Pictures/Paintings of Naked Children: Art or Otherwise
 

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?

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..).

Background in summary
 

Are debating this situation - or the issue in general. (Go with the latter I think....)

A quick background. The situation in AU as I understand it is:

- photos by a famous portrait photographer, of a nude girl are displayed in private gallery
- a fuss is made
- police investigate
- prime minister condemns photos
- art world is outraged, including film celebs
- police do not lay any charges - and return photos

Some time later

- magazine/journal puts unrelated nude photo of girl on front cover
- prime minister condemns photos
- more articles pro/con appear in all newspapers

As long as it's not overtly sexual (which is obviously a horribly subjective proposition), I don't have a specific problem with it. I think there's a real desire to have no tolerance strict liability for underage nudity because it can be very hard to determine either if it's overtly sexual or if there was some sort of undue influence involved in having the child disrobe.

Given the risks of abuse, I'd say that's not a horrible policy.

Interesting Topic...In the 1982 film "Pretty Baby" A 12 yr old Brooke Sheilds is show topless and nude (from behind) on
a couple of occasions.I wonder what the reaction would be if the film were released today ?

Its so sad that repression and predators and mental illness have made it so that even the most innocent beautys motives need to be questioned.

I realize that nowadays its better to be safe than sorry......but I just find it sad. There are pictures and paintings throughtout history where the children happen to be naked, which is not necessarily the focus and is incidental. But the world has become so corrupt and paranoid and litigious now. Prohibition seems to constantly outweigh education.

It just bums me out. It would never occur to me, unless someone pointed it out externally, that looking at a naked, innocent cherub in a painting in a fine art museum is offensive, sexual, or inappropriate, and to me thats the equivalent of a tasteful fine art photograph that you might find in a modern gallery that happens to depict a naked child.

I think that the idea of sex floats through most peoples head fleetingly, because we are humans, were very visual, and were a reproductive species - but not like a desire, more like an awareness of our biology.

I know that there are child predators out there... Im not naive. Im just saying how unfortunate it is that everyone has to think like a victim at all times, no matter what were doing.

So tiresome.

As they say... the difference between art and pornography is the lighting.

I believe that the outlaw of nude child pictures has only served to sexualize them even more. These days, its all about finding the next kink to satisfy yourself because you burn out on all the normal shit due to its overabundance. The only reason why most people (not even pedophiles, but the ones who are scared of naked children) find a nude child remotely sexual is because of the rarified air they exist in.

The picture itself shows nothing. Her breast is exposed. I have more boob. And I'm not a man-boob guy.

This area had the same argument, albeit an older girl, last week. A high school senior won an art contest with a nude self portrait. It was tasteful and not erotic at all.

The newspaper sponsoring the contest threw out the judgement (and contacted all other media to breathlessly know that it was withdrawing the award). The judge's second choice? A sculpture of a nude, pregnant torsoe.

Threw out that one too. I don't know the final winner. Maybe a tracing of Richie Rich. Clothed.

Child porn should be against the law. Nude portraits should not.

Ive seen some photos taken by Annie Liebowitz where she took some gorgeous nude photos of her own children. I believe shes been given some grief over her choice of subject in these, but theyre really quite beautiful and her children, now grown, love them.

So I did a little search and I hadnt realized that Liebowitz was the photographer of the recent Miley Cyrus photo that caused quite a scandal. The focus has been centered around condemning the child rather than the photographer, who has no relation to the child, in this case. Interesting flip of the blame there.

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2...ornography.jpg

As great as pornography is, I'm okay saying that no child needs to be photographed naked, whether it's art or pornography I think it has enough potential for abuse that it shouldn't be allowed.

There is so much we can use and do for art, and such more possible damage that can be done by encouraging anyone with child pornography, that I feel the potential harm is not worth it. There is a lot more that artist can work on in his/her life and not run out of content.

We all know the difference between art and porn when we see it. To say that we shouldn't allow art involving nude children because we're afraid of pedophiles is blaming the victim to the same degree as claiming that women shouldn't wear anything remotely provocative because it might encourage a rapist.

Child porn is abuse. Art isn't.

It's just that simple.

We can and will beat this now well and truly kaput steed, but it has run its course.

Getting naked is just something that kids do. My daughters do it all the time. (Heck, my brother used to run around the house naked until he was 17.) Getting naked and coming on is not something kids do. The pornography of a picture of a naked kid being a kid exists only and entirely in the mind of the viewer if it exists at all. If there is fault, it is with members of the audience, not the producers or the subjects of the pictures.