Naked Teenagers - Art?

Remove all ads!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/fullfrontal-attack/2008/05/30/1211654306570.html

This is massively controversial in Australia. Basically, naked teenagers (13 years old) in an art exhibition. Quick! Panic morally!

 

I have not seen the images in question but I would say that it is possible to turn something like that into art. Whether this is or not I can't say.

 

Err...
I wouldn't say it's "Pornography" as such, but I dont like the idear. Potential for massive Political blowout.

 

He's being charged with child pornography that thing says..
That's stupid. Art is art and if in his opinion, this is his art, then so be it.

There's been art a lot worse than that, to be frank.

 

Some Renancence artwork springs to mind.

 

Just as the web site offering pictures of young nudist is freedom of speech and only used as an advertisement of the nudist life style.

If only I was not so cynical I might believe both arguments. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the world who will pay quite well for pictures of nude children -- better if it is disguised as art or an advertisement (no prison sentence for either). Claiming something is art does not give a person a free pass to violate the law.

By the statutes of the law both cases are child pornography (just as the movie "Pretty Baby" was). Granted, this is soft core, but it still is taking advantage children.

 

As is the case more often than not, I agree with T2.

Intent aside, the unfortunate reality of today’s society is that child pornography has become a huge problem, thanks in large part to the internet.

The argument that “art is art” is all fine and good, but the difficulty lies in where to draw the line. Given the risks involved, I’m happy to draw the line at square one.

Plus I have to wonder whther the children were willing participants, and whether they understood the ramifications of what they were doing. I suspect not.

 

Shear and utter Victorian prudishness. The human body in the nude is very natural, regardless of the age of person in question, be it a 13 year old girl or a 94 year old man. The body is not inherently sexual. The sexuality lies in the viewers eyes. It's the old Barkeleyian argument against qualities. If the human body was inherently sexual, how come heterosexual men don't find other men's bodies sexual? How come some men only find some women's bodies sexual? The sexuality is in our own minds.

Certainly, with our Victorian hold overs (at least for my fellow Americans, I'm not going to speak for the French or Netherlanders), it's easy to equate nudity with sexuality. However, it's not like clothing has saved the United States from sexual promiscuity and it certainly isn't the case that South American Indian tribes have issues with rampant promiscuity (I'm also sure that the South American Indians have a better body image then us Westerners, as those South American Indians see what REAL bodies look like every day in the nude). We've come to a strange sort of conclusion in which the nature has become unnatural and the unnatural has become nature (see sub 18.5 BMI type bodies seen has beautiful in the media).

Now there's the old "if children are naked, they're vulnerable to predators" approach, which is what the people in the article, at least partially advocate. That's a valid point, but even tight jeans aren't going to save an adult woman from a rapist if he has the upper hand. We protect children (and on a larger level, those that matter to us) through relations, that's the whole point of the family group. If we want to get into safety of children, we have to realize that children are left alone far too often. 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be wondering around, by ourselves, amongst strangers, it just doesn't make sense.

Ultimately I think, like with many issues in society, this is an improper solution to a real problem (that is the predation of children). Solutions that coincide with biology, not "pure" intellect, will always work better, because we've evolved to operate in that way.

So short answer, I think it's ridiculous to claim that naked children are offensive/pornographic. I'd certainly hope no one would claim pictures of naked cows are pornographic simply because a certain cultural group has developed some sort of sexualization of cows. Children having sex is sexual, much as cows having sex is "sexual", but simple nudity? It's apparently fine in a National Geographic magazine (probably because the naked people aren't of European decent, I remember the scandal they had when they showed a picture of naked French people at a nude beach) regardless of age. I don't understand the distinction here... Are we claiming that naked teenage Africans don't know that their bodies are "inherently" sexual, but white children do? And does that even make a difference?

Bah! Let the man show his work and if you think it's sexual, just let me know so that if I or people I love have children, I can keep you away from them.

 

I agree with Ilmater's Suffering. Nude pictures of adults can be considered art- why should it stop being art simply because they are younger? Arguing that some people could find the pictures erotic is ridiculous- some people find feet incredibly erotic, should we therefore ban pictures of shoe-less people?

 

The arguements that natural = good and unnatural = evil always strike me as not just odd, but downright stupid. The natural world, as we all know, is filled with horrible things that torture and kill other things (not always horrible ones). Arguing that the nude body is natural and therefore good (or at least acceptable) at any age is like arguing that, since many apes resort to canibalism to drive off competition, we should do the same. I'm not saying the moral implications are equivalent, but the reasoning is.

The issue here is less where the problem resides and more what may aggrivate it. Yes, the problem with pedophiles is in their minds, but so is the problem with alcoholics (ok, maybe in their bodies) and drug addicts (depends on the drug). That doesn't mean its fine to just toss these things around society. The problem may be in the sufferers, but the external environment can do a lot to aggrivate or diminish that problem.

This I'll agree with, though in this context the problem is still exposure for the pedophiles. Unfortunately, though, we can see today that we can't even assume those we would ask to protect our children (aunts, uncles, brothers, older children, nannies, even social workers) are not pedophiles themselves. To truely protect your child means to live in constant fear and paranoia of everyone around you or your child.

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here. Asside from castrating the pedophiles (physically or chemically) what biological solution would you propose?

Not having carefully reviewed National Geographics history on this, I can't address the statements on that note. One could easily argue that children in western sociery today are discovering their bodies to be sexual objects (in someone's eyes if not their own) earlier and earlier. All in all, though, what's acceptable in a culture is entirely dependant on that culture's sense of normalcy, something you can't just wave away with 'Victorian prudishness'. If you really want children to be allowed to run around naked in the summer, work to change society's view of children, sexuality, and their crossover. For the time being, this person's work deserves to be secluded and the person may well deserve jail time.

 

I don't want to see pictures of under-16 people in the nude. I'm not interested, maybe it's just me. Take that **** away from me. If any girl over the age of 16 wants to get her top bollocks out though... no problem for me!

 

Now I think thats a bit harsh. True the art is not on a tasteful, or a even safe topic but humans are himans. We all look like that. I think, as perviously mentioned, that anyone who finds it sexual are the ones who need to be locked up and not the reverse.

 

Talk about dangerous!

The difference between art and porn is what the viewers are thinking when they are viewing it. And in some cases, I really don't want to know what they are thinking.

There are some taboos in society, and they are there for a reason--adults shouldn't be oggling naked teenagers.

I can see this guy getting jail time for his "art", and not too many people feeling sorry for him...

 

The reason I say the artist may need to be jailed is because I don't know the circumstances behind things. If it was truely and honestly a simple attempt at legitimate atristic expression that went a little awry (artists tend to get into this mindset where they fixate on their latest ideas and fail to see how truely weird it is), then there's no need for jail. If there was even a hint of impropriety (evidence that parents were intentionally missinformed/kept out of decisions, any hint of sexual posing or the like in the 'art', etc.) then it may be an indication that the artist wasn't just trying to make art. That's where the jail comes in.

And yes, I would love to lock up all the pedophiles out there, but they generally don't raise their hands when you ask.

 

Not saying unnatural is evil. It merely isn't the way things are intended to be. As for other creatures performing certain activities, they've evolved in different directions from us. What they do is almost certainly not the path we've evolved to follow.

If pedophiles are desperate, they can find their way to websites advocating naturism. There's a lot of things we'd have to worry about to accommodate the ways of a very dangerous, but very small part of the population. In order to operate under this method of preventive protection, we'd damn well be getting guns off the streets, because it isn't the gun that's dangerous, but the monster who wants to use it for violence.

What every suburban kid knows to be the problem. Certainly we can't force parents to become more involved in their children's lives, but watching who your children talks to via phone or internet, setting curfews and creating an actual family dynamic in which the parent knows what their child is doing would go a long way for starters. Unfortunately, in a lot of families, children are less important than jobs, boyfriends/girlfriends, etc...

I certainly agree with you that those who claim to help can be child molesters themselves. Partially, with family members however, a more traditional dynamic is apt to produce certain biological effects which increase the child's safety. If you've got a family history of sexual abuse, I think you're pretty much screwed however. Life just doesn't work out for all of us.

Anyway, cultural relativism creates very murky moral waters. It's a very interesting, but excessively long debate. It always brings up Apartheid and Nazi Germany. Victorian prudishness may be the assumption, but it doesn't mean we should or should not rule it out on the grounds of the belief's own merits.

 

If it helps, the parents knew what was going on and have spoken in support of the artist.

I google-imaged around to see if I could find the pictures, but it seems like everyone's removed them. The thumbnails - hard to make out - looked rather arty and not sexualised, but at that resolution it was kinda hard to tell.

 

But what about paintings from the old masters whit children or cherubs in them. Shut the musea down?

This is an interesting case.

 

Removing all nudity to prevent paedophiles getting hold of it would be like banning all alcohol to prevent alcoholics from indulging. Sure, we shouldn't put alcohol everywhere, but if it is available only in certain locations, we tend to believe access to it is justified. Same thing with nude art- put it everywhere and (some) people will take offence and some may get aroused. That doesn't mean we should try to ban all instances of it- especially those occurrences that happen away from where much of the public has to see them (in a museum, for example).

 

Depends entirely on the teenager.

 

And I agree with both of you.