Porn vs. Art

[Brian-M]

Well, if you can't see any difference between a photographer taking pictures of something that exists, and an artist who sets up his subject matter, I don't know what to say.

Is it the same difference as an artist who paints landscapes that actually exist and an artist who paints a landscape he just made up?

Photographic art doesn't have to be of something deliberately arranged by the photographer. Instead of creating the scene to be photographed he can seek out real-life situations that suit his purpose. We're talking about professional artistic photography here, not someone just taking random snapshots on a holiday or a news photographer simply trying to record what's happening.

For example...

The photographer couldn't possibly have "set up his subject matter" for this shot... he just took "pictures of something that exists", yet it's still art.

 

[TraneWreck]

Is it the same difference as an artist who paints landscapes that actually exist and an artist who paints a landscape he just made up?

Photographic art doesn't have to be of something deliberately arranged by the photographer. Instead of creating the scene to be photographed he can seek out real-life situations that suit his purpose. We're talking about professional artistic photography here, not someone just taking random snapshots on a holiday or a news photographer simply trying to record what's happening.

For example...

[qimg]http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/misty-bridge.jpg[/qimg]

The photographer couldn't possibly have "set up his subject matter" for this shot... he just took "pictures of something that exists", yet it's still art.

Obviously they aren't mutually exclusive positions, but you were able to distinguish the situation in your own post---taking a picture of landscape vs. inventing a landscape, a la Bob Ross.

Thus, taking photos of some event that's occuring wherein a child is naked is a different situation than getting a child naked to take a photo of them.

Taking a picture of Hiroshima=Good; setting off an atom bomb in a city to get a good picture=bad.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm going to need some argument there. So naked kids in art is an irreversable force of nature? No way to stop that from happening?

Um. Kids are natural. Naked, clothed, etc. There is nothing inherently bad about it. Art is just a reflection of nature, interpreted through a human mind. That is true for both the creator of the art and the observer. There's nothing special about that, and no, there's no way to stop it from happening. Laws that attempt to won't work, and will be abused.

And why should we listen to the artists just because that's what they want to do?

Who says you have to listen to anything? Or look, for that matter?

The only reason? I can honestly say that's a reason that doesn't motivate me in the least. Protecting the psychological well-being of the child is the ONLY thing I'm really interested in.

What evidence can you provide that this statute and ones like it have any beneficial effect at all on the well-being of children that is not provided by child abuse statutes which do not appeal to prudery?

 

[TraneWreck]

Because it is that artist's freedom to do so.

Unless someone is harmed in the process. The artist's freedom is not absolute.

Really? The old "Think of the children" cry?

Your own statement

IS my arguement. You are stating that if one child gets hurt because she/he posed naked, even for a legitimate, non-sexual, artistic photo shoot, then all of it should not be done? The censorship should be allowed?

Who else should I think of when it comes to child pornography?

Because children are incapable of consenting to the use of their body, society should not make that decision for them. In addition, because the line between art and child pornography is nearly impossible to draw, and the cost of making an error in that drawing is so sever, we should err on the side of caution.

Find me the compelling need to allow naked kids in art. So far you think Superman III wouldn't be as good, or something.

Interesting how nude photos of children ACTUALLY suffering is okay with you, but having a scene in a movie of a nude child coming out of a spaceship in a fictitious story would be acceptable only if the kid was wearing underwear.......

Have I got your opinion right?

That is one of the funniest attempts at demonizing a position I have ever seen.

It is ok to take a picture of a child suffering IF YOU DID NOT CAUSE NOR COULD YOU PREVENT THE SUFFERING.

If the photographer had dropped the napalm on that girl, yes, he would be guilty of unacceptible actions.

 

[JFrankA]

My stance is to not worry about whether it's porn or not and err on the side of protecting children.

Do all kids who are photographed naked suffer? Obviously not, but what do we gain by trying to draw that line accurately? If we succeed, we have some art with naked kids in it, if we fail, lives are ruined.

You know, if that's your reasoning, in light of recent news, I will go on to say that the church should avoid having alter boys:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8556659.stm

So I will say that we should not worry about whether a priest is a child molester or not and err on the side of protecting children.

Do all kids who are alter boys suffer? Obviously not, but what do we gain by trying to draw that line accurately? If we succeed, we have some alter boys who are not abused, if we fail, lives are ruined.

 

[I Ratant]

Art, porn and filth are really a combination of the originator's and viewers perceptions of the product.
The "naked kiddies are porn" knee-jerkers will never see art there.
They probably have a lot of things that are nasty, to them, that normal people wouldn't pay two seconds attention to.
We're stuck with'em.
Keeping them under control though can mean someone(s) have to find a limit to presentations of natural things... and ALL of it is natural, if not sometimes perverse.

 

[JFrankA]

Unless someone is harmed in the process. The artist's freedom is not absolute.



Who else should I think of when it comes to child pornography?

Because children are incapable of consenting to the use of their body, society should not make that decision for them. In addition, because the line between art and child pornography is nearly impossible to draw, and the cost of making an error in that drawing is so sever, we should err on the side of caution.

Find me the compelling need to allow naked kids in art. So far you think Superman III wouldn't be as good, or something.



That is one of the funniest attempts at demonizing a position I have ever seen.

It is ok to take a picture of a child suffering IF YOU DID NOT CAUSE NOR COULD YOU PREVENT THE SUFFERING.

If the photographer had dropped the napalm on that girl, yes, he would be guilty of unacceptible actions.

But I am going by what you said. The child who played Kal-El in Superman wasn't harmed at all, yet you advocate that he should be wearing underwear. Why?

Which is it? The nudity is okay if done with no harm intended or not okay at all? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me you are arguing both ways.

 

[I Ratant]

Back when I was an altar boy, I recall spending some time with one of the base chaplains.... in his Cessna 140!
My first flight.
Other than that, nothing unusual that comes to mind.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Find me the compelling need to allow naked kids in art.

<snip>

Demonstrate a compelling need not to. You appear to be advocating some sort of "Everything not mandatory is forbidden." approach to social engineering.

 

[TraneWreck]

Um. Kids are natural. Naked, clothed, etc. There is nothing inherently bad about it. Art is just a reflection of nature, interpreted through a human mind. That is true for both the creator of the art and the observer. There's nothing special about that, and no, there's no way to stop it from happening. Laws that attempt to won't work, and will be abused.

Same thing is true of child molestation laws. We don't take them off the books.

Who says you have to listen to anything? Or look, for that matter?

I don't get the point here, but I will reiterate something I said earlier because it seems to apply: I don't care about child pornography from the perspective of the consumer, only the child being abused.

What evidence can you provide that this statute and ones like it have any beneficial effect at all on the well-being of children that is not provided by child abuse statutes which do not appeal to prudery?

I don't know what statute you're talking about.

As for abuse, I don't think it would do anything differently. I'm simply arguing that "art" is not a valid excuse to exempt oneself from the child abuse laws.

 

[MikeMangum]

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"?

Well, I don't really want to try and define what is and isn't art or whether porn is art...but I can say that the absolute worst porn is the porn that tries to be art.

 

[TraneWreck]

Demonstrate a compelling need not to. You appear to be advocating some sort of "Everything not mandatory is forbidden." approach to social engineering.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

Because children forced to model naked against their will suffer tremendously. The will of the child, as distinguished from the will of the guardian volunteering them for "art," is impossible to establish. Note the less than stellar history of children forced to perform in non-porn settings.

If you think you can distinguish between a child who is happy to pose nude and one that will be deeply traumatized by the event, then cool.

But abuse is not determined by the intent of the abuser. Just saying, "I meant this to be art," does not mean the child will accept it as such.

Because such issues are impossible to consistently get right, we should simply avoid them.

 

[Brian-M]

Thus, taking photos of some event that's occuring wherein a child is naked is a different situation than getting a child naked to take a photo of them.

Here's another photo from the same photographic art gallary website I found the last one...

I have no idea whether the photographer arranged for the children to be naked for the photo, or if they were already naked to start with. Personally, I don't think it really matters.

Art will be judged as pornographic or non-pornographic depending on the end result of the picture, regardless of whether or not the artist arranged for the models to be naked. For the sake of determining whether or not something is pornographic, how the picture came to exist is irrelevant.

(Irrelevant for defining pornography. It is relevant for determining abuse.)

 

[TraneWreck]

But I am going by what you said. The child who played Kal-El in Superman wasn't harmed at all, yet you advocate that he should be wearing underwear. Why?

What allows you to say that with confidence?

Which is it? The nudity is okay if done with no harm intended or not okay at all? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me you are arguing both ways.

No, the intent of the adult is irrelevant. It's the impact on the child.

I don't know whether it's "ok" or not. It depends on what happens inside the head of the child. But because I will readily admit that I can never, with certainty, establish a reliable fact about the child's internal reaction, I choose to err on the side of caution.

When they reach the age of consent, have at it. I don't care if they ever put on clothes again.

 

[TraneWreck]

Here's another photo from the same photographic art gallary website I found the last one...

[qimg]http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/sunbakers.jpg[/qimg]

I have no idea whether the photographer arranged for the children to be naked for the photo, or if they were already naked to start with. Personally, I don't think it really matters.

Art will be judged as pornographic or non-pornographic depending on the end result of the picture, regardless of whether or not the artist arranged for the models to be naked. For the sake of determining whether or not something is pornographic, how the picture came to exist is irrelevant.

(Irrelevant for defining pornography. It is relevant for determining abuse.)

In so far as I can tell, I think we're discussing different issues. I very much agree with the caveat, for the lack of a better term, that ended your post.

I am not trying to determine what is and what is not pornography. I am conceding my complete inability to do so. I am only concerned with the best possible way to avoid abusing children. Because that line is difficult to draw and we cannot reliably predict how using naked children in art will affect those children, I say don't do it at all.

Again, that's just going forward. I don't care about past pictures of naked kids, I care about current living children and how they will be treated.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, I don't really want to try and define what is and isn't art or whether porn is art...but I can say that the absolute worst porn is the porn that tries to be art.

Not so!

Ever seen "Cafe Flesh?"

High concept.

Art.

Hard porn.

SciFi, even.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café_Flesh

 

[quadraginta]

Same thing is true of child molestation laws. We don't take them off the books.

No. It is not the same. Child abuse laws prevent actual abuse to actual children. There is nothing intrinsically abusive about taking pictures of children merely because of their state of undress.

I don't get the point here, but I will reiterate something I said earlier because it seems to apply: I don't care about child pornography from the perspective of the consumer, only the child being abused.

This isn't about child abuse. It's about some individual or group making a determination about the intent of someone's work based on their personal preconceptions, and doing so at a legally mandated cost to the originator. It's nothing more than a license to extort.

I don't know what statute you're talking about.

How quickly we forget. The OP is concerned with a law (that's a statute ) about people judging art in search of pornography. Remember now?

As for abuse, I don't think it would do anything differently. I'm simply arguing that "art" is not a valid excuse to exempt oneself from the child abuse laws.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. This isn't about child abuse. It's about using the specter of child abuse to ramrod legislation mandating sanctimonious pseudo-morality, and placing the definition of that morality in the hands of those who fashion the law. And then paying them for the right to be judged! Pretty darned convenient, don't you think? For someone, at any rate.

 

[JFrankA]

What allows you to say that with confidence?



No, the intent of the adult is irrelevant. It's the impact on the child.

I don't know whether it's "ok" or not. It depends on what happens inside the head of the child. But because I will readily admit that I can never, with certainty, establish a reliable fact about the child's internal reaction, I choose to err on the side of caution.

When they reach the age of consent, have at it. I don't care if they ever put on clothes again.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude or condescending but are you even reading my posts? I'm sorry, I'm not talking about the intent of over aged people. I'm talking about your statement saying basically all artists should not at all have child nudity from this day forward, even if the child is not harmed or abused or sexually assaulted in any way.

 

[TraneWreck]

No. It is not the same. Child abuse laws prevent actual abuse to actual children. There is nothing intrinsically abusive about taking pictures of children merely because of their state of undress.

Taking pictures of naked child against there will is abuse. Because we do not recognize the ability of children to consent on important matters, we cannot reliably know the will of the child. Thus, we cannot reliably know when it's art and when it's abuse. Err on the side of caution.

This isn't about child abuse. It's about some individual or group making a determination about the intent of someone's work based on their personal preconceptions, and doing so at a legally mandated cost to the originator. It's nothing more than a license to extort.

My argument is 100% about abuse, so I don't know what "this" refers to.

The intent of the artist is irrelevant, it's the impact on the child. If you can determine with a high level of reliability the impact nude modelling will have on the kid, then I don't have as much of a problem.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. This isn't about child abuse. It's about using the specter of child abuse to ramrod legislation mandating sanctimonious pseudo-morality, and placing the definition of that morality in the hands of those who fashion the law. And then paying them for the right to be judged! Pretty darned convenient, don't you think? For someone, at any rate.

No, it's about child abuse:

"There are two ways in which children can potentially be harmed by child pornography--by being exposed to child pornography or by being filmed themselves. Children who are exposed to pornography are in danger of being desensitised and seduced into believing that pornographic activity is "normal" for children. EFCW Position Statement, supra note 22, at 3. It can provide a kind of modelling that may adversely affect children's behaviour and result in learning experiences which connect sex to exploitation, force, or violence. James Check, Teenage Training: The Effects of Pornography on Adolescent Males, in Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds., The Price We Pay: The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda and Pornography 89-91 (1995).


The impact on the child victim who is exploited to produce pornography is often serious. Children can experience a myriad of symptoms including physical symptoms and illnesses, emotional withdrawal, anti-social behaviour, mood-swings, depression, fear and anxiety. In a study of children involved in sex rings, all of whom were sexually abused, 54.8% of the children were used in the creation of pornography. In these children, there was a significant relationship between involvement in pornography and a pattern of identification with the exploiter, along with deviant and symptomatic behaviour. Ann Wolbert Burgess, et al., Response Patterns in Children and Adolescents Exploited Through Sex Rings and Pornography, American Journal of Psychiatry 141:5 (May 1984)."

http://www.crime-research.org/articles/536/4

You can huff and puff all you want, but these issues are indistinguishable from abuse issues.

 

[Brian-M]

I am not trying to determine what is and what is not pornography. I am conceding my complete inability to do so. I am only concerned with the best possible way to avoid abusing children. Because that line is difficult to draw and we cannot reliably predict how using naked children in art will affect those children, I say don't do it at all.

The problem is that the anti-child-porn hysteria is adversely affecting people in situations that cannot possibly put children in danger.

So far we have restrictions on pornography containing small-breasted women because they might look under-age, we have an arrest and conviction of a man for possessing child porn when all he did was download a drawing of the Simpsons having sex, and now we have this idiocy too.

I should point out that the legislation in the article linked to in the OP doesn't just apply to photography, it applies to drawings and paintings too. You could have artistic paintings of semi-naked children deemed to be child pornography even when no actual children were used as models.

Artistic expression and personal freedoms are being restricted in situations where there are no children are in any kind of danger.