Art or pornography?

[Kayla]

Children are not mentally developed enough to really know how to behave in stranger danger, they can be taught to go to a store or yell for help and not to get into a car with strangers, but when your mum is the photographer, or the parents give consent for your naked image to be used there is no say and the child will think it is normal. If someone turns up to school and says they are a cop and mum has been in an accident and they are going to take the kid to mum, most children would go. Adults would be more sceptical and ask for ID, ask questions etc.
The anti-stalking legislation is similar in the fact that an ordinarily legal act is seen as criminal due to the context. Photo of child- legal. Naked child, sexual pose- illegal.

I wasn't pushing the "video games made me do it" but everything will set off someone, and while games are censored and rated due to content, art is not. I am not saying ban everything, but society does need to take extra care to protect the most vulnerable in society.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

But that's exactly it - art doesn't have to show the normal. There is a long tradition in art to show the not so normal side of things. Art doesn't have to keep to what's morally acceptable, it just has to keep to what's legally acceptable in terms of producing art.

Benetton advertisements ?

 

[Gorath]

But that's exactly it - art doesn't have to show the normal. There is a long tradition in art to show the not so normal side of things. Art doesn't have to keep to what's morally acceptable, it just has to keep to what's legally acceptable in terms of producing art.

Exactly. Art has a long tradition of pushing boundaries to their limits. Then the authorities have to weigh up: Does anyone/anything get hurt by a piece of art, and if so what´s more important in this special case, the victim´s dignity or the artist´s right of free expression.
There is no universal answer. Every single case has to be decided on its own.

 

[Prime Junta]

I think you people have to look in a broader range. Will this picture make pedofiles excited? yes! could this picture cause them to commit horrible crimes? yes!

Could you provide some evidence that pornography causes pedophiles to commit crimes? 'Cuz I'm not aware of any. (In fact, common sense would suggest the contrary -- if they're busy jacking off to pictures, they won't be out there molesting children.)

 

[magerette]

There's a very disturbing quality to the picture Kayla linked, I agree. But speaking as someone who had some inappropriate childhood experiences myself, I think the cultural perspective of children's sexuality is very distorted in our time. Children are not equipped to understand their sexuality the way adults are, but nonetheless they have it. I question whether this picture has actually hurt the subject in any way at all.

In many historical eras, girls this age were married. Is it exploitive? Yes. Is it art--not for me to say. Is it damaging to the girl's self-image and development? I doubt it. She is already hormonally on the road to experiencing herself as an adult in this department. (I'm not saying she should be having sex, just talking about the image itself and how she may see herself.)

Just to clarify, I find the exploitation of young children digusting and certainly not art--and I think anytime you attempt to portray a child younger than early adolescence with any of the trappings of adult sensuality, you are dealing in pornography. Jon-Benet Ramsey leaps to my mind, and she was fully clothed:

If this child had lived to grow up, she would have been one screwed up woman.

 

[Corwin]

I totally agree with kayla. I enjoy real art, but much of what passes for art these days either leaves me cold or offends me. Theoretically, you could justify anything in the name of art, and many people have tried to do so, mores the pity. I agree it's almost impossible to define art, at least in a way we'd all accept and I object to the politically correct regimes which forbid me taking a photo of my child in a group of other children since I don't have their permission and could be exploiting these other children (I'm not making this up, there were signs at my daughter's dance recital forbidding photos for just that reason). However, as was mentioned earlier, a rule I'd apply would be, would I allow my daughter (or son) to be photographed and used in that way. My answer would obviously be NO!!

 

[Ionstormsucks]

Benetton advertisements ?

First of all art and advertisment are not the same. Secondly, at least in Germany no one can force you to change an advertisment or take it back unless it violates the law. Morality does not play a role. You can complain at the "Werberat" if you think that an advertisment is immoral, and if they follow your argumentation they can openly criticise the advertiser, but that's it. They cannot force him to change the advertisment or take it back just because it is immoral.

Children are not mentally developed enough to really know how to behave in stranger danger, they can be taught to go to a store or yell for help and not to get into a car with strangers, but when your mum is the photographer, or the parents give consent for your naked image to be used there is no say and the child will think it is normal.

If parents give consent that a naked picture of their child is shown in an exhibition they do not give consent that it is raped or that child pornography is ok. I dunno, maybe it's my education. Until I was a teenager my parents dragged me to France for the holidays. There were quite a few places where you could bath naked and I'm pretty sure there were a few perverts there to spy on naked children - I mean, what's easier than to go to exactly such places where hundrets of naked people are if you wanna see naked children in real life? I never really gave my parents consent to take me there, but honestly, I certainly don't think they put me in any kind of danger or feel bad that they took me there.

If someone turns up to school and says they are a cop and mum has been in an accident and they are going to take the kid to mum, most children would go. Adults would be more sceptical and ask for ID, ask questions etc.

And do you honestly believe that because of prohibiting an exhibition one less pervert would go out and do exactly that? I very much doubt it...

I wasn't pushing the "video games made me do it" but everything will set off someone, and while games are censored and rated due to content, art is not.

Actually art is censored and rated due to content - that's why they won't let a six year old into a movie for a 18 year olds UNLESS they are in the company of a parent (at least that's how it is in Germany). Now, you could say that shouldn't be allowed at all that a six year old sees such a movie but you know, sooner or later the state has to trust parents that they know whats good for their children and what not. It's not a big secret that with some parents that's not the case - but that's how it is.

I am not saying ban everything, but society does need to take extra care to protect the most vulnerable in society.

I think it's part of our overly political correct society that we think children epitomize innocence or vulnerability. In Germany there is this particular tendency among anchormen which really drives me crazy everytime I see it. Whenever something bad happens - let's say a plane crash - they'll first tell you how many Germans were among the victims and then, how many of them were women and children. No one seems to give a fuck about how many men died... for me a victim is a victim. I don't care if it's a child or an adult, a man or woman or what nationality the victim had. I don't even care if it's a criminal or a honest person. If someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger it doesn't make any difference that you can deny your consent. And I'm sure the pain for your parents won't be less just because you might have been an adult person. Did we prohibit guns so far?

Especially when it comes to children I see an overly protective society prone to hysteria. There are child molesters everywhere! I mean, I see it in Germany... whenever a child is abused there is a public outrage that is beyond anything which makes sense. Among the most idiotic things you constantly hear is the reintroduction of capital punishment.

 

[JemyM]

It's ofcourse if you have a christian perspective or not. If you are influenced by christianity, then nudity is porn and more dangerous than death, because death brings you to heaven which is good but nudity brings to you hell which is bad.

 

[Corwin]

I don't believe being against nudity is an exclusive Christian position. The Jews and the Moslems are also not in favour of it. That being said, there is no absolute proscription against it in the NT.

 

[JemyM]

I don't believe being against nudity is an exclusive Christian position. The Jews and the Moslems are also not in favour of it. That being said, there is no absolute proscription against it in the NT.

The Egyptians had rules against sex and the Torah took it to another step. I do not remember the exact details, but aren't there a story about a nude father which is considered a big deal? If I remember right there's a whole sea of punishments for people seeing each other's nudity in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Jesus states that it's better to cripple yourself than being tempted by sex and many have taken that literally.

NT and the Quran were obviously influenced by the Hebrew theology, but they also had a second influence; Greek philosophy. Many Greek thinkers saw the world as evil/twisted/distorted and thus everything physical as evil. Being drawn to this is of course a terrible curse. Add to that the stoic perspective that emotions are generally bad and should be controlled/avoided at all times.

Our fear of sexuality and nudity when it comes to Europe and the US is mostly from the Bible. There really is no greater cause for sexual neurosis than the bible. If you treat it literally what Jesus preaches, then nudity really is far more dangerous than death and physical mutilation.

 

[Bartacus]

It's ofcourse if you have a christian perspective or not. If you are influenced by christianity, then nudity is porn and more dangerous than death, because death brings you to heaven which is good but nudity brings to you hell which is bad.

I really want to know in which ultra right winged faction you have grown up to believe this kind of nonsense. There's just no way you can back this one up to make it apply for the Christian community as a whole.

 

[Pladio]

Not the Christian community as a whole, but the religious Christian, Jewish and Muslim community.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

First of all art and advertisment are not the same.

I believe the one who made the photos used for the Benetton advertisement calls himself an "artist".

 

[blatantninja]

I call it pornography. I have a college degree in photography, so I've done my share of studio work, including nudes. There is a very, very limit range in which having a nude child is NOT pornography. It is mainly in terms of journalistic pieces.

 

[JemyM]

I really want to know in which ultra right winged faction you have grown up to believe this kind of nonsense. There's just no way you can back this one up to make it apply for the Christian community as a whole.

Yeah, like Pladio said. Only the religious part, those who actually believes in it and aren't just along due to cultural pressure or have their own "theories" of what christianity is about.

 

[Ionstormsucks]

I believe the one who made the photos used for the Benetton advertisement calls himself an "artist".

So everything he does is automatically art? If he steals a car - that's art too? Mate, stop distorting statements please. It doesn't matter what he calls himself. I can call me King of Germany, but I seriously doubt a lot of people would pay me taxes.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

You must distinguish between the photographs used in the advertisement and the advertisement itself.

So to say everything but the photo.

 

[Prime Junta]

Just to clarify, I find the exploitation of young children digusting and certainly not art--and I think anytime you attempt to portray a child younger than early adolescence with any of the trappings of adult sensuality, you are dealing in pornography. Jon-Benet Ramsey leaps to my mind, and she was fully clothed:

You hit the nail on the head. Nudity isn't the issue; the portrayal of children as sex objects -- clothed or not -- is.

The trouble is that people looking at the photo or painting or whatever bring their own baggage with them. Some cultures are extremely prudish about nudity. Someone from one of them will interpret any picture of a nude person as erotic or titillating, and will very likely be especially disturbed by a picture of a nude child. Yet the same photo will not be perceived as shocking at all by someone from a culture with a more tolerant attitude towards nudity. That makes it rather difficult to draw the line -- and IMO we should err on the side of permissiveness, because the social costs of proscribing artistic expression are known, and high.

 

[Dhruin]

Could you provide some evidence that pornography causes pedophiles to commit crimes? 'Cuz I'm not aware of any. (In fact, common sense would suggest the contrary -- if they're busy jacking off to pictures, they won't be out there molesting children.)

Yeah...not as simple as that. Apologies for the drive-by posting - I'll try to enter the debate properly on the weekend.

While most collectors of pedophilic material will not necessarily progress to direct abuse, I believe there is evidence that many develop an increasingly voracious appetite to increase their collections. This grows the market for this material -- and at the end of that trail, children are being abused and exploited.

Will this particular exhibit directly lead to abused children? Probably not. Is it a bar we should be happy to allow? Not in my opinion.

I'd be interested to hear what value people think this material holds, as an aside.

I'll try to post citations in the next days.

 

[Bartacus]

Yeah, like Pladio said. Only the religious part, those who actually believes in it and aren't just along due to cultural pressure or have their own "theories" of what christianity is about.

Ok, it just felt like you were attacking the community as a whole. No problem then, because there are such weirdo's.
For me pornography is pretty common -> I don't have a girlfriend

One thin I'll add to the discussion: Some time ago there was a uprise in Belgium because of the collection of porn of some author (forgot his name). It was called an art exhibition, but it contained also numerous pics of very young women (girls of 12 - 14y) and therefore it was banned in Antwerp. The responsable person of the province stated that it was immoral to support this with tax payers money. In Gent however the exhibition could go (later that year), but only with the 'normal' - not the ones with the young ones - pics and restricted to 18+.

When I look afterwards, I'd say the second option is deffinately the right one for me. On the other hand, this was clearly politicly abused -> A female friend of mine was the person who 'accused' that responsable person of the province.
The problem was that the author also belonged to the same political faction my friend is in. That responsable person was one of the Christian party CD&V. (imo that guy should have known better that it would get all blown up like that)