The latest moral outrage.

[Maelgrim]

What really throws me is why the fuck, if the picture is so controversial and potentially CP, it is presented uncensored on a news website?

Fuck, you may as well let him show the exhibit now, you've completely fucked your attempts to prevent the image from being distributed.

Stupid fucking journos.

[Pae]

So if I view that website and the picture gets downloaded into my cache. Would I be charged with child pornography?

What if someone else had pictures of naked children on their computer and claimed them to be art?

Still got me thinking, while you can always argue the exceptions some lines I would say need to be hard and fast, black and white, because once you open it up to grey - lines of acceptability and abuse can become very blurred.

As an aspiring artist myself I am of the opinion that art is NEVER worth that risk in my opinion.

[Malacasta]

SMH, which is a fairfax paper, published the Devine op-ed which whipped up the frenzy. The Age, another fairfax paper, published 3 op-eds in defense of the photographer. The Sunday Age, fairfax again, published the uncensored version of the photo most of the anti-exhibition folks are offended by.

You think they're stupid? I think they created and milked the controversy for every single drop, and joe and joanne public drank it by the bucket load.

[Savaric]

If that's the extent of the art... Give me a break. I would just leave it to the moral climate of the general population.

[Tartun]

I had an art book with a similar classical painting. I mean a dead ringer for the photo that is linked. The painting was of a girl, as she looked into a mirror. She was just coming to the realization that she is no longer a girl, but becoming a woman and an object of sexuality. Her breasts were growing, and her hips widening. If I recall, the book said the painting was in the Louvre. I'd be willing to bet money that this photo is a rip off of that very painting. If the original is a priceless piece of classic art, how are we to not at least give this cheap reproduction status as "eh, I guess it's art"

[Pae]

Originally posted by Tartun
If I recall, the book said the painting was in the Louvre.

I don't recall seeing it there last month.

[Aristotle]

I have to wonder what the benefit is of taking and publishing nude photographs of children under the age of 18. I clicked on the link that had the photo, and while it did not look pornographic at all, it also looked like a pretty worthless excuse for "art." It was a pretty crappy picture, to be honest.

There was certainly a time where 13 was "marrying age", but that time is past. Since that is well known, what is gained from taking and publishing such pictures? Are we made better as people or as a society? It would seem like not everything you CAN do is something you SHOULD do.

[Malacasta]

I have no artistic pretensions or knowledge, and while the largest part of popular art is about making things of beauty or memorializing people and events, surely a significant part of what art is about is also exploring things that aren't said in the mainstream, or presenting a different interpretation of a commonly held perception, or pushing boundaries that thus encourage us to think about things in different ways.

I don't know that art needs have a 'use' as such but if it did, one 'use' could be to provoke a particular emotion such as joy or pride. And if this is the case, then what is the argument against works that provoke anger, revulsion, confusion or rebellion?

I'm not entirely sure about what I think about the photo in question but unlike Ari, I think it has a certain beauty. Perhaps more importantly (for me) it causes me to reflect upon my own youth and the feelings and worries and joy and sadness I had that were associated with leaving childhood behind and becoming a woman. I don't think my reflection is any more relevant to someone on this thread as their non-reflection or dislike is to me. I don't have a horse in this race. Of course, if this work is found to be child pornography (which is the issue surrounding this particular photo) by a court of law, then that raises all sorts of questions about a significant part of the population who don't see this photo as a sexual one.

I think for me, the two main questions this raises that I don't have simple answers to are:

1. How does a 13 year old child give consent to a nude portrait? One response I read which seems pretty interesting, is that a child -could- agree to have their photo taken, but then that photo (or painting etc) would remain in limbo until the child reached majority when they could -then- give consent.

2. At what point do we ban things because -some- people might misuse them? I don't think we should ban children's swimwear catalogs just because some sick people are turned on by them (and really, the amount of skin shown by children in such catalogs isn't that different to the photo in question, also the question of consent must raised here (imagine if swimwear catalogs had to be held in limbo till the models reached 18, it would bring a whole new meaning to the word retro)).

Something that makes me a bit angry here is that the pro-arrest people speak loudly about the child abuse this artist is guilty of, but if the child consented (fwiw) to the photo then surely making her feel ashamed of herself, making her believe she is a victim, and increasing the exposure of the photo from the tiny number who visit galleries (and lets be fair, the vast vast majority of these people will only visit galleries to look at these photographs as works of art, not porn images) to one which probably includes all her school mates and neighbors (and how do we know how teenage boys will react to a photo like this) would do her far more damage to her psyche than the exhibition ever could have (again, assuming she was consenting). The activists carry out extremely important work, and I am sure that most victims of sexual abuse live better lives for their efforts but I think in this particular case no pause appears to have been taken to judge the impact their fury would have on the model.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Malacasta
I don't think we should ban children's swimwear catalogs just because some sick people are turned on by them (and really, the amount of skin shown by children in such catalogs isn't that different to the photo in question

I have to disagree with this most vehemently. The girl's nipples were front and center in the photo, and I do not know of any children's swimwear catalogs where a semi-pubescent girl's nipples are in full and complete display.

I am not calling this pornography, nor am I saying the photographer is evil or even a criminal. But I think the social mores of the day do matter, and that he knew damn well at the time he took the photos that it would be commonly believed by many to be kiddie porn.

Furthermore, considering what an incredibly pervasive and difficult problem it is right now to track down actual kiddie pornographers, I think responsible artists should do their part by not muddying the waters.

Once again, I think people need to take a lot more responsibility for their own actions and engage in some personal restraint. Just because you CAN do a thing does not mean you SHOULD do a thing.

[Sier]

Why are so many artists -obsessed- with crossing this certain line? Can't they take a picture of a puppy? Of a tree? Of a puppy peeing on a tree? There are extremely few boundaries for artists in this day and age, and they really shouldn't be intent on crossing boundaries that just should not be crossed. Also, that 13 year old girl may very well not like the fact that her photograph was taken when she grows up, even if she is indeed ok with it now.