Porn vs. Art

[HansMustermann]

I'm claiming that porn is not art per se. Are you claiming that porn (i.e. all porn) IS art per se? If so, by what absolutely unequivocal definition of "art"?

You do know that a lot of nudes were painted and bought so some rich guy would get an erection looking at them, right?

But anyway, would you deny the status of art to Goya's "La maja desnuda"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goya_Maja_naga2.jpg

If no, then would you deny it if it was a centerfold photo in a sex magazine? Let's assume the exact same pose and perspective and proportions and all.

If yes, then would you also deny it to the depictions of nudity with some allegoric or religious pretext? E.g., to all the paintings and statues which pretend it's Venus/Aphrodite or Adam and Eve? Would you think that the Sistine Chapel with all those nudes was _not_ art? What about David?

Or what about this ancient statue? (It's a Roman copy of a Greek original, circa 3'rd century BC.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/UffiziFlorenceWrestlers.jpg

Is it art? Would it still be art if it were a photo of two guys wrestling naked on a gay fetish site? What if it were two women wrestling naked? (There's actually a whole genre of that.)

 

[JFrankA]

Just because there are vagarues on the border between art and porn does not mean we cannot distinguish between obvious examples.

No, a parent/grandparent/close relative taking a picture of their kids in a bath is not illegal. Now, if they post it on the internet for everyone to see, it raises issues. And human kind will not be set back if people know they shouldn't put naked pictures of their kids on the internet.

Freedom of expression and religion have limits. Most notably when there's a compelling state interest involved. Safety of children, I would argue, is one such instance.

If I had to sum up my argument, I would simply state that there's no opposite compelling reason for people to include live naked children in their artwork. The potential costs vastly outweigh the benefits.

Now, if you want to argue that 18 is too high of a limit and a 16 year old could responsibly consent, that seems like a reasonable position. But anyone who has spent any time around 8th grade-ish kids (13,14) should recognize their absolute immaturity.

So are you saying that the producers, cast and crew of the Superman movie should be held accountable????

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just because there are vagarues on the border between art and porn does not mean we cannot distinguish between obvious examples.

You are drawing the line at any nudity involving underaged people, by your own statements. So you are clear that this behavior is over the line.

No, a parent/grandparent/close relative taking a picture of their kids in a bath is not illegal.

Maybe, depends on what the prosecutor and jury thinks. People have certainly been harassed over that sort of photo. And god forbid you breastfeed.

Now, if they post it on the internet for everyone to see, it raises issues. And human kind will not be set back if people know they shouldn't put naked pictures of their kids on the internet.

Why, it is a great way to share photos of your kids with your family.

Freedom of expression and religion have limits. Most notably when there's a compelling state interest involved. Safety of children, I would argue, is one such instance.

But are putting the limits here actually making any kids safer?

If I had to sum up my argument, I would simply state that there's no opposite compelling reason for people to include live naked children in their artwork. The potential costs vastly outweigh the benefits.

There is a compelling reason to let people make art? What things that no one is harmed do you need a compelling reason to justify putting in art?

 

[I Ratant]

I know porn when I see it.
And some art.
And some stuff that isn't intended to be porn, but is.
It's usually some high-minded crap that the purveyor can't see is filth.
Oops, there's filth, and porn and art.

 

[I Ratant]

Photographing nude children is wrong. The child may not be able to say no. I feel that this is wrong even if the parents are present. Who exactly would enjoy looking at these pictures? I wouldn't. I'd feel sorry for the exploited child.

.
Many old timers have photos of themselves as really young kids, bareassed, on bear skin rugs.
Everyone had those.
Slightly older kids, well............................................. probably nasty minded perverts taking the pictures.

 

[TraneWreck]

You are drawing the line at any nudity involving underaged people, by your own statements. So you are clear that this behavior is over the line.

No, this was a question about art v. porn. I was drawing the line at using living, naked children in artwork.

Family activity can and should be handled differently.

Maybe, depends on what the prosecutor and jury thinks. People have certainly been harassed over that sort of photo. And god forbid you breastfeed.

I did a quick google search and I couldn't find a single example of someone prosecuted for breastfeeding in public. I found instances of businesses making women go to washrooms or some similar silliness, but nothing relating to the law. That doesn't mean there aren't some, just none I could find.

As for the kids in the bath, the only case I found involved a Peoria Wal-Mart calling authorities when photos with some naked kids near the bath were dropped off:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/09/peoria_parents_sue_wal-mart_ag.php

The ridiculous, over-zealous local authorities tried to take the kids away. The parents were cleared after an investigation and are now suing those same authorities.

That seems like an example of the legal system dealing with this issue very well. Someone F'd up, they get sued.

Why, it is a great way to share photos of your kids with your family.

You can e-mail those photos directly to your family, make hard copies and mail them, but simply uploading naked pictures of your kids to sites open to the public, beyond being kind of weird, leaves one open to the question, "why does the public need to be able to see your naked kids?"

No real benefit, serious possible damage.

But are putting the limits here actually making any kids safer?

It depends on what issue we're dealing with. Limiting the ability of artists to use nude child models certainly makes kids safer. That line between legitimate artistic expression and sheer exploitation is so difficult to draw that we should not leave it open to interpretation.

I see your issue with normal family activity being described as porn, and that could certainly use more hashing out, but the case of artistic expression is very different. What is the argument that artists need nude child models?

There is a compelling reason to let people make art? What things that no one is harmed do you need a compelling reason to justify putting in art?

It's a big assumption that no one is harmed. But the fact of the matter is that children cannot consent to that sort of activity and as a society we should not make those decisions for them.

Art will not end for a paucity of 12-year old snizz.

 

[I Ratant]

...

But anyway, would you deny the status of art to Goya's "La maja desnuda"?

...

.
I have a shot of Sweet Thang in that pose... with only the tv on.

 

[BenBurch]

A bit of music by the 90s band "Bongwater" is worth of a listen as it demolishes this topic.

The cut is "Obscene and Pornographic Art" from the album "The Power Of Pussy."

 

[Psi Baba]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does this "classification" thing work? If a photographer seeks to have his images classified as art and it is determined that they are not art, can he be immediately arrested for possession of child pornography?

 

[BenBurch]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does this "classification" thing work? If a photographer seeks to have his images classified as art and it is determined that they are not art, can he be immediately arrested for possession of child pornography?

Smut is in the mind of the beholder.

For a foot-fetishist, a shoe catalog is porn. Let's ban them!

 

[HansMustermann]

Smut is in the mind of the beholder.

For a foot-fetishist, a shoe catalog is porn. Let's ban them!

Mmmm, feet

 

[Lithrael]

Limiting the ability of artists to use nude child models certainly makes kids safer. That line between legitimate artistic expression and sheer exploitation is so difficult to draw that we should not leave it open to interpretation.

I see your issue with normal family activity being described as porn, and that could certainly use more hashing out, but the case of artistic expression is very different. What is the argument that artists need nude child models?

I don't get it. So taking a photo of a kid in the bath for your family is OK, but say someone takes a photo of a kid in the bath and uses it as reference to paint something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cassatt_the_bath.jpg

Now it's back to 'don't touch with ten foot pole'?

Does the article in the OP suggest this painting should require a $500 not-porn stamp from the art police?

Even if that's not what you meant this whole line of thinking boggles me since every time I see it come up it's never the artwork that's bothered a kid but rather the freakout by protect the children zealots who point out in the local newspaper that someone could have a sexualized view of the artwork.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't get it. So taking a photo of a kid in the bath for your family is OK, but say someone takes a photo of a kid in the bath and uses it as reference to paint something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cassatt_the_bath.jpg

Now it's back to 'don't touch with ten foot pole'?

Does the article in the OP suggest this painting should require a $500 not-porn stamp from the art police?

Even if that's not what you meant this whole line of thinking boggles me since every time I see it come up it's never the artwork that's bothered a kid but rather the freakout by protect the children zealots who point out in the local newspaper that someone could have a sexualized view of the artwork.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. THere are many things that occur between family members, especially parents and children, that become weird and possibly illegal if done by strangers.

Nothing wrong with a parent washing a naked child in the bath. Quite a bit wrong with someone doing the same without the knowledge of the parents.

Roughly speaking, those are the extreme cases. As we move towards the middle it becomes harder to distinguish: Nanny, probably ok; aunt or uncle, depends on the family; teacher, depends on age/circumstance; artist bathing someone else's child for a performance, weird and unecessary.

Again, I have no problem with artists using images of naked children in their art. I do have serious concerns when live children are used as models. That seems like a fairly easy distinction, but I'm not an artist. Perhaps its impossible to represent a naked kid unless you have one sitting in your apartment.

As for the painting you linked, the issue is moot from a legal perspective. No one to prosecute, no one who suffered damages. I am only concerned with policy moving forward, and if we can develop a set of criteria and a procedure that ensures the safety of the children (and that having young kids model nude doesn't harm them psychologically), then I'm more willing to give artists some lee-way. The problem, as exhibited by this thread, is proper criteria and procedure are, to say the least, incredibly difficult to establish and the price for failure is extraordinarily high.

But again, Cassatt made a lot of very wonderful paintings that didn't have naked kids in them. If he hadn't been allowed to include naked children, he would have produced something very wonderful in its stead. And we're not talking about some wide-ranging censorship, just the exclusion of living, naked children in the production of art.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Unlike some people, I don't waste time nor energy debating what is art, as I may be one of the few humans who understands that the concept of "what art is" is an entirely subjective matter.

Is this porn or art?

Don't waste your time trying to answer. There is no right or wrong answer. You wouldn't imagine how many pedophiles would get off with less than that.

 

[tesscaline]

Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think.

Lets first disassemble this claim.

You say "clearly". Nothing in your article supports the claim that anything about the difference between pornography and art is clear. In fact, your article directly contradicts that claim.

From the article:

Currently a clear line does not exist between child pornography and art

So, the whole reason the legislation referenced is being enacted is because there is not a clear difference between porn (specifically child pornography) and art.

You say "porn is not art per se". Per se: "by or in itself; intrinsically", "by it's very nature", "in essence", "by definition". Can you name any art that is art intrinsically? Any art that is art in and of itself? Any art that is art by it's very nature? As in, without requiring the subjective view of an audience to interpret it, to experience, and then decide if it is art or not? Can you name one piece of art that no one would be able to dispute the artistic value of?

You say "as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think". Where in your article does it support this aspect of your claim? I see no reference there to any persons described as "misguided" or "self-indulgent". So where is your supporting evidence that "misguided, self-indulgent people like to think" that porn (especially child porn) is art per se?

OK, I'll post a recognised dictionary definition of each, for the purpose of discussion. I don't necessarily subscribe to these in all respects, but don't see them as particularly objectionable:

art n practical skill, or its application, guided by principles; human skill and agency (opp to nature); application of skill to production of beauty (esp visible beauty) and works of creative imagination, as in the fine arts; (in general use) the visual arts, drawing and painting and usu sculpture ...

pornography n books, magazines, films, etc dealing with or depicting sexual acts, in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement ...

You should spot some key differentiators, unless you choose to be deliberately obtuse.

Your two definitions are not mutually exclusive. Please explain why one cannot overlap into the other, and cite references to back up your assertions.

 

[GreyICE]

But again, Cassatt made a lot of very wonderful paintings that didn't have naked kids in them. If he hadn't been allowed to include naked children, he would have produced something very wonderful in its stead. And we're not talking about some wide-ranging censorship, just the exclusion of living, naked children in the production of art.

Question: If I can produce one photograph or artwork that contains a naked child, and which you unequivocally and certainly agree would be part of the cultural dynamic and an important contribution, would you withdraw this absolute claim?

One counterexample - a photo or piece of art with a naked child that we'd be poorer without. And its back to being shades of grey. Agree?

 

[TraneWreck]

Question: If I can produce one photograph or artwork that contains a naked child, and which you unequivocally and certainly agree would be part of the cultural dynamic and an important contribution, would you withdraw this absolute claim?

One counterexample - a photo or piece of art with a naked child that we'd be poorer without. And its back to being shades of grey. Agree?

Before I answer let me reiterate that I'm more concerned with this issue moving forward than I am with litigating past works of art.

That being said, I reject the notion that the art world and humanity in general are dependent on a single painting/photograph or even an entire subject matter for their artistic vibrance. We could all scour through collections and say, "this is nice, it would suck if we didn't have it," but it's not as though our entire conception of aesthetics woud come crashing down.

And it's not as though I'm making some sweeping, undefineable distinction, it's really a pretty simple principle: no naked kids in the production of the art.

So no, I don't think a counterexample would cause me to back away from my absolutist position. For one, I don't care that much about what has happened, but even if I did, the notion that a single painting is so essential that we are "cheapened" by its loss seems like hyperbole.

In other words, if our choice is between the potential exploitation of a child and achieving ultimate artistic expression, so much the worse for the arts.

 

[TraneWreck]

But again, Cassatt made a lot of very wonderful paintings that didn't have naked kids in them. If he hadn't been allowed to include naked children, he would have produced something very wonderful in its stead. And we're not talking about some wide-ranging censorship, just the exclusion of living, naked children in the production of art.

By the way, that was lame as hell. Sorry for using male pronouns for MARY Cassatt.

I blame my fingers.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I did a quick google search and I couldn't find a single example of someone prosecuted for breastfeeding in public. I found instances of businesses making women go to washrooms or some similar silliness, but nothing relating to the law. That doesn't mean there aren't some, just none I could find.

As for the kids in the bath, the only case I found involved a Peoria Wal-Mart calling authorities when photos with some naked kids near the bath were dropped off:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/09/peoria_parents_sue_wal-mart_ag.php

The ridiculous, over-zealous local authorities tried to take the kids away. The parents were cleared after an investigation and are now suing those same authorities.

That seems like an example of the legal system dealing with this issue very well. Someone F'd up, they get sued.

<snip>

"Quick" may be the operative term here. You may have searched quickly, but you didn't search very well, and you didn't even pay much attention to the hits you did get.

Using the article you cited you said,

"The ridiculous, over-zealous local authorities tried to take the kids away."

​

I agree with the adjectives, but the rest of your sentence is misleading. Your link says,

The Wal-Mart employee alerted authorities to the fact that he was given the photos, and the Demarees' children were placed in foster care while the state investigated the case to see if there was any evidence of sexual assault.

Lets dig a bit deeper, though, and see what really happened to Lisa and A.J. Demaree. ABC News has this to share,

The Peoria, Ariz., couple had their home searched by police and worse, their children -- then ages 18 months, 4 and 5 -- were taken from them for more than month. Their names were placed on a sex offender registry for a time, and Lisa Demaree was suspended from her school job for a year. The couple said they have spent $75,000 on legal bills.

I'm not sure about your perspective but to me this seems more than trivial. Certainly more than,

"That seems like an example of the legal system dealing with this issue very well. Someone F'd up, they get sued."
​

The eight photos in question were among a batch of 144 family photos the Demarees had taken to their local Walmart. The developer alerted the police and the investigation into child pornography began in earnest, even though the parents maintained they were innocent bath time photos.

Perhaps they were hiding the porno in a crowd?

They are pursuing their lawsuits against the city of Peoria and Walmart. The authorities claim nothing was done wrong.

Steve Meissner, a spokesman for Child Protective Services, released a statement saying, "When a police agency calls us on a matter, we have an obligation to act on that matter. If we refused, the community would be very unhappy with us."



The city of Peoria also states that it stands behind the appropriate actions of their officers.

Lisa Demaree has a comment which I think lends itself to this discussion.

"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa Demaree said, "As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."

If you had pursued your investigations about breast feeding with a little more diligence you might have found this case, which turned up at the top of a search with the keywords "breast feeding pictures pornography".

The service was fast, the judgments even hastier. Never did Jacqueline Mercado imagine that four rolls of film dropped off at an Eckerd Drugs one-hour photo lab near her home would turn her life inside out, threaten to send her to jail and prompt the state to take away her kids.

In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast.

With nothing else to support their contention that the photos were related to sex or sexual gratification, the police and the Dallas County District Attorney's Office presented the photos to a grand jury in January and came away with indictments against Mercado and Fernandez for "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The charges centered on a single photo, the breast-feeding shot. Fernandez and Mercado say they took it--although the child had ceased breast-feeding--to memorialize that stage of their baby's development.

Andrew Chatham, one of three lawyers working on behalf of Mercado and her boyfriend, says it is difficult to imagine a clearer case of over-reaching by police and prosecutors. "Their theory, which is supported by nothing, is that these pictures were taken to satisfy the boyfriend's sexual desires. These aren't pictures that were peddled on the open market. This wasn't on someone's Web site. This is just a mother who took a roll of film and left it off at Eckerd's. The state used them to arrest her, indict her for a felony and take away her kids."

Just to be sure we're clear, the couple was arrested, jailed, and their child taken away. They had to drum money for bonds in the high five figures, and lawyer fees before the charges were dropped. I'm not sure how long it took to get the kid back. I'm still looking.

There are plenty more examples like this. Even Fox News, not normally a bastion of liberal permissiveness, had this to say,

Thinking about taking some of those cute little snapshots of your kids at bathtime? Think again. The way many of today's child abuse laws are written and executed, those snapshots could land your kids in a foster home — and you in jail. And that begs the question: Have child abuse laws begun to go too far?

Consider Jody Jenkins, a former resident of Savannah, GA, and author of the recent Salon.com article, “They Called Me a Child Pornographer.” His abbreviated story is this: Mr. Jenkins, who had no prior criminal record, snapped several photos of his family during a “back-to-basics” camping trip. (Several pictures were of his three-year-old daughter skinny-dipping; another included a picture of his naked eight-year-old son, hamming it up in front of the camera as he dried his underpants on a stick near the fire after a swim. Most, however, portrayed run-of-the-mill camping stuff.) A drugstore photo clerk later determined that several of the photos were “questionable,” and alerted the Savannah police. Jenkins was eventually cleared of “child pornography” and “sexual exploitation of a minor,” but not before Savannah police and the Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS) had put his family through an excruciating multi-week odyssey in which friends and family were interviewed, employers were contacted, a lawyer was retained — and the threat of losing custody of his children was ever-present. “

According to a 2004 report by U.S. Department for Health and Human Services, more than half (60.7 percent) of abuse investigations lead to a finding that the alleged mistreatment was “unsubstantiated.” Dr. Douglass Besharov, a child abuse expert at the Maryland School of Public Affairs, and the first director of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, estimates that out of the nearly 3 million reports of child abuse made each year, seven in 10 of them are without merit.

I don't believe that this issue is quite as simple and straightforward as you suggest, nor as harmless to the innocent.

 

[TraneWreck]

"Quick" may be the operative term here. You may have searched quickly, but you didn't search very well, and you didn't even pay much attention to the hits you did get....

...I don't believe that this issue is quite as simple and straightforward as you suggest, nor as harmless to the innocent.

I don't think I ever suggestedit was harmless, innocent, or simple, merely that it isn't a huge societal problem. I stand by that. In every case mentioned the people who were victims of the out-of-control authorities will cross-sue for the damages they incurred.

That's not to say that it doesn't suck to be those people, but the legal system responds quickly to lawsuits against it. This practice is not, nor will it become widespread unless legislaturs start enacting laws that specifically criminalize the activity.

There's a reason each of these cases are so noteworthy. It's not because they're common.