in the news, sex
- July 8, 2008
Art vs porn?
The controversy about the use of images of naked children in works of art has been hot in the media this week.
I’m of the view that sexualisation of children is a bad thing and images that serve that purpose are not appropriate. The picture in question is quite a nice photo, but in my view is something that belongs in the family’s own photo albums, not on display in the public domain. I don’t find anything at all sexual in a photo of a 6 year old child, but there are freaks around who do … why give them fodder for their fantasies? Also, I can’t see that children this young are able to give informed consent about the use of their images in the public domain.
Pictures of your children running around nude, or in the bath, or whatever, may be beautiful, and they may capture moments of great joy and fun. Fair enough, enjoy them with your family, even trusted friends. But I just don’t believe, knowing what we know about the presence of sickos in our communities, they are for widespread public consumption.
Now, for the big question - check out the girl (Olympia Nelson)’s father’s shirt and bow tie- art or porn?
FYI - possibly NSFW - you can see the picture at the centre of the controversy here.
Technorati Tags: Olympia Nelson, art, porn, child pornography, nude photos
14 Responses to “Art vs porn?”
I would never let my daughter pose that way - not in a million years. I can’t understand how parents can do this to their children.
By Andrea (5 comments.) on Jul 8, 2008
As long as we hold on to antiquated beliefs that nudity is wrong, we’ll be having this debate.
Could a sicko find some form of sexual gratification out of the picture? Probably, but they would do the same with a fully clothed picture. They’re sick, remember?
See, here is the quick and dirty of it (no pun intended). Nudity is not sex.
By BSA (1 comments.) on Jul 8, 2008
It wasn’t just that there was naked pictures of a 6 year old, it was also that the magazine had other pictures with strong sexual themes in there as well. To say that nudity is not sex is understandable. But taking the whole magazine into account, you have to wonder what on earth the publishers were thinking. They say the photos were innocent, but when placed next to pictures of women in bondage, it’s hard not to see the possible sexual theme the naked pictures of the girl might have.
By Life-Critic (1 comments.) on Jul 9, 2008
I may well have a different view if I had kids, but after just seeing the photo I can only judge it as artistic. BSA is right. ‘They’ will find gratification where ever they can. Blatant sexualisation of teen, or younger, girls seen all the time in the media is a much worse crime. You could hardly call the picture sexual.
By Andrew (20 comments.) on Jul 9, 2008
This is very controversial. If you ask art individuals, they will say nothing is wrong. But, in public eyes it is nudity of small child. It should be encourage. For nudity art, they must be at least legal age. This is my opinion.
By Reena (1 comments.) on Jul 9, 2008
My issue is not with nudity, it’s with little girls posed in an adult way. I’d have the same objection if she were fully clothed.
My daughter did a dance recital a couple of months ago. One of the classes (average age was probably about 8-9 years old) wore outfits of cowboy hats, bikini tops and daisy-duke length skorts. If my daughter had been in that class, I’d have pulled her out of the performance. I find it inappropriate.
Blatant sexualisation of teen, or younger, girls seen all the time in the media is a much worse crime.
I agree. The picture itself is not sexual, but I think the little girl is made to look a little too mature for my taste.
By Andrea (5 comments.) on Jul 9, 2008
I dunno about that one* + i’m pretty Liberal + Open-Minded*
His Shirt + Bow-Tie are definitely Masterpieces tho!!
oh lordy* ;)) Peace*
By BillyWarhol (1 comments.) on Jul 9, 2008
I personally would never let my child pose for a magazine or anything like the one they are showing… however, I personally don’t know anyone who hasn’t taken a picture of their child naked after a bath or a swim or something.
The way that girl is posed, and the look on her face don’t look childlike in anyway.
By Monique (3 comments.) on Jul 10, 2008
I personally don’t see anything wrong with the picture. I personally don’t like it because the child looks like she doesn’t want to be up there.
As for people who are sexually aroused by this. I don’t think people should be adding kindle to the fire.
By Catherine (1 comments.) on Jul 10, 2008
I have a 7-month old girl and there is no way I would let her pose something like that and display it on a magazine’s cover. I do have pictures of her while taking a bath, but those are for our eyes only.
By jemi (1 comments.) on Jul 10, 2008
Sorry, that pose, all that makeup… far too sexual for a six yr old in my opinion. The other pics were worse.
And the ‘interview’ with the child and that idiot that was a sperm donor was laughable.
By Kelley (5 comments.) on Jul 10, 2008
Sorry you had to read that Kelly. I think it is wrong.
By Colin Campbell (39 comments.) on Jul 11, 2008
The photos are not pornographic but not appropriate to be displayed in the manner they were. That child obviously had the decision made for her, what six year old could/would do that willingly on their own without being coached by an adult? Not one. Family photos are one thing, naked children/teens posing on magazine covers or for works to be viewed in a gallery is a perverts paradise.
By nunyaa (9 comments.) on Jul 11, 2008
My first thought when I saw that photo is that the pose looked unnatural. To be honest I really don’t give a rat’s ass if their ‘art’ is being unfairly judged. In the current climate where some new pervert is being arrested every week for having child porn on their computer, people should stop being arty about it and have some freaking common sense. Teaching a child to have a few boundaries when it comes to nudity is appropriate. Let them decide if they want to pose nude when they’re an adult.
We don’t need art of nude children. No-one will suffer for the loss of it. I think the artists themselves are ridiculous for not being able to acknowledge the other side of this issue and understand why people have a problem with their art. I understand their side of the argument - I’d just rather err on the side of protecting children.
By chosha (16 comments.) on Jul 12, 2008