54 replies to this topic

[Henry_]

Many people will remember a few months ago a Sydney Art Exhibition by Bill Henson was closed down becuase it reportdedly contained child porn. He has since been cleared of all charges, but now the art industry is under fire again thanks to Art Australia Monthy Magazine, who had a picture of a naked 6 year old girl on the cover of their magazine.

A photograph of a nude 6-year-old girl on the cover of a high-brow Australian art magazine on Monday sparked an uproar after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called it disgusting, infuriating liberal art critics.

This month's taxpayer-funded Art Monthly Australia magazine placed the photograph of the young dark-haired girl on the cover, sitting and with one nipple showing, to protest censorship of a recent photo exhibition featuring similarly naked children.

"I can't stand this stuff," said Rudd, a staunch Christian whose centre-left Labor government won a sweeping victory over conservatives last year, in part on a vow to reinvigorate Australia's small but influential arts community.

"We're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way," Rudd added, as officials said they would review the magazine's funding.

Magazine editor Maurice O'Riordan said he hoped the July edition of the monthly magazine would restore "dignity to the debate" about artistic depictions of children and anyone else.

The magazine cover followed confiscation by police in May of photographs of a young girl taken by artist Bill Henson and briefly on display in a Sydney art gallery.

The cover photo, which had been on public exhibition in Australia for some time, was taken in 2003 by Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou and depicted her own daughter, Olympia Nelson, now aged 11.

The Australian Childhood Foundation said parents had no ethical right to consent to nude photographs being taken of their children, as it could have a psychological impact in later years.

rest of article here.

So, opinions time! Is it art? Or is it Child Porn?

My opinion is that while it may not be indended to be of a sexual nature, these kinds of images are unnecessary and are just publicity stunts to get media attention.

[Creed 90]

edit : I'm totally redoing this post because I've been thinking about this.

I understand and respect that he was trying to make it look natural or something like that, but I don't think he thought it through too well. Pedophiles ARE getting off on this. Right now. If that's ok with him, that doesn't mean the girl is ok with it, as she was 6 at the time and didn't understand. There's nothing wrong with the human body and showing it, in my opinion. However showing it just to get attention to your art or something to the same purpose, just makes you a bastard who is subjecting whoever is in the picture to the fapping of any half-ass pedophile who can use google images. I get the whole natural thing, but in todays day and age it's just not acceptable to publicize something like that. Porn is naked and suggesting something sexual, this isn't at all, so I'm not calling it porn. Honestly, couldn't he have painted a leaf over the stray nipple? It'd still be natural.

[Garamiah]

Naked = porn.

6 years old = child

6 year old naked = child porn.

I don't care how it's shown (though I haven't actually seen it...) she's 6, and she's naked. is anybody gunna deny that there are pedophiles getting off on that right now?

This.

Its just another artist trying to get attention through being a dickhead. I guess he got it too.

[Henry_]

This.

Its just another artist trying to get attention through being a dickhead. I guess he got it too.

nonono the thing is that the mother is the editor of the magazine and she and her father both had the consent of the daughter.

[Weiman]

Is nude photography automatically porn? No. Photography is a form of art, and the difference between pornography and art is that one is just what porn is for.. helping people get off, while art can have a whole multitude of intentions to do to the viewer. It can make a statement, try to cause emotions or just be amazing to look at. It's a case of the underlying mentality.
Of course a mentality is hard to define, so this kind of stuff is basically a gray area. With both the parent's consent explicitly stating it was for the purpose of art should make it clear there were no pornographic intentions behind it IMO.

[Garamiah]

nonono the thing is that the mother is the editor of the magazine and she and her father both had the consent of the daughter.

Does that change anything though?
And the daughters consent really means nothing, shes 6. Her dad and mum ask her to do something, whats she gonna say?

[Henry_]

Does that change anything though?
And the daughters consent really means nothing, shes 6. Her dad and mum ask her to do something, whats she gonna say?

the photograph was taken when she was 6, she is about 13 now..

she defends the photograph here. (in the video)

[Darkapoc]

Yahoo headline: She's being six not sexy

It can be considered child porn and art.

IMO it's only considered porn if someone gets off on it, in this case it's probably a fact.

I am still undecided i have neutral feelings towards all this.

[Garamiah]

I spose its just how i see it, wrong.
But then hey, one of the most popular album covers of all time

[Ack Attack]

I agree with Weiman, just because it contains nudity doesn't mean its automatically porn.

However, I haven't actually seen the image so I can't judge for myself about whether I see it as art or not.

[In-f3st]

Naked = porn.
6 years old = child
6 year old naked = child porn.

Agreed on that.
As far as the album cover, it is a naked baby, and that is allowed to be shown (of course only in non sexual poses) and the art guy had pics of naked 6+/- year old children.

Pedophiles seek children not babies and I think that is the point that makes the difference.
Maybe he wasn't aware of this while making the pics...

[Henry_]

there you go

[Ack Attack]

http://www.smh.com.a...06/art_mag1.jpg
there you go

What! That isn't porn at all! It's just a well painted painting.

I can't believe that there is a big fuss over that.

[Garamiah]

ok that changes thing

[melonqueen]

There were more pictures in the actual magazine article I believe... I saw them on the news, they were censored, but I'm not sure if that was done in the magazine or by the TV station. Anway... I dunno. I believe this is a very grey area. On the one hand, you can say yes, it will get paedophile's off. On the other hand, it is meant to have been in a non-sexual way, so can we truly say it is child pornography? I saw the girl and her father on the news. They seem to be quite an eccentric family. The girl almost seemed coached into what to say, but she could just have a formal manner. I don't know. But I did hear a very interesting quote a couple of weeks back on a 60 Minutes story... Something along the lines of society adapting because of what the paedophiles might do. Why does everything we do have to be so careful not to trigger them? Isn't that allowing them to control our lives and our society?

Personally, I think if it is done tastefully, as in genitals and in the case of girls, chest area, are covered, then it's not too bad. If they're fully posed spread out, I would be worried.

[MaxDamage]

What Weiman said.

I had to research Naturism as part of a course, and having studied Art and Design for a large part of my life I've encountered a great many 'oh my god' naked people.

What makes a young naked girl or boy in a natural pose porn?

Nothing.

My opinion is that people who actively watch porn (which is an increasing majority) or have been fed too much 'sensation'/'sex sells' themed media, have let their minds rot to the point where they can't tell the difference between beauty and porn.

And that is fucking sad, frankly.

I find melonqueens comment about covering girls chests to be absolutely beyond belief - many children are raised outside at a young age, on the beaches, in their gardens without swim suits - and they don't care.
I don't know what it's like where the rest of you live but on the beaches I've been to there are often lil ones roaming about in the altogether.
Sure, it makes for some possibly embarrassing photos in the future but it is the nature of censorship, of 'the mysterious hidden body' that in my opinion propagates and to some extent encourages deviant pedophilic behaviour.

Are we to fear the human body, merely because of the tastes of a sickly few?
Do we fear to leave our houses at all because we might be stabbed?
Listen to yourselves.

If you have a problem with naked people, it's you that's wrong in the head.

It's what you get for gorging on the apple.

[Master C]

Heh artists are always a dirty bunch.

[xgunwingx]

I dunno about art...theres way too much grey area in that industry.

My parents took photo's of me naked as a child, generally parents do that, does that make them pedophiles? I dont think so.

Theres generally a difference between a child being naked and a child being naked doing perverse acts, which i consider child pornography.



One of the most iconic photo's of the vietnam war, maybe even one of the most iconic photo's in the world and it's not considered child pornography. It was proving a point.

I dunno, I have mixed feelings about the whole issue of taking photographs of naked children.

[Verrückter]

Porn != naked

Porn is nude, yes, but it has to be DEGRADING. What's degrading about this?

[Rob`]

At six years old a single nipple means nothing to be honest.