version of the violent crime of rape, which is about power/domination and not about "sex."
The line between nude photography, and especially between erotica and "that type" of pornography is a broad gray area, with perhaps as many demarcation points as there are art viewers |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:02:45 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps, but why structure our society based on the feelings of the perverted minority? If they are adjudged to have a "problem," any response or remedy should infringe on their rights, and not those of the "normal" majority. |
Because generally, the predators that we are trying to protect our children from don't have "I'M A CHILD MOLESTOR" tattooed on their forehead. We have to err on the side of caution for our children's sake. I said it before and I'll say it again, the photographer had the right to call her photo art but I don't think she had the right to publish a naked photo of her child without her child's permission and her child simply isn't old enough to make such a decision.
Sorry but I honestly don't know what the woman was thinking. Maybe in her [narrow] world, child pornography, child slavery, children abducted for such, etc. don't exist. But in the real world these tragedies DO exist and posting a nude photograph of her child puts that child one step closer to the 'danger zone'. And for what?!? Art!?!
I've got a great idea... why don't all you folks who agree with this woman's judgement go ahead and post "artistic" nude photos of your children on the Internet for all to see. Then tell me how wonderful you feel that you have the freedom to do so and furthermore, tell me how comfortable you are knowing that the images are out there.
Look, I'm not faulting anyone for their opinion but come on; these are our children and it is our job to do everything in our power to keep them from harm even if it means our photos don't make it into some damn art show. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:04:54 PM · #41 |
This thread disgusts me, no pornography just huge stupidity. I wonder people who ban such thing how would they feel about Michelangelo carefuly drawing every detail on David's penis? Is that pornography? What in the world can someone consider pornography in that image??? It is just a child, it is not engaged in any sexual activity, the image itself is clearly not intended to send any sexual intent whatsoever! In my country if you go to any beach any children below 7-8 years is completely naked. (some adults too but this is something else :)) Excuse me, but this occidental stuff going on today with banning everything, cuting movies, bluring half the time my tv on any news station when it's not blured is all warnings and age limits and everything, this is just insane. You don't protect children that way. You just make them idiots and obeze! It sucks that since my country is trying to join EU all this crap gets imported and it just suffocate any peace of art and culture that whas ever left on this plannet. This is infact the cancer of our world today. Those old people that sit all day with the ear on the wall to call the cops whenever you make a move, and sue you weekly, WON!!! Today it looks more like everything good in this world is eyther banned and illegal or it is too expensive. SICK SICK SICK. That image is an amazing piece of art one of those images that they say "worth a million words" hundreds of storyes can be made by just looking at it, and the human race is going to die of obezity and sufocated in it's own garbage. Soon I hope!
Excuse my explosion I just can't control myself anymore when I see this stupidity going on today. I didn't read any post sorry to those of you who stated that image is pornography, you may be good and nice people but you suffer all from a huge lack of culture! (Disease that can be treated with reading books and loving art in any of it's forms).
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:08:49 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
This thread disgusts me, no pornography just huge stupidity. I wonder people who ban such thing how would they feel about Michelangelo carefuly drawing every detail on David's penis? Is that pornography? |
Puritanicalism isn't anything new.
Controversy, Censorship and the 'Fig-Leaf Campaign'
When the work was finished on the Last Judgment in (October 1541), Michelangelo was accused of intolerable obscenity for his depictions of naked figures showing genitals (and inside a church, and in St.Peter's, the most important one). A violent censorship campaign was organized by Cardinal Carafa and Monsignor Sernini (Mantua's ambassador) to remove the frescoes, but the Pope resisted.
In coincidence with Michelangelo's death, a law was issued to cover genitals ("Pictura in Cappella Ap.ca coopriantur"). So Daniele da Volterra, an apprentice of Michelangelo, covered with sort of perizomas (briefs) the genitals, leaving unaltered the complex of bodies (see details [1]). When the work was restored in 1993, the restorers chose not to remove the perizomas of Daniele; however, a faithful uncensored copy of the original, by Marcello Venusti, is now in Naples, at the Capodimonte Museum.
Censorship always followed Michelangelo, once described as "inventor delle porcherie" (inventor of obscenities, in a sense that in Italian sounds like he had created genitals).
The "fig-leaf campaign" of the Counter Reformation to cover all representations of human genitals in paintings and sculptures started with Michelangelo's works. To give two examples, the bronze statue of "Cristo della Minerva" was covered, as it remains today, and the statue of the naked child Jesus in "Madonna of Bruges" (Belgium) remained covered for several decades. A similar campaign occurred in Victorian Britain.
Cribbed from yourencyclopedia.net
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 16:09:25.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:11:26 PM · #43 |
I know that, but we are suposed to be evolved a bit since then. When to me it looks like quite the oposite.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 16:12:09.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:24:35 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
I've got a great idea... why don't all you folks who agree with this woman's judgement go ahead and post "artistic" nude photos of your children on the Internet for all to see. Then tell me how wonderful you feel that you have the freedom to do so and furthermore, tell me how comfortable you are knowing that the images are out there. |
Too late!!
I have it on my website and here. I have no problem with it! I love this photo (edited to look like a painting)!
But oh yeah! He is a BABY (technically 10 seconds old), that is ok to most!
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 16:25:58.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:25:55 PM · #45 |
Here is some "disgusting porn" I captured this weekend with my 2 years old niece.
Isn't she beautiful with the sun rays her only clothes? Even in church if you go those child figure angels are but naked. Really I am disgusted to her that what I did this weekend photographing my niece playing in the sun some call pornography...
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:30:00 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Too late!!
I have it on my website and here. I have no problem with it! I love this photo (edited to look like a painting)!
But oh yeah! He is a BABY (technically 10 seconds old), that is ok to most! |
Oh now that's a lovely image! But at the risk of opening a new can of worms, I hardly think the image you posted can compare with the one that sparked this debate. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:30:45 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I'm arguing for liberty and art. I do not believe any harm is done to either society or the child depicted in the exhibit. On the contrary, I view the exhibit as beneficial and becoming an open society. |
What I'm trying to say is that if the parent is the only control, the potential for the child to be exploited is greater than if there is also a societal control, such as laws against child pornagraphy. I hope that makes my point clearer. I don't see why you can't agree with this. Does this conflict with your ideas of liberty and art?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:33:16 PM · #48 |
The parents should control theyr children and not the art! Instead of sitting all day in front of the TV gaining 300 kg they could controll theyr children. Besides, every since the world exists children were more atracted of the banned stuff. So the effect of what's going on today is exactly the oposite.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 16:35:26.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:41:24 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 04:51:41 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Oh now that's a lovely image! But at the risk of opening a new can of worms, I hardly think the image you posted can compare with the one that sparked this debate. |
True, but it is still a naked child, and not to mention, still connected, so just to the left is a woman with her legs "up."
|
|
