Is it okay for children to pose naked for what some would consider art?
When the nudes are paintings or sculture, the line isn't so blurry.
With photographs of nude children, the child porn line gets crossed really quickly.
Would that same photo of a child of no relationship get a 'non-artist' arrested for child porn?
Quote:
Australian artists are defending the controversial decision of Art Monthly magazine to run a photograph of a naked child on its front cover.
The front cover of the magazine features Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou's 2003 photo of her naked daughter, who was six at the time.
The New South Wales Government is referring the magazine to the Classification Board.
The Prime Minister has said he cannot stand the picture and federal Arts Minister Peter Garrett has said the magazine was being needlessly provocative.
The girl's father, art critic Robert Nelson, says the family has no regrets about the photograph and he has rejected the Prime Minister's criticism of the work.
"There's never been any study that suggests that there's a link between paedophilia and art," he said.
"Unfortunately we're working without any science; people are just making these assertions about protecting children, which is unarguable - I mean why would you not want to [protect them]?
"But no-one's really explained, protect them from what."
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says no child that age could give their consent to such work but Mr Nelson says Mr Rudd should back up his concerns with evidence.
"I think he's welcome to have an opinion on art - I think that's to be encouraged," Mr Nelson said.
"I think the problem arises when, as he did with Bill Henson, he declared that the images are revolting and linked them to the protection of children without a shred of evidence."
Source
|
Quote:
Olympia, now 11, said she did not believe the photograph amounted to abuse and was upset with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who said he hated the shot.
"I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture," Olympia said outside her Melbourne home today, where she was accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson.
"I love the photo so much. It is one of my favourites, if not my favourite photo, my mum has ever taken of me and she has taken so many photos of me.
"I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art."
Source
|
Quote:
FEDERAL Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says he will ask police to investigate whether an art magazine broke the law when it used a photograph of a naked six-year-old girl on its cover.
Using the photograph sent a "two-fingered salute" to the rest of Australia, Dr Nelson said today.
He would ask police to investigate whether Art Monthly magazine had broken any laws by publishing the 2003 image of Melbourne girl Olympia Nelson on its July cover and two shots inside.
The head of photography at the Australian National University (ANU) said the magazine had a duty to cover the Bill Henson saga.
"The original Bill Henson photographs have been found to be OK," Martin Jolley said on ABC radio.
"These are significant works of arts and they're contributors to the national conversation about the world that we are creating for our children.
"If you are the editor of a magazine which is meant to be reporting on Australian Art ... you would be derelict in your duty if you didn't actually discuss the debate."
Police seized a number of Henson's photographs featuring near-naked or naked children from a Sydney art gallery recently but they were returned without charges being laid.
Source, from the same article as above
|
I think it truly depends on the composition of the piece.
I think from a painting standpoint, that it's objective. The artist can choose whether or not to portray a sense of realism, or have more creative leeway with what they do rather that just a photograph that shows immediately the realism / sense of what is going on (and I'm not trying to put down photography, btw..).