yes, and no one would have ever heard of him if he photographed trees.
Final verdict=
Your verdict maybe, I think the jury's still out.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Art or porn?
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Your verdict maybe, I think the jury's still out.
i'm sorry, i meant if it is art. photography in general. although appealing is it really art? especially with digital cmaeras.
Whoa boy! put the glass down,...Taxi!
I can think of much better more effective ways to portray a child's metamorphosis than photoing a nude child.He's taken a taboo subject and tried to explore it in a sympathetic light.
The metamorphosis of a girl child into a young woman is a very highly emotionally charged topic.
And actually, how overdone is that? How many "artists" have photoed nude children in the guise of it "portraying metamorphosis". If one person would have photoed naked youth and said it was representing the pains of metamorphosis, I may very well give it credit. But if a bunch of people started submersing various objects in their urine and photographing it would we not think they were pathetic for ripping off Andres Serrano?
I wouldn't really call it original anymore seeing as how many people have done it. It again goes back to my experience at the book store, and how many photography books had pictures of naked underage girls in them. Just a little overdone? :shrug: Just reinforces my theory that a large majority of the people who want to photo them are probably sexually attracted to them and have rejoiced because they found a way to be able to photograph them. Just like the people who buy the damn books. I've known a lot of people who are fabulous artists. Never seen a book in their possession that had pics of nude underage girls.
So what is art? Art is many things, but one of the things it is, is inherently unique. Piss Christ is art, because its new, its unique, its different.
What art is not, is something that has been done hundreds of times over.
If I took Poe's "The Raven" and a thesaurus and changed some of the wording, would you consider it unique? Or would you consider me a lying lowlife plagiarist?
I can think of much better more effective ways to portray a child's metamorphosis than photoing a nude child.
I don't think any of these ways would be anywhere near as confronting and therefore not as effective.
Either way, it should remain a legitimate form of expression and should not be repressed as you suggest.
I would argue that the young models are not being exploited and the risk of inciting sexual abuse of young girls in this instance is nil ( anybody who has a propensity to commit these offences is already well beyond or below as the case may be, an exhibition of artistic black and white photographs).
I appreciate your abhorrence of child porn, I just disagree with where you draw the line.
Nearly all art has been done before, particularly in photography. Please! Photoing?..Photographing!
FFS.
this story has been resparked by this:
warning does containe a blacked out photo of a naked 6 year old
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=592655
warning does containe a blacked out photo of a naked 6 year old
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=592655
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Do we need a workable definition of pornography? Didn't the govenment have a rather liberal one, that would make reasonable allowance for "free speech?" To be considered "obscene," the item in question must meet all 3 standards:
1. Depicted as to excite prurient (sexual) interests.
2. Has no serious literary merit.
3. Violates community standards.
Now how might that be interpreted?
Speedos may then be deemed "okay" in one community, but not adequate for another, because of variance in community standards.
Medical texts depicting the reproductive organs, even in a state of arousal or of copulation, likely would pass the test as not "obscene," as they usually would have apparent literary merit. Some children's book I saw in a store somewhere, some book on the human body or some illustrated dictionary, that showed a drawing of the fully erect penis within the vagina, depicting natural reproductive sex, passes, because of literary merit and appropriate context. And because it's not promoting promiscuity nor other sinful behavior, but merely describing how humans reproduce.
TV baby diaper commercials showing naked baby butts, pass, because they don't violate even standard #1. Such shots don't appear to be "sexual," and they are obviously merely to sell diapers. And with the liberal lax standards of today, they likely wouldn't violate community standards either? And the merit is apparent. And it does appear friendly towards babies and families.
How about an example of an item that likely wouldn't pass the test. How about "the articles" that people supposely may claim to buy Playboy magazine for? Does that really fool anybody. For what purpose do the articles and photos go together. Simply covering it in a brown wrapper or disguising it with "articles," doesn't remove the apparent "obscenity" of "dirty" magazines.
How about the nudity of some very pregnant mother in a recent Anne Geddes baby photography book? Showing a nude bulging pregnant belly, the pubic hair below from a side view, and a nude daughter standing against her belly, apparently listening to the baby sounds inside? That's not "obscene" as it has serious art and literary merit. Plus, it appears to promote the natural unhindered flow of human life that I advocate. Embracing and not restraining the natural flow of babies out of mothers' wombs.
The "Virgin Killer" album cover depicted on Page 1 of this thread, would be an obvious "porn" or "obscenity" violation, except of course, I don't see it violating any "free speech" forum "community standards" in its inclusion as an example in this thread, as the discussion title of "Art or porn?" already warns of what might be in the discussion. As I don't see any serious literary merit and it is obviously of a sexual pruient nature. Too much emphasis upon the genitals, even if "technically" covered. That's something I don't even like about words or brand names, in certain areas of speedos. They call "attention" to certain areas, which I consider inappropriate, which the speedo might have been acceptable otherwise, on a "community standards" accepted place, such as the swimming pool, or beach.
1. Depicted as to excite prurient (sexual) interests.
2. Has no serious literary merit.
3. Violates community standards.
Now how might that be interpreted?
Speedos may then be deemed "okay" in one community, but not adequate for another, because of variance in community standards.
Medical texts depicting the reproductive organs, even in a state of arousal or of copulation, likely would pass the test as not "obscene," as they usually would have apparent literary merit. Some children's book I saw in a store somewhere, some book on the human body or some illustrated dictionary, that showed a drawing of the fully erect penis within the vagina, depicting natural reproductive sex, passes, because of literary merit and appropriate context. And because it's not promoting promiscuity nor other sinful behavior, but merely describing how humans reproduce.
TV baby diaper commercials showing naked baby butts, pass, because they don't violate even standard #1. Such shots don't appear to be "sexual," and they are obviously merely to sell diapers. And with the liberal lax standards of today, they likely wouldn't violate community standards either? And the merit is apparent. And it does appear friendly towards babies and families.
How about an example of an item that likely wouldn't pass the test. How about "the articles" that people supposely may claim to buy Playboy magazine for? Does that really fool anybody. For what purpose do the articles and photos go together. Simply covering it in a brown wrapper or disguising it with "articles," doesn't remove the apparent "obscenity" of "dirty" magazines.
How about the nudity of some very pregnant mother in a recent Anne Geddes baby photography book? Showing a nude bulging pregnant belly, the pubic hair below from a side view, and a nude daughter standing against her belly, apparently listening to the baby sounds inside? That's not "obscene" as it has serious art and literary merit. Plus, it appears to promote the natural unhindered flow of human life that I advocate. Embracing and not restraining the natural flow of babies out of mothers' wombs.
The "Virgin Killer" album cover depicted on Page 1 of this thread, would be an obvious "porn" or "obscenity" violation, except of course, I don't see it violating any "free speech" forum "community standards" in its inclusion as an example in this thread, as the discussion title of "Art or porn?" already warns of what might be in the discussion. As I don't see any serious literary merit and it is obviously of a sexual pruient nature. Too much emphasis upon the genitals, even if "technically" covered. That's something I don't even like about words or brand names, in certain areas of speedos. They call "attention" to certain areas, which I consider inappropriate, which the speedo might have been acceptable otherwise, on a "community standards" accepted place, such as the swimming pool, or beach.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Even natural human reproduction or bulging pregnant bellies, are not "obscene."
No, that's not "obscene," as it has obvious literary merit. Provided they have the proper consent of those people appearing in it.
Parents can take their pictures, with the added advantage, that within family, parents generally get to define the "community standards." Thus, children seeing parents have sex, isn't "obscene" if explainable due to the home (or camping tent or motel room) being too small to afford reasonable privacy, or a child "walking in" on the parents, as the parents get to pretty much set the standard for the family, within some reason.
Similarly, PBS programs I have seen (NOVA "The Miracle of Life" and Nature "The Nature of Sex"), showing a human baby head crowning coming out of the vagina, isn't "obscene" at all, because it has serious literary merit, and affirms the great value and sacredness or specialness of each and every human life. It shows a completely natural process, the natural growth of the human race, which can be biology, nature, medical baby delivery, about human reproduction (biology), or even human sociology.
there used to be a tv programme on that showed girls and boys in certain stages of development, through, birth, to pubiity, and childborth when they got older, and we saw everything, should that also be banned because they showed children naked?
should mums and dads not be allowed to take photots of new born babies has soon as they are born because some PC henry will complain to the hospital?
No, that's not "obscene," as it has obvious literary merit. Provided they have the proper consent of those people appearing in it.
Parents can take their pictures, with the added advantage, that within family, parents generally get to define the "community standards." Thus, children seeing parents have sex, isn't "obscene" if explainable due to the home (or camping tent or motel room) being too small to afford reasonable privacy, or a child "walking in" on the parents, as the parents get to pretty much set the standard for the family, within some reason.
Similarly, PBS programs I have seen (NOVA "The Miracle of Life" and Nature "The Nature of Sex"), showing a human baby head crowning coming out of the vagina, isn't "obscene" at all, because it has serious literary merit, and affirms the great value and sacredness or specialness of each and every human life. It shows a completely natural process, the natural growth of the human race, which can be biology, nature, medical baby delivery, about human reproduction (biology), or even human sociology.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Sorry, drawings and photos sometimes don't rank the same way.
Sometimes drawings slip by, easier than photographs. Especially if from some long ago artist, presumably out of the range of prosecution. Then maybe it's "history" more so than "porn?" Not so sure I buy that argument, to defend some artist that I don't even like, but I could see somebody making it. I accept the argument, to defend certain "classic" cartoons, that might be branded potentially somewhat "racist," in today's "politically correct" charged social climate. Sometimes the cartoons pass by, because they are "old" and "historical," where if they were newly made, they might be rejected. Why do you think that school textbooks tend to have drawings rather than photos, of the reproductive organs? Obviously for that literary context, a normal drawing is adequate to convey the "educational" content.
The apparent healthy desire to protect our children, does tend to brand certain kinds of photos, as potentially "inappropriate." Note that a drawing of a boy and a girl, along with their genitals, in the reproductive system chapter of some biology or health textbook, doesn't necessary depict any specific person, as a photo obviously would. So perhaps then nobody is being "violated" then?
Skaught:
Let me ask you this: Suppose Renoit (or was it Monet's?) famous painting of the bathing teenage girls (in the nude) were to be reproduced in photographic medium by an artist. Would you consider that "pedophilic"?
Whereas I agree this is lousy art, I am not seeing the sexual content due to the nudity alone. If she was rubbing her cunt and moaning, that would be one thing. That would be fucking obscene and pornographic. She is doing nothing of that sort of sordid type.
Also, let us make one distinguishing factor: These girls seem to be adolescents. As such, this is ephebophilia not pedophilia. The distinction is strong, as pedophilia is (rightfully) considered a very vicious sexual-pathological thing, whereas ephebophilia is hardly considered as such.
Sometimes drawings slip by, easier than photographs. Especially if from some long ago artist, presumably out of the range of prosecution. Then maybe it's "history" more so than "porn?" Not so sure I buy that argument, to defend some artist that I don't even like, but I could see somebody making it. I accept the argument, to defend certain "classic" cartoons, that might be branded potentially somewhat "racist," in today's "politically correct" charged social climate. Sometimes the cartoons pass by, because they are "old" and "historical," where if they were newly made, they might be rejected. Why do you think that school textbooks tend to have drawings rather than photos, of the reproductive organs? Obviously for that literary context, a normal drawing is adequate to convey the "educational" content.
The apparent healthy desire to protect our children, does tend to brand certain kinds of photos, as potentially "inappropriate." Note that a drawing of a boy and a girl, along with their genitals, in the reproductive system chapter of some biology or health textbook, doesn't necessary depict any specific person, as a photo obviously would. So perhaps then nobody is being "violated" then?
there was a discussion on ABC local radio between former sentor stock despoa and her husband (whos name i cant rember) who was an advisor to various liberal goverments (the right side of politics for those not australian). They were both of the opinion that all of this is just some sort of moral panic which i do have to agree with. The sad thing is that the PM and oposition leader would be taking to big a risk in saying that they dont think this is justifide though Minster turnbull did just that over the bill henson thing
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Parents would seem to have more freedom in photo-taking, than publishers.
Now I don't know to which link you are referring.
Yes, if the mother took the photo, then it may come under, that the family (or mother) may get to define the "community standards." I hardly see it as the place, of picture developers, to judge whether the pictures are appropriate (unless clearly illegal or sadistic activity is recorded in the photo, as going on), although a magazine or newspaper would obviously have to make that determination, before publishing a photo.
But if the "offending" portions of the photo are blacked out, that may not help it pass, because then any potential "literary" or "artistic merit" may be lost as well? At least in music CDs, I neither like profanity, nor censorship. I don't want either the explicit nor the "clean" version. If I see but 1 "Parental Advisory," I generally boycott the entire group as Rap-is-crap or similar "trash" "music." There's too much good music out there, to have to put up with any of that junk. However, in movies and video games, ratings are far more ambiguous in my view, as they get those R or Mature ratings, for all sorts of reasons. In the PS2 game "Half-Life," I couldn't take out the marines that strangely attack me anytime they see me, as they had 3 soldiers, each with a machine gun, against my 1 lonely machine gun. So I finally managed to drop a remote-control detonated mine, outside the door before it closed. When the door came back open after launching the rocket, I hit the detonate button. An arm came flying through the door. I see where that "Mature" rating came from. Maybe a tad too "realistic?" When somebody from Church asked my advice whether he should let his son play/buy Half-Life, I said sure, it's seems okay enough. Even shooting at colored blips on the screen of the old 1980s "Space Invaders," could be construed as "violent?" As could "eating" ghosts in Pac-Man?
umm the link i poste above was a photo taken by the girls mother
PB and i both have pics that could be concidered to be as bad or worse of ourselves
Now I don't know to which link you are referring.
Yes, if the mother took the photo, then it may come under, that the family (or mother) may get to define the "community standards." I hardly see it as the place, of picture developers, to judge whether the pictures are appropriate (unless clearly illegal or sadistic activity is recorded in the photo, as going on), although a magazine or newspaper would obviously have to make that determination, before publishing a photo.
But if the "offending" portions of the photo are blacked out, that may not help it pass, because then any potential "literary" or "artistic merit" may be lost as well? At least in music CDs, I neither like profanity, nor censorship. I don't want either the explicit nor the "clean" version. If I see but 1 "Parental Advisory," I generally boycott the entire group as Rap-is-crap or similar "trash" "music." There's too much good music out there, to have to put up with any of that junk. However, in movies and video games, ratings are far more ambiguous in my view, as they get those R or Mature ratings, for all sorts of reasons. In the PS2 game "Half-Life," I couldn't take out the marines that strangely attack me anytime they see me, as they had 3 soldiers, each with a machine gun, against my 1 lonely machine gun. So I finally managed to drop a remote-control detonated mine, outside the door before it closed. When the door came back open after launching the rocket, I hit the detonate button. An arm came flying through the door. I see where that "Mature" rating came from. Maybe a tad too "realistic?" When somebody from Church asked my advice whether he should let his son play/buy Half-Life, I said sure, it's seems okay enough. Even shooting at colored blips on the screen of the old 1980s "Space Invaders," could be construed as "violent?" As could "eating" ghosts in Pac-Man?
ok hang on
Firstly what i posted wasnt the origional magazine, i dont subscribe to it so i cant scan it in to put the origional in. What i posted was an artical ON the magazine. If you look even at the link it CLEARLY says nineMSN which is a "news" link (to be honest i dont concider ANY of the comertial stations to be news but anyway) not art monthly which is where the piture was printed
Firstly what i posted wasnt the origional magazine, i dont subscribe to it so i cant scan it in to put the origional in. What i posted was an artical ON the magazine. If you look even at the link it CLEARLY says nineMSN which is a "news" link (to be honest i dont concider ANY of the comertial stations to be news but anyway) not art monthly which is where the piture was printed
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Some homes tend to be sort of "clothing optional."
That would be inappropriate, were he outside, naked, mowing his grass. But inside the house, it would seem that parents generally get to set the "community standards."
I would suggest though, wearing at least some boxer underwear. Well except in the shower or something. And to what level the bathroom is commonly "shared," would seem pretty much up the parents, as well.
My father walks naked in the house...its not sexual in any way.
That would be inappropriate, were he outside, naked, mowing his grass. But inside the house, it would seem that parents generally get to set the "community standards."
I would suggest though, wearing at least some boxer underwear. Well except in the shower or something. And to what level the bathroom is commonly "shared," would seem pretty much up the parents, as well.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
When I was a child, I used to think that the naked statue (or a reproduction in some restaurant?) of King David? was obscene, but now I think it isn't. Merely the "art" of the human body.
Apparently, statues aren't always required to wear fig leaves or clothes.
Nor do I think Britney Spears statue of a mother giving birth to a baby, is obscene either.
Apparently, statues aren't always required to wear fig leaves or clothes.
Nor do I think Britney Spears statue of a mother giving birth to a baby, is obscene either.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
A naturally-growing world of 6.7 billion people, probably needs a wee bit of privacy?
Because God gave Adam & Eve, not fig leaves, but actual clothes of animal skins or furs. Because they had sinned, and their eyes were "opened" to such things as their nakedness. (and also thus lustful thoughts?)
But "community standards" seems to say that a skimpy bikini or speedo is adequate at the public swimming pool or the beach, and says to cover the female breasts, although breastfeeding should be a rather obvious "exception" to that.
You generally don't have to wear clothes, within your own home, because your home or castle generally is your own "community."
And if I am a "prude," what of it? I'm probably less prudish than a lot of conservatives, to say that if a child walks in on the parents having sex, they probably aren't obligated to stop and cover up, nor are parents prohibited from having sex in a cramped camping tent or RV or motel room with their children in the room. Presumably, they may want to wait at least, until the lights are out, and they think the children may be asleep? I even would count the natural sounds of the couple having sex in the tent in the next camping site, as among the "sounds of nature" to be accepted or conveniently overlooked. I would tell the children perhaps, "Sounds like the neighbors are making love. Just ignore it."
i would suggest your a prude, why cant we walk around naked? what is so wrong with the human body it needs to be covered up?
have you ever actually sat down and thought about it?
Because God gave Adam & Eve, not fig leaves, but actual clothes of animal skins or furs. Because they had sinned, and their eyes were "opened" to such things as their nakedness. (and also thus lustful thoughts?)
But "community standards" seems to say that a skimpy bikini or speedo is adequate at the public swimming pool or the beach, and says to cover the female breasts, although breastfeeding should be a rather obvious "exception" to that.
You generally don't have to wear clothes, within your own home, because your home or castle generally is your own "community."
And if I am a "prude," what of it? I'm probably less prudish than a lot of conservatives, to say that if a child walks in on the parents having sex, they probably aren't obligated to stop and cover up, nor are parents prohibited from having sex in a cramped camping tent or RV or motel room with their children in the room. Presumably, they may want to wait at least, until the lights are out, and they think the children may be asleep? I even would count the natural sounds of the couple having sex in the tent in the next camping site, as among the "sounds of nature" to be accepted or conveniently overlooked. I would tell the children perhaps, "Sounds like the neighbors are making love. Just ignore it."