| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2004 04:58:09 PM · #51 |
In society we have rules. These rules can be either written down in the form of laws or they can be implicit in the culture of the era. Yes, they can be broken from time to time with good intentions (e.g. civil rights movement), but to operate as a *mostly* free society it is generally a good idea for people to follow the rules.
The image in question will have different meanings to different cultures (societies), but make no mistake that, in some cultures, the image is objectionable and may not adhere to some of its rules. To lambast that culture for not understanding the cultural context in which the image was created is paradoxical and hypocritical.
To illustrate, for all those who think art supercedes culture and holds no sway on consequence, go ahead and post an image of a penis or a vagina in the next challenge. The society of this website will toss you on your ear for it and demand you removed from membership. Is that wrong? I dunno. It just is. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 05:00:31 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
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!?!
|
Glad the masters didn't have this kind of opinion on life. As I said earlier...I cringed when I looked at the photo...not because I didn't see the beauty in it but because of the whole world letting the perverts out there control what we consider art. We wouldn't even be discussing this if that photo had been cropped at the belly button. But because we can see part of a tabooed region everyone freaks out.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 05:30:54 PM · #53 |
| Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are people afraid of here? How does a picture of a nude young girl put her at risk of the attention of perverts? Are you worried about abduction? I would think that the public attention the picture has already gotten by way of the gallery would protect the child somewhat. Do perverts just suddenly get an idea in their head from seeing a nude pic of a child that that's what they want to do? Besides which, the girl is much older now than when the pic was taken. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 05:41:19 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Originally posted by digistoune:
Originally posted by Konador:
Little kids run around naked on beaches all the time in the summer. It's fine :) |
At least it should be fine... When my son was younger (like around 2 to 4) he used to run around in the backyard naked and play in the sprinkler. I even have photos of him doing just that and they are very cute. But these photos are displayed in the family album and that is where they will remain. Not because the images are wrong, pornographic, etc. But because their are perverted monsters out there who look at children as sexual objects. In this case, censorship of such images is for the childrens' protection.
My point... yes, let your kiddos run naked in the right environment and teach them that their bodies are wonderful and nothing to be ashamed of. But also teach them when it's appropriate to enjoy such activities; not because of some sense of prudish propriety but because we want them to be safe. And perhaps keep photographs of such moments to the confines of 'trusted' eyes and not public display. |
Something I'd like to ad that will require ya'll to indulge me in a little fantasy... lets say that in coming years my photographic career blossoms to the point that people have an interest in seeing my earlier photographic attempts. Lovely fantasy, isn't it! Those photos of my son running around naked might be published if and only if my son was mature enough to give me permission to publish them. I feel it would be disrespectful of him to do otherwise and that is the problem I have with the Schneider photographs. Even if her daughter was given the choice, she lacks the maturity to make it. True Ms. Schneider is certainly allowed to deam her photographs as art but in the process I think she has done little more than objectify her daughter and her daughter's innocence. |
A five year old is going to care if she was photographed naked.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 05:43:45 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are people afraid of here? How does a picture of a nude young girl put her at risk of the attention of perverts? Are you worried about abduction? I would think that the public attention the picture has already gotten by way of the gallery would protect the child somewhat. Do perverts just suddenly get an idea in their head from seeing a nude pic of a child that that's what they want to do? Besides which, the girl is much older now than when the pic was taken. |
Actually, perverts DO get ideas from these images. If you look at the case of the young girl in Ontario that went missing from her own neighborhood. They finally caught the guy who raped, dismembered her and then tossed her in a lake. He very readily admitted to viewing child porn and then within a SINGLE hour went out, found her, raped and killed her. He said he never ever thought of doing anything like that before seeing the child porn, he reportedly said he felt something 'snap' within him.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 05:45:03 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by filzy1095:
A five year old is going to care if she was photographed naked. |
I guess there's a cultural difference going on but when we were kids we'd run around naked in the garden, at the beach etc.
And I have no embarassment when I see my kiddy photos and nor would it bother me if friends saw them.
To be honest, it wouldn't bother me if they were plastered over the walls of an exhibition in the name of art, though it ain't gonna happen - because I know that there is nothing but innocence in my nudity and I knew it at the time too.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 05:50:38 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are people afraid of here? How does a picture of a nude young girl put her at risk of the attention of perverts? Are you worried about abduction? I would think that the public attention the picture has already gotten by way of the gallery would protect the child somewhat. Do perverts just suddenly get an idea in their head from seeing a nude pic of a child that that's what they want to do? Besides which, the girl is much older now than when the pic was taken. |
Actually, perverts DO get ideas from these images. If you look at the case of the young girl in Ontario that went missing from her own neighborhood. They finally caught the guy who raped, dismembered her and then tossed her in a lake. He very readily admitted to viewing child porn and then within a SINGLE hour went out, found her, raped and killed her. He said he never ever thought of doing anything like that before seeing the child porn, he reportedly said he felt something 'snap' within him. |
So then the fear is that this photo will put other young girls and boys at risk? It seems from your description of the Ontario pervert that he was looking at pornographic pictures of other young children and not the one he attacked. In addition, this doesn't seem to be a pornographic image in this case so then maybe this case doesn't apply to this image? |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:00:12 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are people afraid of here? How does a picture of a nude young girl put her at risk of the attention of perverts? Are you worried about abduction? I would think that the public attention the picture has already gotten by way of the gallery would protect the child somewhat. Do perverts just suddenly get an idea in their head from seeing a nude pic of a child that that's what they want to do? Besides which, the girl is much older now than when the pic was taken. |
Actually, perverts DO get ideas from these images. If you look at the case of the young girl in Ontario that went missing from her own neighborhood. They finally caught the guy who raped, dismembered her and then tossed her in a lake. He very readily admitted to viewing child porn and then within a SINGLE hour went out, found her, raped and killed her. He said he never ever thought of doing anything like that before seeing the child porn, he reportedly said he felt something 'snap' within him. |
These are the same kind of issues that cause rape but I don't hear anyone here crying about images of nude women. First off this isn't porn it is an artistic impression of the life of a child. There is always a fine line between art and porn, this was a photo of expression for both the child and the photographer not a moment of sexual exploration. That's the fine line, so if looking at this photo is a turn on to you you need HELP! But if you look at it and see all the details, the shadows, the freedom of a child then you see the artistic beauty captured within.
I'm going to say it again I cringed when I saw the photo cause as a mother I can't do these type of photos but as an artist I can see the beauty within it.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:16:07 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
True Ms. Schneider is certainly allowed to deam her photographs as art but in the process I think she has done little more than objectify her daughter and her daughter's innocence. |
Here is a different point of view; one I find less judgemental, puritanical, politically correct. The photographer chose to glory in the joy,sadness and wonder of her daughter's childhood and share it with an art viewing public as a comment on the universal theme of childhood and the freedom from inhibition that is one of the very characteristics adults cherish in children. Art is about such themes and I found this to be a lovely photo that fits in beautifully with the exhibition.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 18:17:21. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:24:56 PM · #60 |
here's my short answer:
A pervert will get whatever ideas they want from even just observing an adult or a child walking down the street. They have the option and ability to imagine whatever they want about that adult or child..that said, I think some of the images in the series are better than others, and I don't really see a problem with any of the photos when taken in context.
Just this past weekend while waiting in line to buy my tickets to ride the ferry, the weather was unbearably hot and there was a little girl, maybe 4 or 5 yrs old, walking around with a leotard-type body suit (similar to what little ballerinas wear) and she had the arms and torso off and dangling around her while the bottom part was on, and no one said a word. She was running around her mother as we all waited in line. People will think what they want, but if your child is safe then let them enjoy the fleeting freedom of being naked while they are young. It passes soon enough.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:27:28 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by digistoune:
True Ms. Schneider is certainly allowed to deam her photographs as art but in the process I think she has done little more than objectify her daughter and her daughter's innocence. |
Here is a different point of view; one I find less judgemental, puritanical, politically correct. The photographer chose to glory in the joy,sadness and wonder of her daughter's childhood and share it with an art viewing public as a comment on the universal theme of childhood and the freedom from inhibition that is one of the very characteristics adults cherish in children. Art is about such themes and I found this to be a lovely photo that fits in beautifully with the exhibition. |
Just to get a better feel for your opinion (and not to attack you in anyway), can you explain what you find artistic in this image that you did not find in Bassie's "Hard Licker". Isn't it a very similar situation in which an artist who was trying to portray something may have portrayed something else, perhaps inappropriate, inadvertantly? |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:28:51 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by frisca:
here's my short answer:
A pervert will get whatever ideas they want from even just observing an adult or a child walking down the street. |
Especially if they buy a pair of "xray glasses" out of the back of a comic book ... or from one of the vendors developing new products for the Transportation Security Administration. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:32:23 PM · #63 |
So who is going to post a web site featuring nude pictures of their young children and/or relatives? If you're not, why wouldn't you?
If it's just art then what's the big deal?
PS I didn't look at the pictures so I'm not going to say if it's art or not. In my country people get thrown in jail for looking at naked pictures of kids so I'm not going to touch it.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:45:23 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by louddog:
So who is going to post a web site featuring nude pictures of their young children and/or relatives? If you're not, why wouldn't you?
If it's just art then what's the big deal?
PS I didn't look at the pictures so I'm not going to say if it's art or not. In my country people get thrown in jail for looking at naked pictures of kids so I'm not going to touch it. |
That'd be the land of the free and the home of the brave, right ?
But you do raise the fundamental issue - why is it such a taboo in the US and not so much in the rest of the world ? Are American's more likely to abuse children if they see naked images - I sincerely doubt it. Yet nudity, and particular child nudity (the picture in question is cropped about an inch below the waist) is almost a hysterical issue in the US - evidenced by your expressed fear to even look at the picture that currently hangs in a gallery in the center of London. The British police looked at it and didn't arrest the photographer, or the gallery owner. In fact, they claimed they were not qualified to pass judgement on it as being pornographic.
Yet as an American citizen you are afraid to even look at it.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:48:46 PM · #65 |
BBC News report on the issue
A previous case of an American photographer (note there are underage nipples on display in this BBC News article - Viewer beware) Again, this was a case instigated by a British tabloid (News of the World) that spends a large majority of its pages publishing pictures of topless women.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 18:52:09.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 06:55:01 PM · #66 |
Yeah, I'd rather not have pictures of naked 5 year olds on my computer for legal reasons, but I also have no interest is seeing a naked 5 year old so I had no urge to go look at the pictures.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:02:45 PM · #67 |
So you do not see a difference between an 18 or older woman chosing to pose naked and 5 year old posing naked for her parent to share with the world?
If a 6 year old walks into a tattoo parlor should she be allowed to get a tattoo?
If an 8 year old wants to go into a strip bar, should the bouncer let him?
If a 9 year old wanted to have sex would you give them a condom and tell them to have at it?
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 19:03:25.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:16:23 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by louddog:
So you do not see a difference between an 18 or older woman chosing to pose naked and 5 year old posing naked for her parent to share with the world?
If a 6 year old walks into a tattoo parlor should she be allowed to get a tattoo?
If an 8 year old wants to go into a strip bar, should the bouncer let him?
If a 9 year old wanted to have sex would you give them a condom and tell them to have at it? |
What do tattoos and sex/ strip clubs have to do with 5 year olds ?
You seem to see a connection, but I don't.
Now, given that you haven't even seen the image and have no idea what's in it, I could see that you might be coming up with all sorts of ideas about what it is, but it is a shot of a young person, from the waist up, nibbling on a snack size piece of carrot at a picnic.
Might it be worth knowing what it was you are talking about before posting several posts about it ?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:18:09 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by louddog:
So who is going to post a web site featuring nude pictures of their young children and/or relatives? If you're not, why wouldn't you?
|
Several people have already posted images in this thread with as much visible nudity as in the picture under discussion.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:31:14 PM · #70 |
Correct, I have not seen this image. I also have not said anything about this image.
My questions are very relavent. There is an age of consent where a person is allowed to make adult decisions. I do not believe that 5 is a good age of consent to have nude pictures displayed.
But, since 5 is okay to most here, is 13 okay? How about 16? What if mom promises to buy their 17 year old a car if they pose nude (artistically of course)? What is the age limit for taking nude pictures of people and posting them?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:35:57 PM · #71 |
the only image in the series that made me uneasy was the one titled "Orange Chair".
is there a difference between capturing candid shots of your naked 5 yr. old playing at a picnic and what looks to be a posed photo of your naked 5 yr. old in front of a window?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:41:32 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Correct, I have not seen this image. I also have not said anything about this image.
My questions are very relavent. There is an age of consent where a person is allowed to make adult decisions. I do not believe that 5 is a good age of consent to have nude pictures displayed.
But, since 5 is okay to most here, is 13 okay? How about 16? What if mom promises to buy their 17 year old a car if they pose nude (artistically of course)? What is the age limit for taking nude pictures of people and posting them? |
It depends largely on the context, which, as you started the post with, you are missing entirely.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:49:11 PM · #73 |
This is pathetic. Are we so morphed as a society that something such as this is viewed as such?
Do you really think proclaiming this as innapropriate and too close to child pornography it's going to help the problem? All that's doing is saying these people are OK being obessed with child porno, and we should limit ourselves to allow them. It should be the other way around!
That image shows hardly anything pornographic, not too mention it is in extremely good taste.
People need to grow up, grab a brain, and quit worrying about every little tiny thing that might, or could, or possibly happen.
Lee
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 07:58:14 PM · #74 |
Those of you who are sitting there condemeing the artist need to wake up and find some innocence. Those who can't see the beauty of the photos must be beyond seeing innocence of a child. These although I cringed when I saw the first photo, they are simply stunning looks at the first 5 years of life, they aren't porn...they are a proud mother capturing the moments of childhood, ones that are all gone way too soon.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 08:03:42 PM · #75 |
How did I miss any context??? All I've done is ask questions, state that I don't think 5 is a good age of consent to have nude photos published, and state that I chose not to look at pictures of naked 5 year olds.
My opinion:
I would not take nude photos of my kids and call them art so I can get in a gallery, make money, win a contest or become famous because I value their privacy, but that's just me. If someone else wants to do that to their kids, go right ahead.
Now, I would still like to know at what age it's not okay to post nude pictures of my kids, just in case I change my opinion. Is any age okay as long as it's tastefull? Who judges if it's tastefull? Where's the line?
|
|
