The latest moral outrage.

[Malacasta]

I don't imagine that this story is getting a lot of traction out of Australia but it's all over the news here.
A respected photographer whose work is exhibited in the national gallery, amongst others, has had photographs confiscated because they are of nude 12-13 year olds. Police are considering what charges to lay.

There are a gazillion links I could send you to here, the one I'm finding most interesting is from the blog 'lavartus prodeo' - which is a nominally left of center blog with several marginally notable contributers.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/22/this-is-not-art/

On a related note is this story published today about potentially banning naked babies from nappy ad, for example.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...005941,00.html

I'd like to add my personal opinion here but have been called away from the computer and feel it's something I can't express quickly or glibly, so I'll try and get back later.

[Riek]

heh, I was just about to post exactly the same thing Mal.

I'll add a link from the Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...183189564.html

It's got people talking, that's for sure. I work in IT Security, and the one sacrosanct thing we absolutely do not touch or investigate, is kiddie porn. As soon as we see a hint of this, it gets handed over to the law. It has certainly divided even the tech nerds though.

Thoughts?

[Gromgor]

My grandmother was 13 and my grandfather was 18 when they were married. This belief that teenagers are some sort of thing that is so easily corrupted and are pure and innocent is a product of the 20th century. For 10,000 years prior 13, 14, 15 was a likely age for marriage and indeed in some cultures it still is. The indecency exists in the teachings and standards of the culture, not the design of the human form.

I'm not saying that whether the pictures, as art, are morally right or wrong. Art has never been bound by morality. It can't be. When you have people masturbating to 2 Girls 1 Cup and having sex with peoples cars (yes. I heard about that on the radio Thursday) then you remove any method or standard for deciding what the seperation between art and pornography could be. Indeed ANYTHING could become pornographic.

I write this with the understanding that since my words aren't 100% "Protect the children from everything!" that someone will try to pick it apart and label me a sicko. If so, you'll find I probably won't defend my thoughts too strongly. It's entirely too difficult for a post such as this to be taken in the context intended. That as art is meant to be a representation of life and art is meant to create an emotional response, then a picture of a young nude girl stepping from the darkness and becoming awkwardly aware of herself (As I have heard the picture depicts. I've not actually seen it) is quite possibly the very definition of art and the basis for our own sexual questioning....a questioning that does indeed lead to our sexual associations of the image.

Perhaps the "art" involved is that the viewer sees it as sexual...and THAT is the representation of life it truly shows.


Edit:

I'd also like to add that I believe any such attempt at a legislative body to dictate what the differences between art and pornography truly are can only create loopholes that the side it's targetted at diminishing will find themselves made capable and protected.

[Riek]

The picture in question is seen here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...183189567.html

[kestra]

"Won't someone please think of the children!!"

[Verm]

Just gonna pop in to say one thing:

It has to be considered that while the belief that teenagers aren't sexual beings is largely a byproduct of the 20th century, that also affects teenagers to the point that by and large, they're not fully prepared to be sexual beings.

Anyone who decides to take pictures of naked 13-year-olds could see this kind of outrage coming from miles away. In fact, I'd have a hard time believing it wasn't all planned exactly so.

[leira]

Are we really at the point where all nudity is considered pornography? The picture in question doesn't seem particularly sexual to me.

[Theairoh]

I don't really see this as being a sign that all nudity is being considered pornography. I think the world is quite used to nudity, few people lament about what's in national geographic anymore. Doctors constantly see people, young and old alike nude, and sometimes even they need to see similar images. But that is a professional stand point of looking at it, that most people understand. Where as art is by it's very nature, is prone to many interpretations and is also largely recreational.

Although the image isn't very sexual, I admit, the point is whether or not this child is being taken advantage of. As a person who was thirteen once, I understand that you really have NO grasp of your own sexuality at that point in your life, and every adult needs to understand that before they start taking snapshots of you. I am curious though if anyone bothered to ask the girl.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Theairoh
I am curious though if anyone bothered to ask the girl.

from Larvatus Prodeo:
Henson’s exhibition includes photographs of 12 and 13 year old unclothed models, taken with their and their parents’ consent.

[Pae]

I definitely think it's a grey area. Though I kind of feel the need to err on the side of caution with this and say it shouldn't be made.

While I would be more than willing to appreciate the artistic intent of such a piece, when it comes to photographing children naked there is so much that COULD go wrong that is it seriously worth the risk?