Nude Child Photography OK?

Is nude child photography, purely from an artistic point of view, acceptable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 42.9%

  • No

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
the question is:

is it art or an object?

assuming art requires ability beyond what is considered average.
 
Art is art, as music is music,
if you don't know what is art for you, I can not help.
 
Avatar said:
Art is art, as music is music,
if you don't know what is art for you, I can not help.
Click to expand...

I allready said this:
assuming art requires ability beyond what is considered average.
Click to expand...

Do you see photogrphy as having some artistic qualities or at the same level of a master painter. Music is art, given the criteria established above the musicians would have to know how to play well.
 
Avatar said:
Painting is different than photography as fish are different from birds, but they both are animals. Painting and photography both require skill, training and talent; the tools are different that's all.
I personally know both good painters, musicians and semi-pro photographers.

For example this photo is both nude and art: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/194624980/
So is this, though not nude: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/255761455/
Click to expand...

The problem, for me, is you can get lucky with a photograph but not with a painting...i know a enough about photography and can tell you i can put a camera into the hands of an inexperienced child and get an image that would be quite good. Even if it was one out of a hundred it would not matter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/quizz/255761455/

That is a nice image, maybe a little overprocessed. As far as the 'nude' photo, i never said i have a problem with the human body or its image.
 
Last edited:
If that were true, all art photography galleries would be overwhelmed with works by children, but they are not.
It takes more than a lucky shot in the dark to be an artist.
 
its only recently that its been considered taboo if you don't believe me go look at the album cover for blind faith
 
MZ3Boy84 said:
I repeat, THERE IS NOTHING SEXUAL ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
Click to expand...

The law says, if some one gets sexual pleasure out of a picture that is of a minor, that is against the law even if it looks innocent to you and me.

Think about what happened to Pseudoephridine hydrochloride, they banned it because someone is making drugs out of it. They are banning OTC drug DHEA, because the old people feel better without Viagra (a controlled substance).

Only the law enforcement people and doctors are allowed to have such picture in the name of law.

So, get over it....unless you are in Africa.
 
if the child is old enough to know what he/she is doing then i see no difference in an adult or a child doing it.

i dont actualy care either way because im not offended by much that my eyes see. if a child is forced to pose naked or dressed for a picture it is wrong, simply because you ar forcing a child to do something that is not needed for him to survive in this world,

if a child wants to pose for pictures then i dont see why he/she is not allowed to do so, we as modern humans have so many issues and problems with things that it is not natural or healthy, we are so caught up with morals and ethics that we forget what is natural,

if we went back a few thousand years i doubt anybody would care who was naked, be it a child or an adult, but nowdays people wont let anybody be naked in public, even though it is perfectly natural for us to be naked we are told not to do it, just because some people dont like it,

lots of people have to deal with things they dont like, but when it comes down to bieng natural its not allowed, women are not even allowed to breast feed in ublic in many places either. the modern world is utterly stupid with these morals of right and wrong,

we cant do many things that are natural in public, we cant have sex, we cant be naked, we cant breast feed, we cant hunt, whats next? we wont be able to eat with our mouths open?.

peace.
 
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
so beig naked is ok then, because thats not sexual its just normal,...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess so ...and after you take the "artistic" pictures, you can sell them to all the pedophiles in town, or post them on the "pedophiles-R-Us.com" or something like that, right?

Baron Max
 
Jseus H. Christ on a fucking stick. The psychosis we seem to have about a human body is just amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top