| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2004 09:28:19 PM · #101 |
Okay, I see the confusion.
I said "but who determines if it's child porn or not" after I said it's probably not child porn.
By that I ment, who is the final judge? If I take pictues of your daugher and call them art, but you think I crossed the line and call it child porn, who makes the decision of me going to jail or me hanging it in a gallery? What are the rules?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 09:42:23 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by bledford:
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? |
I didn't have a problem with Bassie's image--I realized what his intentions were. I wasn't suggesting it should be censored. My problem was with the folks who were so quick to berate the offended parties without having any idea of the culture of racism in America, in particular the history of blackface and why this image would strike some as offensive. I was just pleading for some tolerance and understanding. Another difference is that Bassie's photo wasn't really making any kind of transcendent, universal statement. It was basically a 'wow, that's cool' kind of shot.
With the photo in question, it is very clear to anyone who understands children and human nature what the artist's intentions were. The difference in perception lies in the various levels of shame and/or disgust people feel when viewing nudity in children (or anyone for that matter).
I do not advocate censorship in either case. I did not think Bassie was being racist or intentionally hurtful, as I stated many times in the thread you allude to. If this is the impression you got from my comments on that thread, than you read something into them that I didn't intend. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 09:42:57 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, I see the confusion.
I said "but who determines if it's child porn or not" after I said it's probably not child porn.
By that I ment, who is the final judge? If I take pictues of your daugher and call them art, but you think I crossed the line and call it child porn, who makes the decision of me going to jail or me hanging it in a gallery? What are the rules? |
LOL Society basically sets the rules....I am discussing this with someone else outside the forum and outside of DPC and we both are under the impression that either some form of a sexual act has to be being done or the private parts of the child need to be visiable before a real problem comes into play.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 09:44:13 PM · #104 |
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 think it's healthy to exercise our own critical faculties before someone else does it for us.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 09:46:30 PM · #105 |
I have been fairly active tonight on this thread because I can come in and look at it in two different angles one as the photographer and one as the model...
Those of you who have been around for a while know I was the subject to a series of paintings by John Monteith. When the show was about to take place I felt so EXPLOITED! He was getting all this attention, his name was all through the papers about the show, and me I felt so leftout...was actually just jealousy cause of the attention he was getting.
Now here it is a year later...I hear comments made about the paintings, and now he is the one feeling left out...when someone sees these paintings they see me, they see a series of 9 paintings of me done during a very turbulant year in my life...but his name is only an afterthought when they view the paintings.
Right now those of you not seeing the artistic moment in these photos are the ones looking at it as the model (a child in this case) being exploited...down the road when the photographers name is out of the press the real question will be who did those photos of that little girl that were so contraversial? You will remember the cute little girls face or the sadness shown by a teardrop on her cheek over a broken pair of plastic toy handcuffs, you wont remember the porn issues...
He always told me that real art is derived from capturing the moments of real life....if that is the case...i would say she is quite an artist.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 21:48:07.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:01:03 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by filzy1095:
A five year old is going to care if she was photographed naked. |
It depends on the five year old. I certainly can't presume to know more about this little girl than her own mother.
I didn't care then, I don't care now.
I was three in this photo but I was still playing in wading pools in my panties when I was five and six. These photos are posted on my website for all the world to see. Incidently, the web site is about my struggles with weight gain, body dismorphia, and eventual weight loss surgery (I've lost a little over 100 lbs). I mention this because it seems to tie in with shame and misconceptions.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:02:52 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by louddog:
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? |
I think I have lost your train of thought and questions completely. If you want to let Peewee Herman and Peter Townsend make those decisions for you, then so be it :)
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:09:35 PM · #108 |
Real art is derived from capturing the moments of real life. This is rule #6 from the clay tablet entitled "How to get young girls to remove their clothing for the ARTISTE."
Do artistic older women use this line on impressionable young men? |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:14:35 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by JEM:
Real art is derived from capturing the moments of real life. This is rule #6 from the clay tablet entitled "How to get young girls to remove their clothing for the ARTISTE."
Do artistic older women use this line on impressionable young men? |
LOL I don't know but if someone finds out let me know if that line works on older men.
actually if you start looking art portrays real life. There is a guy out there being considered an artist who takes a photo of a photo of a photo with his polaroid camera...his photos are nothing more than snapshots of real everyday life. No one is taking clothes off for his photos but he is an artist.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:25:05 PM · #110 |
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. |
So now the miracle that protects and helps to nourish the infant in the womb is likened to excrement? Good lord. My husband photographed the placenta after my third child was born. She is 14 1/2 and he loves that shot to this day.
One could say she is a bit carried away with the whole motherhood thing but one can hardly say she is exploiting her child. It is likely those photos are up for exhibit only, not for sale. Is she also exploiting her womb by showing a photo of the placenta. When does it end? |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:38:35 PM · #111 |
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. |
The first thing I said in my first post in this thread was that I don't think the image is pornographic. My complaint is aimed toward those who would allow the artist to be the sole judge of what goes too far when the subject is the artist's own child. The conflict between the parent's obligation to protect the child from exploitation and the artist's desire for free and unfettered expression needs to resolved by society and not by the artist/parent. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:47:50 PM · #112 |
I do not think these images are in any way obscene. Unfortuantely, the moral climate in the U.S. is heavily influenced by the great number of deviates and perverts that the courts have turned loose on the trusting public.
There are so many deviate criminals on the streets in U.S. cities that no child is safe unaccompanied. Blame the liberal judges that turned these freaks loose! |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:49:17 PM · #113 |
As my son says: "Whatever floats yer boat."
Perhaps the folks in the UK will tell us if Ms. Schneider is selling her photographs or simply indulging her artistic self.
On the ranch, as a teenager, I helped birth any number of animals. Unfortunately my lack of foresight prevented me from whipping out my little camera. Opportunities lost.
On a serious note -- whatever the photographic subject...if it pleases ones family it is worthwhile. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:10:32 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
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. |
The first thing I said in my first post in this thread was that I don't think the image is pornographic. My complaint is aimed toward those who would allow the artist to be the sole judge of what goes too far when the subject is the artist's own child. The conflict between the parent's obligation to protect the child from exploitation and the artist's desire for free and unfettered expression needs to resolved by society and not by the artist/parent. |
In the example at hand, I see neither exploitation nor a conflict. What I do see is an unassuming photograph of a child taken by its mother. Free, unfettered expression?- Yes. Exploitation?- No.
Does Ms. Schneider meet her obligation to protect her child against potential exploitation?- I can't say. I only have a handful of photos.
The manner of the photographs suggest an innocence, not perversity. I also doubt that the innocence is contrived. I believe it's sincere.
Sincerity, IMO, provides a degree of protection against perversity.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:43:56 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by coolhar:
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. |
The first thing I said in my first post in this thread was that I don't think the image is pornographic. My complaint is aimed toward those who would allow the artist to be the sole judge of what goes too far when the subject is the artist's own child. The conflict between the parent's obligation to protect the child from exploitation and the artist's desire for free and unfettered expression needs to resolved by society and not by the artist/parent. |
In the example at hand, I see neither exploitation nor a conflict. What I do see is an unassuming photograph of a child taken by its mother. Free, unfettered expression?- Yes. Exploitation?- No.
Does Ms. Schneider meet her obligation to protect her child against potential exploitation?- I can't say. I only have a handful of photos.
The manner of the photographs suggest an innocence, not perversity. I also doubt that the innocence is contrived. I believe it's sincere.
Sincerity, IMO, provides a degree of protection against perversity. |
I have said that there is a potential for exploitation and that self regulation is not an adequate protection. You said we should all strive for self regulation. I don't see how striving for self regulation would protect the child from potential exploitation. Is there some inherent value to self regulation, for it's own sake, that I have overlooked?
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 23:44:59. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:52:02 PM · #116 |
.
Message edited by author 2004-07-28 00:28:51.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 12:47:26 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by coolhar:
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. |
The first thing I said in my first post in this thread was that I don't think the image is pornographic. My complaint is aimed toward those who would allow the artist to be the sole judge of what goes too far when the subject is the artist's own child. The conflict between the parent's obligation to protect the child from exploitation and the artist's desire for free and unfettered expression needs to resolved by society and not by the artist/parent. |
In the example at hand, I see neither exploitation nor a conflict. What I do see is an unassuming photograph of a child taken by its mother. Free, unfettered expression?- Yes. Exploitation?- No.
Does Ms. Schneider meet her obligation to protect her child against potential exploitation?- I can't say. I only have a handful of photos.
The manner of the photographs suggest an innocence, not perversity. I also doubt that the innocence is contrived. I believe it's sincere.
Sincerity, IMO, provides a degree of protection against perversity. |
I have said that there is a potential for exploitation and that self regulation is not an adequate protection. You said we should all strive for self regulation. I don't see how striving for self regulation would protect the child from potential exploitation. Is there some inherent value to self regulation, for it's own sake, that I have overlooked? |
There is always a potential for exploitation. I doubt we can achieve adequate protection by prohibition via a regulatory body administered by a bureaucrat with an interest in his/her job security and personal benefits.
Traditionally, more wholesome societies than ours have had widely shared values derived from three possible sources: nature, religion and art. Since art, itself, has come to us via religion, it may not be far to fetch a socially functional role. When the sources are intact enough to provide, we have, what I'd call a functional society.
When we destroy nature, when our gods are represented by a Wall Street architecture and we regulate art, where do we go to for measure and value?
Art stimulates awareness, art poses questions you and I may have forgotten or overlooked. Art is there to remind the management that we are human.
How can we confront perversity and corruption, if we lay art in fetters?
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 03:02:12 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Is there some inherent value to self regulation, for it's own sake, that I have overlooked? |
In biology it's called homeostasis, and is a requirement for an organism's survival at every level of development from E. coli to H. sapiens, although the latter seems to find it continually necessary to invoke external regulatory mechanisms to prevent rampant mutual self-destruction, notably the only species known to do so. |
|
|
|
07/28/2004 03:09:18 AM · #119 |
I think this thread has gonne too far. We should all agree to disagree. No one is going to convince anyone else that their views on the subject are the right ones and vice versa. As the saying goes...opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one and they all stink.
June
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 03:13:08 AM · #120 |
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it appropriate that your opinion of our opinion be the last word in this thread? It seems to me the people who are participating in it should decide for themselves whether or not it has any further value.
Oh, and why is depicting casual head-bashing any more moral than child porn?
Message edited by author 2004-07-28 03:14:45. |
|
|
|
07/28/2004 03:56:30 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it appropriate that your opinion of our opinion be the last word in this thread? It seems to me the people who are participating in it should decide for themselves whether or not it has any further value.
Oh, and why is depicting casual head-bashing any more moral than child porn? |
surely you're joking...right? a cartoon drawing whacking another cartoon drawing on the head being compared to child pornography???
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 04:06:11 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it appropriate that your opinion of our opinion be the last word in this thread? It seems to me the people who are participating in it should decide for themselves whether or not it has any further value.
Oh, and why is depicting casual head-bashing any more moral than child porn? |
surely you're joking...right? a cartoon drawing whacking another cartoon drawing on the head being compared to child pornography??? |
The principle is the roughly the same, it's only the degree of realism which which it's presented which varies.
I posted an opinion. That's followed with a graphical depiction of someone bashing out someone else's brains with a hammer, presumably because they "weren't using those brains for anything useful anyway."
Why is that funny? What if instead she'd said "people who post continually in these threads should be shot?"
I believe that our (and our kids') constant exposure to "pretend" violence in ever-escalating graphic detail is a leading cause of the increased level of mayhem we witness today, by conditioning us to accept it as a normal part of everyday life. |
|
|
|
07/28/2004 04:18:27 AM · #123 |
just trying to understand here.
cartoon smiley faces inflicting pretend violence on each other (and i'm assuming bugs bunny/road runner cartoons would fit in this category, as well) is the cause of the increasing violence in the world but posting nude photos of your 5, 10 or 15 yr old on the web wouldn't have any effect on pedophiles because it's presented as art?
|
|
|
|
07/28/2004 04:53:13 AM · #124 |
Art and porn are both free..
They also both make a lot of money. The only difference is when it's for sale, porn is cheap and sells millions. Art is expensive but sells a few.
Can't we reach a happy medium and consider porn as "art?" Then everybody wins. |
|
|
|
07/28/2004 04:53:19 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
just trying to understand here.
cartoon smiley faces inflicting pretend violence on each other (and i'm assuming bugs bunny/road runner cartoons would fit in this category, as well) is the cause of the increasing violence in the world but posting nude photos of your 5, 10 or 15 yr old on the web wouldn't have any effect on pedophiles because it's presented as art? |
No, I'm saying that if you're concerned about pictures of naked kids inspiring pedophiles, you should likewise be concerned about our kids (and ourselves) being so constantly exposed to violence, even -- or perhaps especially -- when depicted in a "playful" way, without the consequences attendent to actual violence.
For the poster to be concerned enough over what some pervert thinks of this woman's photo to censor her rights as an artist and citizen, while simultaneously expressing her opinion of those discussing the issue by using the graphic equivalent of saying she'd like to bash our brains out, seemed pretty inconsistent to me from a moral perspective.
I do have some "problems" with Road Runner cartoons, and the Three Stooges too, but more with the graphic gore which so often seems a requirement in many modern entertainment venues from movies to football to the evening news.
I have a lot of concern right now because every story or summary of something my son talks about involves destruction or killing. I realize it's something kids play at, but I've been watching this issue for years, and it is at the point now where it's of concern to me not only societally but personally because of the degree to which it has developed. |
|
