Porn vs. Art

[tesscaline]

The reasons are irrelevant (unless you're suggesting that my kids are unique). The fact of the matter is all that matters. Nudity is clearly an issue for kids even in the most innocuous of circumstances - period.

Bolding mine.

Is it really? So in every culture on every part of the earth, all children are embarrassed by nudity?

 

[BenBurch]

Bolding mine.

Is it really? So in every culture on every part of the earth, all children are embarrassed by nudity?

He clearly has never, ever seen a copy of National Geographic.

 

[JFrankA]

I see no distinction, just opposite sides of the same coin. Is that "logical" enough for you?!

...coins, like your logic, are circular too...

 

[Brian-M]

OK - let's see. Let me ask you these questions:

Q1: Was Michelangelo an artist?
Q2: Assuming you've answered yes(!), his works are, hence, "art", yes?
Q3: Assuming you've answered yes(!), this image is intrinsically "art", yes?:

Q4: If it isn't intrinsically "art" then what, intrinsically, is it, exactly?
Q5: As for your inference that the "essential characteristics" change over time and that "art" relies on subjective judgement by the viewer for its classification, at what point in time do you expect "The Creation of Man" to be declassified? It's endured 499 years so far. Half a millenium, say, next year?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to answer.

Q1. Yes, Michelangelo was an artist because he produced many works which were intended as art and are perceived by others as art.

Q2. No. The fact that Michelangelo was an artist doesn't automatically mean that everything he created was art. Were his inventions, for example, art?

Q3. N/A

Q4. Intrinsically, it's paint on a ceiling.

Q5. In a greatly more prudish society, it might be considered pornography rather than art.

ETA: Because of the way our brains perceive images, that painting will probably be considered to be art as long as the human race exists. (Ancient cave-paintings are still regarded as artwork, for example. Conceptual art, as a counter-example, often depends context and individual interpretation to be considered artwork.)

 

[Brian-M]

The illegitimate approach is to claim that it would be unprecedented to define a class of actions that a parent cannot consent to on behalf of a child. That simply isn't true.

The Legitimate approach is to argue that nude modelling is not like alcohol consumption and driving, it should be allowed.

You've made an argument for the first position, I assume you're argument for the second is that nude modelling is more analagous to chainsaws then the examples I offered.

Not exactly. I was making the point that activities that a child cannot normally consent to on their own are often considered acceptable in conjunction with parental consent or supervision (even in some cases where it is technically against the law, such as allowing a child to have a sip of alcohol or use a chainsaw). Why not permit nude modeling of children with parental consent and/or supervision? In most cases (ie. when the child has a responsible parent) this will help ensure that the child is not physically or psychologically harmed.

I just don't agree with that last statement. Because the study didn't come with actual pictures to examine, there is no way for anyone to conclude as you did. There may very well be pictures included under "child pornography" that many people in this forum would consider "child erotica."

You don't need to examine pictures. The subject of this thread is the article linked into the OP where images that would previously have not been legally considered child porn may now be classified as child porn in NSW.

Why would this study of the effects of child porn include the kinds of images that were not regarded as child porn at the time the study was made, not considered to be child porn as the term is commonly used and may not be regarded as child porn in many places around the world?

ETA: The fact that the study didn't find any cases where the subjects of child pornography weren't physically abused clearly indicates that their definition of child porn does not include the kind of nude images that most people (not just those on this forum) would not consider to be child porn.

Honestly, reading those definitions do you have a clear idea of which is which? As a lawyer these are the sorts of issues where we make our money. In a courtroom both sides will take the same picture and make passionate arguments on both sides. I would be willing to bet that courts and juries err so far on the side of child pornography (that is to say, finding pictures to be porn, not erotica) that even highly innocent looking things have been deemed unacceptible.

The definitions can give a clear idea of which is which in most cases, but there is definitely a large gray area where an image can be declared to be either or both. The problem is that now in NSW the decision on those images that fall in the gray area will be decided upon the subjective evaluation of the artistic merits of the image alone, without consideration for the intent of the artist.

Once again, my argument is that no one can distinguish between those situations and thusly should not be making unnecessary decisions for children that place them in potentially damaging situations.

I'd argue that's it's very easy to distinguish between situations where innocent nude pictures are being taken which won't harm the child, and situations where sexually explicit photographs are being taken that will likely harm the child.

I'd argue that's it's very easy to distinguish between situations where innocent nude pictures are being taken which won't harm the child, and situations where sexually explicit photographs are being taken that will likely harm the child.

Please prove this. Find a case where someone has been exonerated. You keep saying this is easy, but you have no idea what pictures were used to convict someone. You may very well find those to be innocent but the owner is in prison.

What the hell? Exonerated from what? What does the pictures produced from the situation have to do with my statement?

If the child is being made to perform sexual actions or is being otherwise abused, or is being forced to participate against their will, or is clearly in a state of emotional distress, then anybody present will be able to recognize that this isn't some safe harmless innocent photography session.

While it may not always be possible to determine this from the final pictures produced, anyone present at the time can clearly distinguish the difference. Your argument that no one can distinguish between those situations, and should therefore not be allowed to decide whether or not the child should participate is false.

Just because I couldn't prove cigarettes to be harmful in 1950, that doesn't mean they were safe.

You could prove they were harmful long before 1950, which is why every state had laws against selling cigarettes to children by that time.

In 1939, the first scientific study linking lung cancer with smoking was published. Between 1950 and 1954, 14 studies associating cigarettes and serious diseases were completed

Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2b.htm


But that's beside the point. You don't ban something just because you can't prove that it's not safe.

I've yet to see anyone prove that 1) nude modelling isn't harmful and 2) there's an easy way to distinguish cases.

1. The only possible mechanism for nude modeling to cause harm to the subject is through psychological trauma. Therefore situations where nude modeling is not traumatic, it is not possible for it to be harmful.

2. Most cases are easily distinguished. Most cases of nude modeling of children for artistic purposes are not controversial in the slightest. It's only in a very small number of cases that distinguishing this is a problem.

Obviously this discussion will not result in the creation of a new law, but when we ask the quetion, "Is nude child modelling harmful," the failure to prove that it is does not mean that it isn't.

And the failure to prove that it isn't does not mean that it is.

No one is being punished unless they violate the statute.

From the article linked to in the OP...

In 2008, NSW detectives raided an inner-Sydney art gallery, seizing Mr Henson's images of naked 12 and 13-year-old girls, saying they expected to lay charges.

But the investigation collapsed and the artist was never charged.

"At the moment it's unusual for artists to seek classification because it's very rare for work to be contentious," she said.

"It usually costs $500 at least for one image, so it can become quite expensive.

"It can take a number of weeks so that can be an issue where an artist has an exhibition pending.

"If they miss the exhibition slot obviously it has economic consequences for them."

Artists having their pictures seized in police raids and having to spend large sums of money on having their pictures officially classified as not porn? Officially these controversial artists may not be being punished for their work, but effectively they are, and they haven't broken any statutes.

 

[Brian-M]

By definition it's a matter of fact that orchestrating child nudity for artistic purposes could cause psychological harm (no proof to the contrary exists). Ergo it's a matter of fact that a risk exists. As I say, it's then simply(!) a question only of degree - no assumptions necessary.

By definition it's a matter of fact that orchestrating child performances for entertainment could cause psychological harm (no proof to the contrary exists). Ergo it's a matter of fact that a risk exists. As I say, it's then simply(!) a question only of degree - no assumptions necessary.

(So let's restrict all child performances! )

[/satire]

 

[MontagK505]

Being a member of a family of practicing nudists might, though, at which point the image capture becomes incidental. Consider this: I consider myself pretty liberal. I uncaringly walk around the bedroom, sometimes other rooms(!), naked in the presence of my kids (all boys - 13, 9 and 9). Always have done. But for some reason that I honestly question but fail to understand, they've taken to finding it amusingly squeemish. Moreover, and more importantly, they all three (especially the eldest) are embarrassed if inadvertently observed naked by either my wife or me, and seek to avoid such situations at great inconvenience to them. Why is that? I've consciously but passively endeavoured to raise them with little or no inhibitions whan it comes to nudity in the privacy of our home, albeit in the presence of each other. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, nudity in the presence of others, at some point, seems to become a psychological issue for kids. Plain and simple. That, to me, is enough to question the wisdom of promoting it in anything other than an "incidental" manner.


Ergo here's the rub. To what extent can positive promotion of child nudity (which is exactly what orchestrating child nudity for the purpose of artistry undoubtedly amounts to) NOT be considered "pressuring" or even "forcing" (please don't offer the "with the child's permission" as a defense - it has no logical or legal standing)?


Again, engineered child nudity vs. child porn comparison - red herring.

The “red herring” you refer to has been used by people arguing both sides of this issue.

To clarify a little more, I think you would be neglecting the welfare of your children, if you pressured them to serve as models of any kind when they clearly didn't like the idea. This also extends to child acting, singing, dancing etc.

Brooke Shields would be a classic example of this. My opinion is, whatever potential talent she might have had was thoroughly short circuited by her mother's unrelenting ambitions. Her mother should have been her first line of defense against exploitation.

However, it still hasn't been explained how the ”Classifying” of art by government bureaucrats, as referred to in the OP, would have any bearing on the issue of protecting children from abuse or exploitation.

 

[Southwind17]

By this "logic," the following two statements are opposite sides of the same coin:

"All squares are rectangles."
"All rectangles are squares."

Except that neither of those two statements is true! Are you claiming that "artists" (when acting in the role of artists, of course ) produce something other than "art", and that "art" is produced by something other than "artists" (when acting in the role of "artists", of course )?!

Your 'logic' does not resemble our Earth logic.

I'm pleased you wrote "our Earth logic" and not simply "logic". At least, technically, that affords some scope for something other than logic by the generally accepted meaning(s) of the word!

 

[Southwind17]

Even if it's purely a social construct? Even if the only reason it's an issue is because our culture says so?

You're missing the point. It matters not a jot why my kids feel the way they do about exposed nudity for the purpose of this debate (the reasons might well be an interesting topic for a separate debate, and I would be interested to hear views, or read studies). The fact of the matter is they do feel the way they do and it's clearly an issue. BTW - you're free to disagree, but I don't believe my kids are unique. On the contrary, I believe they're typical.

 

[Southwind17]

Is it really? So in every culture on every part of the earth, all children are embarrassed by nudity?

No, not all, but at least in those to which the subject of child nudity and art generally, i.e. this current thrust of this thread(!), refers!

 

[Southwind17]

He clearly has never, ever seen a copy of National Geographic.

I sometimes wonder how much somebody can miss a simple point by. Hey ho - I think I might have my answer!

 

[GreyICE]

By this "logic," the following two statements are opposite sides of the same coin:

"All squares are rectangles."
"All rectangles are squares."

Except that neither of those two statements is true!

We're done. Nothing more stupid can possibly be said in the thread, it's over.

 

[Southwind17]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to answer.

Q1. Yes, Michelangelo was an artist because he produced many works which were intended as art and are perceived by others as art.

Rubbish.

Q2. No. The fact that Michelangelo was an artist doesn't automatically mean that everything he created was art. Were his inventions, for example, art?

I trust this straw man has been adequately clarified now and put to bed.

Q3. N/A

So far as your powers of deduction go, maybe.

Q4. Intrinsically, it's paint on a ceiling.

Is that all? The intrinsic arrangement (as opposed to randomness) of the paint has no relevance?

Q5. In a greatly more prudish society, it might be considered pornography rather than art.

Can't argue with that, provided that such society also re-defines porn. Were there any other hypotheticals you'd like to introduce in support of your argument?

ETA: Because of the way our brains perceive images, that painting will probably be considered to be art as long as the human race exists. (Ancient cave-paintings are still regarded as artwork, for example. Conceptual art, as a counter-example, often depends context and individual interpretation to be considered artwork.)

"Conceptual art". Interesting differentiator. Here's an idea for another thread: Porn vs. Conceptual Art. Why don't you start it?

 

[Southwind17]

Why not permit nude modeling of children with parental consent and/or supervision? In most cases (ie. when the child has a responsible parent) this will help ensure that the child is not physically or psychologically harmed [emphasis added].

Are you for real?!

If the child is being made to perform sexual actions or is being otherwise abused, or is being forced to participate against their will, or is clearly in a state of emotional distress, then anybody present will be able to recognize that this isn't some safe harmless innocent photography session.

So the threshold for determination is essentially "patently obvious". Sure, that should ensure psychological safety.

While it may not always be possible to determine this from the final pictures produced, anyone present at the time can clearly distinguish the difference. Your argument that no one can distinguish between those situations, and should therefore not be allowed to decide whether or not the child should participate is false.

So if your child (let's just assume you have one, if you haven't) showed potential symptoms of meningitis you'd wait until it developed to an unequivocal stage before seeking a "professional" medical determination? Or would you take precautions and err on the safe side?

But that's beside the point. You don't ban something just because you can't prove that it's not safe.

Is somebody here disputing this?!

1. The only possible mechanism for nude modeling to cause harm to the subject is through psychological trauma. Therefore situations where nude modeling is not traumatic, it is not possible for it to be harmful.

2. Most cases are easily distinguished. Most cases of nude modeling of children for artistic purposes are not controversial in the slightest. It's only in a very small number of cases that distinguishing this is a problem.

I'm sorry, I'm not a great believer of this tactic in a discussion forum, but please, evidence?

And the failure to prove that it isn't does not mean that it is.

QED!

Artists having their pictures seized in police raids and having to spend large sums of money on having their pictures officially classified as not porn? Officially these controversial artists may not be being punished for their work, but effectively they are, and they haven't broken any statutes.

So what do you think the precursor investigations to these "police raids" are likely to have revealed, typically, and which, undoubtedly, will be presented in evidence should a case go to court? You foresee a pandemic problem amongst the art world, right? Feel free to visit planet Earth at any time.

 

[Southwind17]

By definition it's a matter of fact that orchestrating child performances for entertainment could cause psychological harm (no proof to the contrary exists). Ergo it's a matter of fact that a risk exists. As I say, it's then simply(!) a question only of degree - no assumptions necessary.
(So let's restrict all child performances! )
[/satire]

Hang on a minute. You even went so far as quoting "it's then simply(!) a question only of degree", so why, then, do you ignore that critical aspect when continuing? And let's test it, shall we: To what degree do you, as a layperson (presumably), consider a child performance for entertainment (presumably not involving nudity!) potentially harmful to children psychologically, and why? And then contrast that with the same child posing nude for an artist. For some reason I'm not expecting a particularly in-depth analysis from you here!

 

[Southwind17]

The “red herring” you refer to has been used by people arguing both sides of this issue.

Thanks for the admission. But not by me, significantly.

To clarify a little more, I think you would be neglecting the welfare of your children, if you pressured them to serve as models of any kind when they clearly didn't like the idea. This also extends to child acting, singing, dancing etc.

I'm pleased that you emboldened that part yourself, thereby saving me the trouble. So you, too, see the threshold for caution as "patently obvious"? So I'll ask you the same meningitis scenario question above ...(?)

Brooke Shields would be a classic example of this. My opinion is, whatever potential talent she might have had was thoroughly short circuited by her mother's unrelenting ambitions. Her mother should have been her first line of defense against exploitation.

So you think isolated extreme examples support your case?! They're fine for emphasizing a point, but supporting a case, sorry, no.

However, it still hasn't been explained how the ”Classifying” of art by government bureaucrats, as referred to in the OP, would have any bearing on the issue of protecting children from abuse or exploitation.

Simply, and importantly in theory, it would, as a deterrent, eliminate certain "artistic" endeavours harmful to children. Would it be effective in doing so? That, to me, is the key question that must be soundly answered in the positive to gain my support.

 

[Southwind17]

We're done. Nothing more stupid can possibly be said in the thread, it's over.

Oh, I'm sure it can, if only you stick around and continue to post!

 

[quixotecoyote]

Oh please let this thread turn into a piece of performance art where Southwind continually insists that squares aren't rectangles!

It will be ever so much more fun!

 

[Southwind17]

Oh please let this thread turn into a piece of performance art where Southwind continually insists that squares aren't rectangles!

It will be ever so much more fun!

Ah ... thank you quixote. Your post prompted me to re-read GreyICE's post, and I see now that I overlooked the subtlety of his inference, probably because my position relies not at all on subtlety. Of course it's true that all squares are rectangles (my apologies), but not, of course, that all rectangles are squares, whereas, equally by definition, art is created only by artists and, of course, only artists create art. I wonder where GreyICE's logical thinking went awry in his failed comparison.

 

[Belz...]

Er ... by application of just a little thought and common sense (or did you want to hear the actual argument?).

Oh, no, no, no. That retort doesn't work for woo-woos and conspiracy theorists, it certainly won't do for skeptics. HOW can taking pictures of a nude child cause harm to the child without some form of picture taking-independent abuse going on ?

I'm sorry - "orchestrating child non-nudity"? Meaning what, exactly, clothing our kids? Please tell me not!

Instead of goofing around, you might actually want to read, understand and answer my point. If you don't understand, you do what I do: ASK. Unlike you, I'll clarify instead of making fun of you.

How clear and simple, exactly, do you think I think it is?

What ? How does this relate to what I said ? Do you or do you not agree that EVEN for obvious situations such as dropping a baby on its head, there is a RISK of harm ?

Comparable in the sense that they both need statutory regulation? Really? How so?

No, therefore nohow so. Read what I said again.

Ah yes, good old "whatnot". Silly me for not keeping up.

I think I know what your problem is. I've always known you have great difficulty following a conversation. It's been obvious for quite a while, since you keep posting things that show that you don't remember what either you or I said a day or two ago. When I don't remember, I go and look at previous posts to refresh my memory... that's understandable because sometimes we cut each other posts into snippets and we kinda lose context. But you... oh NO! You don't want to go back. If you don't remember, it never happened, and you can post comments like you just did, basically ignoring me altogether. Here's the quote:

Because it's a question of degree. Some things can be deemed to be obvious to all parents (even if there are still limited exceptions!), such as the danger of dropping a baby on its head; some things are not so obvious (to many!), such as, surprisingly (to me), leaving a baby unattended in a hot car whilst doing the shopping. It's the not so obvious that require legislation to afford sufficient protection to children (and even then it's not guaranteed, but it helps).

It's not simply a question of "might" (almost everything's possible); it's a question of reasonableness and practicability. I really do wish you'd see and appreciate this simple principle.

Bolding mine. Next time, do your own searching.

And I've clarified (not that it should be necessary!) that by "artist" I also meant "and acting in the role of an artist", as opposed to his many other unrelated, and hence irrelevant, roles in life (presumably), such as baking bread and bathing the kids (but not sketching them at the same time, of course!).

Ok, fine. Let's go with that. What is the "role of an artist" ? You lose if you say "to create art".