If it's in focus it's pornography.
If it's out of focus, it's art.
Art vs. Pornography
by Aztec 35 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Sir Paul
What in the world are you... up to, in your latest photo there Azzy?? (wink wink)
-
freedom96
Art or no art, children should not be photographed nude. Before anyone jumps on me, I am not talking about that picture in the tub taking a bath at one year old.
Problem is that so many people lack common sense.
If the picture is questionable, then it should not be taken. Simple as that. I just don't understand the justification of it being "art." Come on, what is the point? Take a picture of something else. We don't need to be looking at picture of naked children regardless of age.
-
Aztec
Okay, we are talking about children as young as 7 but, like I said, these are children who have been raised in nudist colonies. I really am ambivilant about these photographs. I don't get any kind of sexual edification from viewing them at all. I suppose there are some who might but there might be some who get that same feeling from viewing an Ansel Adams.
~Aztec
PS Paul just never you mind LOL!
-
Aztec
BTTT!
Yes I am a retard...LOL
~Aztec
-
Frannie Banannie
It's all in the eyes of the beholder....depends on who's looking at the photos and their point of view....a pedophile wouldn't view any photos of nude children in the same light as an art connoisseur would...
Frannie B
-
teejay
Aztec,
Thanks for clarifying (for some) the age of the children we're talking about. I never thought you were talking about the little bathtub pictures that most parents take of their kids. Even so, I don't have a single one those of my daughter because, frankly, I've never seen the "cuteness" in such photos, and I've thought this way since I was a teen.
It's kind of a passionate issue with me, considering how children have been and are continually being exploited in various ways all over the world.
I think I understand what you meant by saying that you are ambivalent about the photos. For me, I must say that there is a definite beauty to the human form, and prepubescent children definitely have an innocent beauty all their own. Sometimes (I think just to freak her mother out) my daughter will run giggling from the bathroom to find me after getting her bath but before getting any clothes on. Her nudity is beautiful but does nothing for me. As her father, I find her innocence very touching and that particular behavior comical -- cause Mother does always freak.
In that setting, her being nude doesn't bother me in the least. It's quite natural, I think. But I'd never consent to having her photographed nude, not even for a family album. I'm no prude -- not by a long shot. I have a very fine collection of photos -- but I draw the line at kids since there's nothing erotic about them. Period.
Even though I see the intrinsic beauty and get nothing from such photos, I fully realize that not everybody is like me. I'd hate to think that some pervert was getting off by looking at a picture of my nude little girl. Yeah, they might get a buzz by looking at an Ansel Adams, but that wouldn't be my problem.
Bottom line: photos of kids can't ever be "art" IMO, regardless of the focus of the lens. -
Xena
I suppose it might make a difference that they were raised in a nudest colony. lol my viewpoint tends to come from a much different upbringing than that! But I guess whenever children are involved it becomes a very sticky issue...with the world being what it is and people being what they are it's hard to draw the line sometimes between art and pornography...the beauty of the human body and explotation of children...
I don't envy you that dilemma Aztec.
-
Aztec
Teej and Xena, thanks for your replies. Like I've said, these pictures are bothering me. They are only the second thing in my career to bother me. The "slave bat" bothered me so much I cried every time I touched it. Gah! I didn't think these pictures would bother me. The couple who is having them framed are kind of hippyish, if that makes any sense. I don't think they are into child porn so maybe that makes it a bit easier. I think that they just enjoy art in all forms. They did bring in an original Miro so they do have some taste. These pictures are not, in my opinion, exploitative. They are just photos of kids in a nudist colony. Still, I feel weird about them.
~Aztec
-
Big Tex
Bottom line: photos of kids can't ever be "art" IMO, regardless of the focus of the lens.
Sorry, poor attempt at humour. That's what I get for responding at the end of a bottle of burgundy.
I think we each know where our own sense of morality is, that feeling inside that makes you uncomfortable or nags at you. It sounds like you've found yours Aztec. Listen to your own inner voice and you won't go wrong.
As for me, I would not display photos of children, but I also wouldn't have any shame about showing others, pictures of my children taking a bath when they were infants.