Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby GhostWolfe » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:53 am UTC

Source.

An eleven-year-old girl has defended a nude portrait taken of her used on the cover of an art magazine.

Art1.jpg
Art1.jpg (30.82 KiB) Viewed 10681 times


While I fully agree that it's not about porn and she's not being abused, I still don't feel quite right about it.

What do you think?

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:06 am UTC

Full image here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4610307a12.html

I don't see how you could possibly interpret that as pornographic.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Green9090 » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:38 am UTC

Obligatory "fap fap fap."

No, but seriously, not pornographic. I suspect people feeling uncomfortable about this feel that way solely because they've been strongly conditioned to equate nudity with moral depravity. What a shame :(
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

gpono
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:43 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby gpono » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:46 am UTC

I find it uncomfortable. . . . .

User avatar
Dobblesworth
Dobblesworth, here's the title you requested over three years ago. -Banana
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Dobblesworth » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:55 am UTC

On one hand, it's about as pornographic as the countless advertisements from Pantene, Loreal and even Johnsons' Baby Wipes.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure she's at an age where she can make such a mature decision to go nude for a magazine cover for herself. It makes me feel a bit wary a bit. Perhaps the content of the article was deserving of it slightly.

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby random_kitty » Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:13 pm UTC

Other art shots included her full frontal.

I perceive a difference between the butt and back of a baby - and a naked 9 year old, ditto for ads featuring children's age appropriate underwear and swimwear.

Informed consent is an issue, reasonable steps not to provide material for paedophiles is another.


Context and intended audience is also relevant. These shots are aimed at adults - with adult thoughts and minds. This is not a publication aimed at parents ooh and ahhing over their precious babies, or a medical textbook, or a private family photo of kids stripping off in summer to run under the sprinklers.
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby phlip » Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:22 pm UTC

Since the controversy here is mostly related to the Bill Henson one, I posted my opinion of the deal over in that thread.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Dream » Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:55 pm UTC

random_kitty wrote:Context and intended audience is also relevant. These shots are aimed at adults - with adult thoughts and minds.

And as such, if you bring a sexual interpretation to an image with absolutely no sexual content, you are creating the "problem" yourself, and it only exists for you. I see no sexual content, and as such the image is not pornographic for me.

The issue can be summarised very succinctly: Skin IS NOT sex.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:39 pm UTC

random_kitty wrote:Informed consent is an issue, reasonable steps not to provide material for paedophiles is another.


I personally don't care if a pedophile has "material" or not. And actually, if one can get "material" from photos like this that aren't abuse or sexual, isn't that...good?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

chaospet
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:36 pm UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby chaospet » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:49 pm UTC

George Carlin said it best - the problem is the absurd notion, which most of us have deeply internalized, that certain parts of our body are dirty or shameful and should be kept hidden. There's nothing dirty or shameful about this photo, it's just art, plain and simple.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Green9090 » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

chaospet wrote:George Carlin said it best - the problem is the absurd notion, which most of us have deeply internalized, that certain parts of our body are dirty or shameful and should be kept hidden. There's nothing dirty or shameful about this photo, it's just art, plain and simple.

This.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Telchar » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:41 pm UTC

Can somone explain that to me?

I can see the painting behind her as art. How is sitting nude in front of a painting art? Is all sitting nude in front of a painting art? Or just some?
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby random_kitty » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Would you be willing to be naked on display for various strangers? Would be be concerned how future partners might consider this? How future employers? At high school would you want all the other students to know exactly what you look like rather than having a choice about who you share an intimate view of yourself with?

My comment did not directly call this shot pornographic - I put forward my point of view that it is unsuitable given the context, intended audience, and subject.

These photos were taken my the child's mother and are supported by her father. They have made adult choices and have the mental capacity to consider consequences and ramifications. This child's ... this person's body is on display for a very long time. She has no control over who sees it and what they use it for. A life changing decision has been made on her behalf - as she can now never choose that her her body is only to be viewed by her husband, or that these photos will not be viewed by people that want to cause her harm or just be obnoxious (school bullies).
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Green9090 » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:54 pm UTC

random_kitty wrote:Would you be willing to be naked on display for various strangers? Would be be concerned how future partners might consider this? How future employers? At high school would you want all the other students to know exactly what you look like rather than having a choice about who you share an intimate view of yourself with?

My comment did not directly call this shot pornographic - I put forward my point of view that it is unsuitable given the context, intended audience, and subject.

These photos were taken my the child's mother and are supported by her father. They have made adult choices and have the mental capacity to consider consequences and ramifications. This child's ... this person's body is on display for a very long time. She has no control over who sees it and what they use it for. A life changing decision has been made on her behalf - as she can now never choose that her her body is only to be viewed by her husband, or that these photos will not be viewed by people that want to cause her harm or just be obnoxious (school bullies).


We make irreversible decisions every day, it's just that this one has been given an arbitrary amount of importance. To a healthy mind, it really doesn't matter if people see what you looked like as a naked 9 year old. No employer or sane significant other is going to ever care. A child's haircut, backpack, financial status, and so many other things have ten times the influence on school bullying, and yet a parent is not considered irresponsible for giving a child a dorky haircut and a Care Bears lunch box.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby yy2bggggs » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:32 am UTC

Let's put it this way. There are many tribes, in Brazil for example, where the majority of people run around with very little clothing on. In many of these, children around this age, and even younger, go around with no clothing at all. You can see some of this on certain broadcast channels.

This presents a first issue--since it's their own tribal custom, does that make it okay to videotape such obvious pedophilia pornography? Even more seriously, shouldn't we seek out such abused children who, of no fault of their own, are forced to live in societies under such conditions, and save them from the horrible abuses of childhood public nudity?

I ask because I'm concerned.
Image

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:55 am UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:
random_kitty wrote:Informed consent is an issue, reasonable steps not to provide material for paedophiles is another.


I personally don't care if a pedophile has "material" or not. And actually, if one can get "material" from photos like this that aren't abuse or sexual, isn't that...good?


I think that is actually what people are afraid of. This picture is not sexual in and of itself, but the sexualization of this image and that little girl is what many people would prefer to avoid, lest other, more innocuous pictures also become sexualized, and in turn, six-year-old girls become sexualized in the mind of the viewer. It's just not something society generally encourages, really.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby random_kitty » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:27 am UTC

As I have already said - context is important.

Even in advertising (with the 'sex sells' idea well known) NZ law requires nudity of adults to be relevant to the product or environment the product is likely to be consumed in.
Actors have been known to restrict their willingness to do nude scene for when it is artistically relevant and adds something other than "wow - s/he is naked" to the story/mood/plot.
Same goes for shots of children when they are babies or in the bath by family members.

What is the message that requires the nudity of a child that could not have been represented in a different way?

And I am still stuck on consent - informed reasonable consent. What if this child wants to be a politician, even a teacher?

It is debatable whether she has lost something regarding the first time she takes of her clothes and lets someone she has a romantic connection with look at her - knowing s/he is the first person beyond family/medical professionals that have been able to do so.
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Dream » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:32 am UTC

random_kitty wrote:What is the message that requires the nudity of a child that could not have been represented in a different way?

And I am still stuck on consent - informed reasonable consent. What if this child wants to be a politician, even a teacher?

It is debatable whether she has lost something regarding the first time she takes of her clothes and lets someone she has a romantic connection with look at her - knowing s/he is the first person beyond family/medical professionals that have been able to do so.


Firstly, the depiction of the human body, in any of its forms should need no justification in art. Any art examining the human condition in any way does not need a reason to exist. Its subject is its reason to exist.

If the child wants to be a politician or a teacher, she still can be. Unless some idiots decide that something she did entirely innocently as a child disqualifies her. But the people who might do that would be wrong to do so, as in they would be committing the wrong, not the child for posing or her parents for letting her. This argument is like saying it is wrong to raise a child who is obviously of a particular religion, because he or she might one day be discriminated against on religious grounds.

Finally, you might also argue that anyone who hasn't been nude in front of a non-intimate before they begin sexual activity might end up missing out on a great deal because they are nervous and shy, which might have been avoided had the situation been less novel. But really, you can't even begin to decide what is normal for this girl, and what she might value or not in her private life.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Green9090 » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:40 am UTC

Dream wrote:
random_kitty wrote:What is the message that requires the nudity of a child that could not have been represented in a different way?

And I am still stuck on consent - informed reasonable consent. What if this child wants to be a politician, even a teacher?

It is debatable whether she has lost something regarding the first time she takes of her clothes and lets someone she has a romantic connection with look at her - knowing s/he is the first person beyond family/medical professionals that have been able to do so.


Firstly, the depiction of the human body, in any of its forms should need no justification in art. Any art examining the human condition in any way does not need a reason to exist. Its subject is its reason to exist.

If the child wants to be a politician or a teacher, she still can be. Unless some idiots decide that something she did entirely innocently as a child disqualifies her. But the people who might do that would be wrong to do so, as in they would be committing the wrong, not the child for posing or her parents for letting her. This argument is like saying it is wrong to raise a child who is obviously of a particular religion, because he or she might one day be discriminated against on religious grounds.

Finally, you might also argue that anyone who hasn't been nude in front of a non-intimate before they begin sexual activity might end up missing out on a great deal because they are nervous and shy, which might have been avoided had the situation been less novel. But really, you can't even begin to decide what is normal for this girl, and what she might value or not in her private life.

I had been trying to figure out how to word this, decided to go away for a while and try later, and then this brilliant (wo)man summed up my thoughts. Tl;dr: QFT
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Dream » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:18 am UTC

*smile, and slightly bow*

/modesty
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
H.E.L.e.N.
Cheesy-tuna-bacon-pickle?
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: the other side of the other river

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby H.E.L.e.N. » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:45 am UTC

random_kitty wrote:And I am still stuck on consent - informed reasonable consent. What if this child wants to be a politician, even a teacher?


No sane person would hold that standard for something somebody did as a child. As a teenager, as an adult, I could see how somebody could run into problems later on. But as a little kid? No.

random_kitty wrote:It is debatable whether she has lost something regarding the first time she takes of her clothes and lets someone she has a romantic connection with look at her - knowing s/he is the first person beyond family/medical professionals that have been able to do so.


"First intimate sexual experience" is a whole lot more than "first time you took off your clothes." And odds are that partner, by the time they get around to that experience isn't going to be looking at the body of a nine-year-old.

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby random_kitty » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:15 pm UTC

These children are still not able to give informed consent. Who has the right to decide that for them? Their parents? An established artist simply because they are more well known than someone else?
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

Grego
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:14 pm UTC
Location: en-GB
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Grego » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:23 pm UTC

helen wrote:No sane person would hold that standard for something somebody did as a child.

Sadly our world seems to be full of (an run by) people who could not be classified as "sane".

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:21 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:This picture is not sexual in and of itself, but the sexualization of this image and that little girl is what many people would prefer to avoid, lest other, more innocuous pictures also become sexualized, and in turn, six-year-old girls become sexualized in the mind of the viewer. It's just not something society generally encourages, really.


The kind of slippery slope you're describing could lead to pedophiles masturbating to pictures of children in raincoats, as that is in fact inarguably more innocuous than nude art. And that is still infinitely preferably to pedophiles masturbating to pictures of nine year olds, with, say, penises in them.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
H.E.L.e.N.
Cheesy-tuna-bacon-pickle?
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: the other side of the other river

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby H.E.L.e.N. » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:32 pm UTC

Grego wrote:
helen wrote:No sane person would hold that standard for something somebody did as a child.

Sadly our world seems to be full of (an run by) people who could not be classified as "sane".


Ok. What I meant was, the only way it's a professional concern for her is if somebody nine-plus years later is arguing that the child did something morally questionable. Which I can't see happening.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Maurog » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:36 pm UTC

You can't? You never seen stuff like "Oh me yarm, teh Pope was in Hitler Youth as a kid, he's a Nazi! Burn him!!!11"

What if she becomes a Pope when she grows up?
Last edited by Maurog on Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
H.E.L.e.N.
Cheesy-tuna-bacon-pickle?
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: the other side of the other river

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby H.E.L.e.N. » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:39 pm UTC

I didn't say children can't ever be held morally questionable. Children can do terrible things. I'm saying in this case, I don't think non-sexual nudity is enough for someone to question them as an adult.

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby yy2bggggs » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:59 pm UTC

random_kitty wrote:These children are still not able to give informed consent. Who has the right to decide that for them? Their parents? An established artist simply because they are more well known than someone else?

We're still not talking about sexual exploitation. The concern over consent confuses the issue, since there are real consensual concerns, some of which the child is at least partially able to provide, others of which the child is not. There is the concern about exposure and personal embarrassment, for which the child is indeed able to provide in large part consent. There is the concern about publicity, for which the parent or guardian would be capable of providing consent, but children of such age almost certainly would not understand the implications of. But in terms of sexual exploitation, so long as it's not happening, there's no issue of consent that the parents can't provide.

Actual sexual predation, or actual sexual exploitation, is quite distinct from potential predation/exploitation; the latter can even be a factor in the parent's decision of consent, and the former cannot. If a child is being taken advantage of sexually in any way (either directly, or being exploited for sexually illicit pictures), the issue of consent is out of the window. But if they are not, it's not.

The reason potential predation/exploitation shouldn't be of concern is due to both the value of freedom in itself, and the logical absurdity (seriously consider the tribal Amazonian culture I brought up satirically in my last post--you'll note that it's less of a mere analogy than it may at first appear to be).
Image

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby random_kitty » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Being seen naked in public /= sexual connotations - I have stated that many times.

However giving the context (social/historical/cultural/political context) I still have not been convinced that informed consent is irrelevant. I am not talking about porn or sex - I am talking about the prevailing views regarding nakedness in public places. It is not deemed suitable for adults in many areas in day-to-day life to be naked in public - therefore why is it appropriate to do this to a child who does not have a informed rational choice?

Adults have developmental advantages that children do not.
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby yy2bggggs » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:33 am UTC

random_kitty wrote:It is not deemed suitable for adults in many areas in day-to-day life to be naked in public

This isn't the type of situation where it would not be deemed suitable for adults. Adults are featured on artistic magazines in tasteful nudes (read, not pr0n) all of the time, and there's nothing wrong with it.
I am talking about the prevailing views regarding nakedness in public places
...and I'm talking cultural differences. There are cultures with even higher standards of dress, where you would be shamed for simply exposing the skin on your arm. Furthermore, norms vary even within our own culture. If you're arguing that cultural norms themselves are relevant, I would agree, but I'm trying to stress quite clearly that they still vary.
therefore why is it appropriate to do this to a child who does not have a informed rational choice?
Then what about those poor Amazonian kids, who have exactly as little of a choice? And it's really a self fulfilling prophecy when you impose what you think should be and/or are the social norms onto someone, especially someone so far away.
Last edited by yy2bggggs on Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

GabrielF
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:19 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby GabrielF » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:42 am UTC

Maurog wrote:You can't? You never seen stuff like "Oh me yarm, teh Pope was in Hitler Youth as a kid, he's a Nazi! Burn him!!!11"

What if she becomes a Pope when she grows up?


I've heard that about the Pope before and I don't think its a good analogy. First, even though I don't hold the Pope responsible for his actions at that time, he was old enough to carry a gun in a war, and that's usually seen by society as being an active perpetrator, whereas children involved in sexual situations are almost always seen as victims, even if there is some ambiguity about consent. Second, the issue with the Pope was that he was elected as the moral voice of a billion people, which brought up questions about whether his Nazi-era past opened him up to charges of hypocrisy and brought up all sorts of lingering issues about the Catholic Church's behavior during the Holocaust. I can't think of any possible situation where this girl could be accused of hypocrisy. Even if she turned out to be an anti-obscenity crusader, people would just think that she was like the guy on America's Most Wanted - someone who wants to use their victimization to prevent that stuff in the future.

User avatar
KevorkianKat
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:32 pm UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby KevorkianKat » Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:11 am UTC

random_kitty wrote:Would you be willing to be naked on display for various strangers? Would be be concerned how future partners might consider this? How future employers? At high school would you want all the other students to know exactly what you look like rather than having a choice about who you share an intimate view of yourself with?

My comment did not directly call this shot pornographic - I put forward my point of view that it is unsuitable given the context, intended audience, and subject.

These photos were taken my the child's mother and are supported by her father. They have made adult choices and have the mental capacity to consider consequences and ramifications. This child's ... this person's body is on display for a very long time. She has no control over who sees it and what they use it for. A life changing decision has been made on her behalf - as she can now never choose that her her body is only to be viewed by her husband, or that these photos will not be viewed by people that want to cause her harm or just be obnoxious (school bullies).


CORRECTION:

This CHILD'S BODY including a shadowy partial chest and half of one butt cheek are on display. If the kid has this same body when they are 15 or 16, they have more problems than a picture display.

People use each others background and history to hurt each other ALL THE TIME. A nude shot when you were eight doesn't make you a dirty little criminal who will be a pariah for the rest of your life. Hell, most people won't even recognize her in a few years, it's called puberty. And choices are a byproduct of living in society. If you don't like making them, be a hermit and live off the land, that's the only way you'll avoid having to hear other people criticize you and dolling out sympathy for others.

These children are still not able to give informed consent. Who has the right to decide that for them? Their parents? An established artist simply because they are more well known than someone else?


Ok, let's step back a point. The previous point was that it will somehow humiliate or detract from her first sexual experience. Without that, the whole argument starts going downhill. If nudity is no longer an issue for the child, then who are you to decide their daily actions in life? Yes, her parents DO have a legal say. No, an artist cannot simply walk up and say "let's take shots and call it art!". Yes, if there are further images like this, it will likely be looked on an individual basis. But back to your point, I am assuming you conceded the point that nudity is not a bad, dirty shameful thing no matter what age, immediately destroying the possible further arguments of "who has a right to decide".

If you cannot separate this from a hardcore pornographic picture like her sucking a penis then I think my possible arguments end with you there since that is basically not debatable on internet forums. I'm one of those people who classifies Playboy as an artistic magazine, Penthouse as the porn (although I haven't seen either of them in...10? 15 years? maybe they've changed).
Last edited by KevorkianKat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby random_kitty » Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:23 am UTC

KevorkianKat wrote:A nude shot when you were eight doesn't make you a dirty little criminal who will be a pariah for the rest of your life. Hell, most people won't even recognize her in a few years, it's called puberty. And choices are a byproduct of living in society.


Of course it does not make her dirty or a criminal

But who is making the choice? I am saying the choice should be the naked person's - and with a child they lack the mental capacities developmentally to make that choice.

This is my opinion with my personal biases regarding personal choice and an individualist cultural perspective. It has bene interesting to read other perspectives :D
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Malice » Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:53 am UTC

I feel anger that I, as a well-intentioned artist, "should not" use certain ideas or images in my work simply because a (wrongfully) reviled segment of the population finds them sexually arousing.

Obviously you should judge a work by its intent, not its effect, because the latter is in the eye(/genitals) of the beholder. Otherwise any innocuous image becomes suspect when held as somebody's fetish. Should we burn Harry Potter because it led to underage pornographic fan-fiction? Should we decline to photograph somebody in bare feet because somebody will add to it a sexual dimension?

I'm not saying one should have free reign to create child pornography; I'm saying one should have free reign to create images of pre-pubescent nudity for the purpose of discussing those images or ideas.

I feel this is an awkward social reaction, akin to homophobia; call it pedophobia, a hatred born of fear. It's as if people are afraid that they'll become attracted to these images, and have to deny them or destroy them in order to remove the source of the fear (ie., their own desires), which they then externalize on a group of "perverted monsters".

In reality, there should be nothing wrong with saying, "Look, there is a beautiful developing human body." I can look at somebody's skin without needing to touch it; I can think about a beautiful woman without needing to fuck her; and I can look at (and derive meaning from) a picture of a naked young girl without turning into a slavering rapist.
Image

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:55 am UTC

Malice wrote:In reality, there should be nothing wrong with saying, "Look, there is a beautiful developing human body." I can look at somebody's skin without needing to touch it; I can think about a beautiful woman without needing to fuck her; and I can look at (and derive meaning from) a picture of a naked young girl without turning into a slavering rapist.

I whole-heartedly agree, and yet, nudity has become such a sexually charged idea that nudity in all forms to me makes me stop and think twice.

In a perfect world perhaps? In this one, it still makes me uncomfortable.

I'll defend to the death your right to depict whatsoever you damn well like in your art. I do not feel that putting the image in question on the cover of a magazine was responsible use of the image.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Green9090 » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:19 am UTC

GhostWolfe wrote:
Malice wrote:In reality, there should be nothing wrong with saying, "Look, there is a beautiful developing human body." I can look at somebody's skin without needing to touch it; I can think about a beautiful woman without needing to fuck her; and I can look at (and derive meaning from) a picture of a naked young girl without turning into a slavering rapist.

I whole-heartedly agree, and yet, nudity has become such a sexually charged idea that nudity in all forms to me makes me stop and think twice.

In a perfect world perhaps? In this one, it still makes me uncomfortable.

I'll defend to the death your right to depict whatsoever you damn well like in your art. I do not feel that putting the image in question on the cover of a magazine was responsible use of the image.

/angell

So wait, you made a jump from "weird societal constructs about nudity make this an uncomfortable issue for me" to "it's irresponsible to put this image on the cover of a magazine." It seems like your emotions have led you to want to believe this is irresponsible. You can say you feel uncomfortable all you want, but a claim that something is irresponsible requires actual logic.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby TheStranger » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:33 am UTC

I cannot help but laugh when people trip out over nudity (nudity != p0rn). This picture does not seem sexually explicit in the least (if she were 18+ would this been an issue?).

As to the whole "pervs will use this to get off"... really? Should we put underage kids in burkas to prevent perverts from looking at them? There are plenty of paintings that depict nude children, should we hide those?

I'm not really qualified to judge the whole "is it art" bit... but it's not explicit / obscene in my book.

Whats up with Australia as of late? I always thought that you were the cool country... the kind of place where I could go if the US really went down the tubes... now your just flipping out over everything.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby JayDee » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:47 am UTC

As it turns out, Australia is located just down the tubes from the States. Most of your nuttiness seems to pass our way sooner or later.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:53 am UTC

Green9090 wrote:
GhostWolfe wrote:
Malice wrote:In reality, there should be nothing wrong with saying, "Look, there is a beautiful developing human body." I can look at somebody's skin without needing to touch it; I can think about a beautiful woman without needing to fuck her; and I can look at (and derive meaning from) a picture of a naked young girl without turning into a slavering rapist.

I whole-heartedly agree, and yet, nudity has become such a sexually charged idea that nudity in all forms to me makes me stop and think twice.

In a perfect world perhaps? In this one, it still makes me uncomfortable.

I'll defend to the death your right to depict whatsoever you damn well like in your art. I do not feel that putting the image in question on the cover of a magazine was responsible use of the image.

/angell

So wait, you made a jump from "weird societal constructs about nudity make this an uncomfortable issue for me" to "it's irresponsible to put this image on the cover of a magazine." It seems like your emotions have led you to want to believe this is irresponsible. You can say you feel uncomfortable all you want, but a claim that something is irresponsible requires actual logic.


Yes, how dare you let your emotions guide your thought.

wait, that's not right.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Young Nude Girl Defends Art

Postby Malice » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:34 am UTC

GhostWolfe wrote:I'll defend to the death your right to depict whatsoever you damn well like in your art. I do not feel that putting the image in question on the cover of a magazine was responsible use of the image./angell


Really? I think it was a bold thing to do. Saying, "You want to have a conversation about this? Let's have what we're talking about right up front so we can know what it is." They deliberately inspired discussion, one ranging far beyond people who actually opened the magazine. That seems to me to be the most responsible way to use that--as a meaningful image, and not just an illustration on the page.
Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests