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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Art or Porn?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 128, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/27/2004 08:07:23 PM · #76
Originally posted by louddog:

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.


Define what you mean by 'nude photos' or 'pictures of naked 5 year olds' first. As you've read this thread, you've already been looking at 'pictures of naked 5 year olds'. They are already on your computer.

Your questions seem to at least have an underlying implication that anything naked is automatically pornographic. Or that 'nude' automatically means genitalia on display, for example. This is why I say you are lacking context for this particular discussion, which you are posting questions in.

If I'm just confused and you think anything showing any skin at all shouldn't be allowed, then I apologise for misunderstanding your intent.
07/27/2004 08:07:34 PM · #77
Originally posted by coolhar:

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?


I am not bent on disagreement, Harvey. Like you, I support laws against child pornography and probably for reasons similar to yours. The image in question, however, does not, to me, have anything to do with pornography, not even remotely.
07/27/2004 08:11:25 PM · #78
Originally posted by zeuszen:


I am not bent on disagreement, Harvey. Like you, I support laws against child pornography and probably for reasons similar to yours. The image in question, however, does not, to me, have anything to do with pornography, not even remotely.


Exactly.
07/27/2004 08:11:27 PM · #79
You don't suppose that Ms. Schneider [Mommy] together with the owner of the "fashionable art gallery" were really concerned with artistic freedom for the very ordinary series of snapshots on exhibit? They cleverly included the one photograph guaranteed to get media attention, whether or not one agrees about its value as pure art.

As for the equivalent nude/semi/almost/not-at-all photographs of their own children which our DPC members have contributed, the less said the better.

My children are now adults, and I chose not to exhibit nude photos of their childhood in a public place. They are comfortable with their bodies as I am with mine, although I would prefer fewer wrinkles these days.

Grubby money mining is the root cause of most of the hysterical heavy breathing I read about for preserving "artistic" freedom by commercial enterprises. Publicity sells!!
07/27/2004 08:13:07 PM · #80
I'm not responsible to explain assumptions you make about my questions. Please don't make assumptions about what I believe.

I asked questions to hear other people's opinions.

I stated my opinion to remove the assumptions you were making. Did you miss it? By nude I mean lacking clothing.

I'd still like some answers to my questions though.
07/27/2004 08:14:50 PM · #81
Originally posted by louddog:


I stated my opinion to remove the assumptions you were making. Did you miss it? By nude I mean lacking clothing.
.


So a shot of a naked shoulder would be inappropriate ?
An uncovered ankle perhaps ?

I don't make any assumptions about what you believe, which is why I've asked you a couple of times to articulate it.
07/27/2004 08:17:56 PM · #82
Originally posted by louddog:

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?


have you ever looked at a porn magazine or watched an x rated movie?...most of the women aren't posing nude because they enjoy it often they aren't even doing the movies cause they want too...most of them are doing it for the money often cause of an abusive man in there life or a drug addiction! So if you bought one of them you are far more guilty of exploting that person than a mother is for exposing you to her childs first 5 years of life. These photos are very innocent and charming, when viewed with an open mind.
07/27/2004 08:18:32 PM · #83
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by zeuszen:


I am not bent on disagreement, Harvey. Like you, I support laws against child pornography and probably for reasons similar to yours. The image in question, however, does not, to me, have anything to do with pornography, not even remotely.


Exactly.


And I'd probably agree with both of you if I saw the image, but who determines if it's child porn or not? What's the definition?
07/27/2004 08:20:53 PM · #84
So it's OK to see little kids running around naked in public at a beach or anywhere outdoors but not OK to look at a photograph of one?
07/27/2004 08:22:38 PM · #85
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Originally posted by louddog:

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?


have you ever looked at a porn magazine or watched an x rated movie?...most of the women aren't posing nude because they enjoy it often they aren't even doing the movies cause they want too...most of them are doing it for the money often cause of an abusive man in there life or a drug addiction! So if you bought one of them you are far more guilty of exploting that person than a mother is for exposing you to her childs first 5 years of life. These photos are very innocent and charming, when viewed with an open mind.


One small difference, if they enjoy it or not (I'd disagree with you there since I know a few but that's another topic) they are all adults and they make a choice. If they are not adults or it's not a choice it becomes against the law, unless someone calls it art.
07/27/2004 08:26:06 PM · #86
Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by zeuszen:


I am not bent on disagreement, Harvey. Like you, I support laws against child pornography and probably for reasons similar to yours. The image in question, however, does not, to me, have anything to do with pornography, not even remotely.


Exactly.


And I'd probably agree with both of you if I saw the image, but who determines if it's child porn or not? What's the definition?


Well why don't you judge for yourself if you haven't looked at the image they how can you argue your point? Take a look at the image...and then look at the entire collection...the nude come very much into perspective after looking at the entire collection. //kunst.no/bschneider/Scenes/scenes_from_a_childhood.html

The nude is what you see first but as you look you start seeing moments from your own childhood or your childrens...the plastic handcuffs to me is simply charming...I think I must have bought a pair everytime we walked into a dollar store...after the police came to visit my little boys preschool a few years ago.
07/27/2004 08:28:14 PM · #87
Men.... Those Pictures are NASTY and that men deserves to be in JAIL. and Im glad they close the gallery too. I dont care if anyone agree with me but that's PORNO and not even close to Art. I consider my self a really open mind person, I have pictures of my self when I was a child naked and they all look natural and my mom NEVER put HADCUFF on me to take pictures.
07/27/2004 08:31:18 PM · #88
Originally posted by louddog:


One small difference, if they enjoy it or not (I'd disagree with you there since I know a few but that's another topic) they are all adults and they make a choice. If they are not adults or it's not a choice it becomes against the law, unless someone calls it art.


It's still explotation...that person only made a copy hundred dollars for the photo session you pay about $7 for the magazine...$20 for the videos...the editors and producers are the ones cashing in on it just like an artist cashes in on a great work of art...

Ever take a photo out on the street without a signed consent form before taking it? That person wasn't given the choice til after you clicked, and if you made money from it...thats exploting them!

Why don't you just relax and go look at the photos before you try to debate what is porn and what is art...
07/27/2004 08:35:49 PM · #89
Originally posted by anonimo:

Men.... Those Pictures are NASTY and that men deserves to be in JAIL. and Im glad they close the gallery too. I dont care if anyone agree with me but that's PORNO and not even close to Art. I consider my self a really open mind person, I have pictures of my self when I was a child naked and they all look natural and my mom NEVER put HADCUFF on me to take pictures.


Just an update the gallery is opening back up with all the photos in place! By the sounds of it you aren't very open minded...the child was playing with the handcuffs...and the photo entilted Go Dog Go...was so cute....I see that same kind of scene daily in my house...

Oh and it isn't a man it is a MOTHER who took all the photos! Wake up!
07/27/2004 08:43:15 PM · #90
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Why don't you just relax and go look at the photos before you try to debate what is porn and what is art...


PAY ATTENTION!!! I never called it PORN!!!! WAKE UP!!! Actually I believe I said I'd probably agree it was art. Hold on I'll scroll down and look brb

Yep, I said "And I'd probably agree with both of you if I saw the image, but who determines if it's child porn or not?" after two people agreed that it's not porn!!

Sorry for the caps but some people have a hard time reading and comprehending.

Now if you can answer my question (or any of the others) please do so and quit putting words in my text messages!
07/27/2004 08:48:30 PM · #91
Anna [OneSweetSin] is absolutely correct -- it is all about MONEY MONEY MONEY! There are thousands of definitions of "ART", but only one of profit.
See my post above.

Re: ART, take a look at Ms. Schneider's photograph "Vicktor's Placenta." One is reminded of a two-year old's fascination with its own excrement.
07/27/2004 08:50:14 PM · #92
Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Why don't you just relax and go look at the photos before you try to debate what is porn and what is art...


PAY ATTENTION!!! I never called it PORN!!!! WAKE UP!!! Actually I believe I said I'd probably agree it was art. Hold on I'll scroll down and look brb

Yep, I said "And I'd probably agree with both of you if I saw the image, but who determines if it's child porn or not?" after two people agreed that it's not porn!!

Sorry for the caps but some people have a hard time reading and comprehending.

Now if you can answer my question (or any of the others) please do so and quit putting words in my text messages!


I am saying go LOOK at the images! Your own questions could be answered by YOU if you only look...they aren't porn! Unless you consider all those bearskin photos of the past porn! It's childhood innocence captured by Mom.
07/27/2004 08:51:45 PM · #93
Originally posted by JEM:

Anna [OneSweetSin] is absolutely correct -- it is all about MONEY MONEY MONEY! There are thousands of definitions of "ART", but only one of profit.
See my post above.

Re: ART, take a look at Ms. Schneider's photograph "Vicktor's Placenta." One is reminded of a two-year old's fascination with its own excrement.


LOL I do have to admit that photo left me wondering...but the colors and textures in it make it interesting no matter what it is..
07/27/2004 09:01:38 PM · #94
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.


What you are missing here is the fact yeah Ms Scheider may make a nice profit off of these photos but when she makes money who is benefiting from the proceeds she gains? Her DAUGHTER....Mom sales a piece of art...that means there is money for something in the house there wasn't for before...or maybe a college fund is being contributed too from it...but the truth of the matter is the child's life become richer from these photos being sold so the explotation factor demenished greatly.
07/27/2004 09:12:30 PM · #95
Originally posted by louddog:


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?


This is not a question someone else should answer for you. You, as a parent, should make that decision on your own.
07/27/2004 09:14:25 PM · #96
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

I am saying go LOOK at the images! Your own questions could be answered by YOU if you only look...they aren't porn! Unless you consider all those bearskin photos of the past porn! It's childhood innocence captured by Mom.


Okay... How thick is your skull? I BELIEVE YOU!!!! These images are not porn. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE PORN AND NEVER ARGUED THAT THEY WERE PORN! DO you understand english or should I have it translated to another language? I don't need to see it. I'll just trust your opinion. It's not porn, I believe you.

07/27/2004 09:16:27 PM · #97
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by louddog:


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?


This is not a question someone else should answer for you. You, as a parent, should make that decision on your own.


So what my kid thought wouldn't matter? Can PeeWee Herman and Peter Townsend make those same decsions?
07/27/2004 09:20:51 PM · #98
Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

I am saying go LOOK at the images! Your own questions could be answered by YOU if you only look...they aren't porn! Unless you consider all those bearskin photos of the past porn! It's childhood innocence captured by Mom.


Okay... How thick is your skull? I BELIEVE YOU!!!! These images are not porn. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE PORN AND NEVER ARGUED THAT THEY WERE PORN! DO you understand english or should I have it translated to another language? I don't need to see it. I'll just trust your opinion. It's not porn, I believe you.


How thick is my skull??? Well you were asking a question without looking you needed to look at the photos before asking the following question...and just to refresh your memory....

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by zeuszen:


I am not bent on disagreement, Harvey. Like you, I support laws against child pornography and probably for reasons similar to yours. The image in question, however, does not, to me, have anything to do with pornography, not even remotely.


Exactly.


And I'd probably agree with both of you if I saw the image, but who determines if it's child porn or not? What's the definition?


I'm telling don't ask the question til you have looked at the photos, read the articles on the whole matter and then if after becoming educated on the matter you still can't decide...well then you have the right to ask who determines what is child porn or not...
07/27/2004 09:22:52 PM · #99
JMSetzler is perfectly correct that this decision is contingent upon the judgement of a parent.

Until you are a parent you may have opinions about this subject but they are only opinions. As a parent you will be called upon for a reasoned judgement.

I believe Ms. Schneider is driven by the fancy that using an old 4x5 camera makes her an ARTIST and whatever appears before her lens is artistic.
07/27/2004 09:26:11 PM · #100
frankb0859 said

âI saw the exhibit thanks to Kavey, and i just have one thing to say... you're sick, Gracious, as sick are the persons who called the police to close that gallery. I don't see anything pornographic on those photos and only dirty minds would.â
Response: Frank, are you saying you think Iâm sick for bringing the debate to the table? Or do you think Iâm sick because I recognize that there are people who abuse children sexually, and get turned on by their naked bodies? Or maybe you find offense with freedom of speech when it doesnât agree with your point of view. Certainly you have the right to your opinion.

I strongly agree with Kaveyâs level-headed assessment. â Absolutely... I don't see anything pornographic in the images nor anything wrong with allowing kids to enjoy nudity innocently. But I do agree that these images would be better left in a family album than shown as art - partly because I think they are lame and partly because, much as I wish it weren't so, there are deviants out there and whilst it SHOULD be ok to share innocence without consequence that doesn't always make it so.â

Then digistoune bravely elaborated ââ¦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.â

When I was much younger, about 18 years old, I posed for a nude painting. Iâd probably do it again. BUT the BIG difference here is that my nudity was approved. I AGREED to it. Iâm not offended by nudity. The human body is beautiful. How many of us would think itâs appropriate to have a picture of YOUR SELF exhibited without your consent?

GoldBerry very well put. âONce you put your work on display then it's open to interpretation... choosing to display your child this way puts them at risk of sexual predators. We owe it to our children to protect them.â

Siggi, When you say âNude photos do not harm our children as much as violence.â Are you saying that one is the lesser of two evils? If one doesnât harm as much as the other does it make the lesser one ok?

frumoaznicul Wow! This disgusts you??? To me itâs just adult conversation about a controversial art form. Any art displayed to the public is open to critique, opinions, and more. Whatâs the deal? You donât want to even discuss it? Fine! You donât have toâ¦lol If it bends you so out of shape, maybe you donât need to read this, or similar threads. Whew! Go check your blood pressureâ¦lol

âI know that, but we are suposed to be evolved a bit since then. When to me it looks like quite the oposite.â Well I guess this shoots a hole in the theory of evolution thenâ¦;)

Btw, did anyone here call the image porn? A news article was quoted. PERIOD! This is the kind of debate that seems appropriate for a photography community.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 07:31:54 AM

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: 07/18/2025 07:31:54 AM EDT.