PDA

View Full Version : Porn vs. Art


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 02:46 AM
Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1025223/child-porn-laws-impose-costs-on-artists)

brodski
9th March 2010, 02:58 AM
If it is clearly true that porn is not art, why is it so hard to provide a definition which clearly seperates the two?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 03:03 AM
If it is clearly true that porn is not art, why is it so hard to provide a definition which clearly seperates the two?
How many definitions (of anything) would you say are ... well ... absolutely definitive?! Just because something is "hard" to do doesn't make it impossible, does it?!

brodski
9th March 2010, 03:14 AM
How many definitions (of anything) would you say are ... well ... absolutely definitive?! Just because something is "hard" to do doesn't make it impossible, does it?!

It is the case, as you claim, that something is clearly one thing or the other (or neither but never both), then drawing that line should be easy. Yet no one seems to be able to do so. In a robust manner.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 03:17 AM
*sigh* You really want to go down this road again?

Fine....here we go again.

This section from the article:
The laws adopt commonwealth provisions where the court looks at the artistic merit of the material when deciding whether it is child pornography, rather than relying on the defence of artistic purpose.

Mr Hatzistergos said the new laws would not apply to material that is classified.

"If (art) is classified under commonwealth legislation, then it is exempt from the reach of these particular provisions," he told reporters in Sydney on Tuesday.

Sounds almost exactly like when here in America, the US Government had to decide what is porn and what is "obscene". The answer was pretty much the same: we'll decided that.

Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child

Now I realize that this isn't fool proof but it's a much better start. What I've outlined above, I feel, is a much clearer and less "it's my opinion" way of determining whether it's art or illegal rather than looking at a picture and just making a judgment.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 03:27 AM
It is the case, as you claim, that something is clearly one thing or the other (or neither but never both), then drawing that line should be easy. Yet no one seems to be able to do so. In a robust manner.
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"?

Kevin_Lowe
9th March 2010, 03:35 AM
Personally I think the claim made in the original post is total bunk. However I am willing to be persuaded.

All Southwind17 has to do is post his definition of art, and his definition of pornography.

If we all accept those definitions, and it turns out that by those definitions it is impossible for something to be both art and pornography, Southwind17 was right all along.

If he can't post such definitions, or we disagree with those definitions, then the conclusion that porn cannot be art has not been sufficiently supported. In that scenario the claim that anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided and self-indulgent would be revealed as ad hominem well-poisoning.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 03:35 AM
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"?

There's already been a topic called "What is art" on this forum. (I can't seem to find it though. I have to admit, I have a hard time with the JREF forum search feature...).

Art is subjective. There's things I've seen museums that I don't see as art, and there are things that people doodle that's amazing.

....oh, by the way, I think you still have me on ignore.....

Soapy Sam
9th March 2010, 03:41 AM
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 03:42 AM
Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child
So you concur, then, that porn is not art (or artistic child nudity, to use your narrower term) per se, given your suggested, almost bipolar, criteria for differentiating the two?

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 03:43 AM
On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.

brodski
9th March 2010, 03:43 AM
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"?

I think it is a mistake to think of art as a catogry of objects, art is a cultural activity in a cultural context- anything can be art if it is presented as such. The same object can either be art or not art depending on context.

Brian-M
9th March 2010, 03:44 AM
It's easy to present a clear definition of the two. Art exists to provide visual aesthetic enjoyment while pornography exists for visual sexual enjoyment.

However, as these two things aren't mutually exclusive, you're bound to get some overlap. How can you separate art from porn when you also have pornographic art?

To put it another way, if you're trying to separate round things from red things, what do you do when you find something that's both round and red? No matter how clearly defined these properties are, the fact that they aren't mutually exclusive means that it's impossible to separate the two in all cases.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 03:45 AM
It is the case, as you claim, that something is clearly one thing or the other (or neither but never both), then drawing that line should be easy. Yet no one seems to be able to do so. In a robust manner.
I claimed nothing of the sort. Porn can contain artistic elements, for sure, but it's not art per se. Perhaps if I claim that porn is not an "artform" per se that might help clarify my position.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 03:50 AM
Personally I think the claim made in the original post is total bunk. However I am willing to be persuaded.

All Southwind17 has to do is post his definition of art, and his definition of pornography.

If we all accept those definitions, and it turns out that by those definitions it is impossible for something to be both art and pornography, Southwind17 was right all along.

If he can't post such definitions, or we disagree with those definitions, then the conclusion that porn cannot be art has not been sufficiently supported. In that scenario the claim that anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided and self-indulgent would be revealed as ad hominem well-poisoning.
So much speculation, eh, with a pre-empted conclusion clearly drawn. Somehow I don't think you are willing to be persuaded (notwithstanding that you misunderstand my claim).

Kevin_Lowe
9th March 2010, 03:53 AM
I claimed nothing of the sort. Porn can contain artistic elements, for sure, but it's not art per se. Perhaps if I claim that porn is not an "artform" per se that might help clarify my position.

That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 03:56 AM
So you concur, then, that porn is not art (or artistic child nudity, to use your narrower term) per se, given your suggested, almost bipolar, criteria for differentiating the two?


Twisting my words again, are we?

First off, porn is shot exactly the same way as I had described in the first list. The second list is abuse, whether it involves an adult or a child.

Second, I was trying to draw the line between legitimately photographing a nude child and abusing a child.

If you want a civil discussion, please stop playing games and twisting meanings. This is part of the unrest I felt at the last time we but heads.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 03:57 AM
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.

This for the win.

brodski
9th March 2010, 03:57 AM
I claimed nothing of the sort. Porn can contain artistic elements, for sure, but it's not art per se. Perhaps if I claim that porn is not an "artform" per se that might help clarify my position.

Of course porn isn't an artform, it is a catagory which some people put some sexually explicit materials in and not others. No subject matter is an artform.

But individual art objects may be both pornograpic and art- your statment that porn isn't an artform is pretty useless.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 03:58 AM
That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".

From the last time we had this discussion, it seems to me that SW's definition of art is anything that made it into a museum.


ETA: I will thank you, though, SW, for taking me off ignore. :)

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 04:00 AM
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.

But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:02 AM
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).
Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.
Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.
The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:03 AM
But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?

No. Not by a long shot.

Here let me fix it for you:

But is emotional arousal the purpose of all photography?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:04 AM
On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.
People do silly things. Go figure.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:05 AM
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?

Now you are getting it. There is no sense to it. Art is an individual emotional response.

Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.

Now you are just slippery sloping.....

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 04:07 AM
No. Not by a long shot.

Here let me fix it for you:

That was kind of my point. A work of art might arouse some people, disgust others and make others think it makes interesting cultural statements and observations.

That is the point, you can't really be sure what the intention of the artist was, and can debate if their intent is even relevant.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:09 AM
That was kind of my point. A work of art might arouse some people, disgust others and make others think it makes interesting cultural statements and observations.

That is the point, you can't really be sure what the intention of the artist was, and can debate if their intent is even relevant.

Sorry, PT. I misunderstood.

See? I just proved your point! :)

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:11 AM
That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".
It seems you are alluding to art (and possibly porn) being so loosely conceived that a workable definition (in the context of differentiating between art and porn) is impossible. As I wrote, I don't think you are capable of persuasion, are you? Clearly, no such workable definition is going to fit with yours, by definition!

Belz...
9th March 2010, 04:11 AM
Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1025223/child-porn-laws-impose-costs-on-artists)

Didn't we do this, already ?

Starting a thread with your already-held conclusion well in view doesn't invite much discussion, Wind.

AWPrime
9th March 2010, 04:12 AM
So much speculation, eh, with a pre-empted conclusion clearly drawn. Somehow I don't think you are willing to be persuaded (notwithstanding that you misunderstand my claim).Are you talking about yourself?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:15 AM
First off, porn is shot exactly the same way as I had described in the first list. The second list is abuse, whether it involves an adult or a child.
Second, I was trying to draw the line between legitimately photographing a nude child and abusing a child.
So what, exactly, then, does this have to do with the thread topic (art vs. porn)? It seems that you'd prefer to discuss the nature and morality of porn.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:19 AM
... your statment that porn isn't an artform is pretty useless.
Even though you whole-heartedly agree with it, and feel the need to say so? ...
Of course porn isn't an artform ... No subject matter is an artform.

Belz...
9th March 2010, 04:19 AM
Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.

Not really. But like in all things ideal fantasy has to give way to objective reality.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:20 AM
So what, exactly, then, does this have to do with the thread topic (art vs. porn)? It seems that you'd prefer to discuss the nature and morality of porn.

Wait. Don't you think all art (nude, non-nude, child, adult, etc) is produced the same way as the first list I gave?


with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

...I should add to that list: the person who is the subject of the production is either getting paid or voluntarily not getting paid.

Soapy Sam
9th March 2010, 04:21 AM
But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?
Presumably not. It's a common result though.

You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?
I said it's a picture and how you view it is up to you.
Which part(s) do you disagree with?


Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
No. You could take moral satisfaction from controlling them.

"Based on" is not equivalent to "is equivalent to". Were it not for the fact that perfectly normal biological drives have consequences for others, we would not require laws. We wouldn't be human , either.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:22 AM
From the last time we had this discussion, it seems to me that SW's definition of art is anything that made it into a museum.
Not quite. I questioned why "main-stream" porn wasn't found in museums if it's art. More-than-subtle difference.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:24 AM
Not quite. I questioned why "main-stream" porn wasn't found in museums if it's art. More-than-subtle difference.

Okay. I misquoted you. That's fair. :)

But do we have to go through that again?

Kevin_Lowe
9th March 2010, 04:25 AM
It seems you are alluding to art (and possibly porn) being so loosely conceived that a workable definition (in the context of differentiating between art and porn) is impossible.

Many people think that this is indeed impossible.

You should post your own definitions of art and pornography. Possibly by doing so you will prove those people wrong.


As I wrote, I don't think you are capable of persuasion, are you? Clearly, no such workable definition is going to fit with yours, by definition!

This is neither here nor there. If the sole thing holding you back from posting your definitions of art and pornography is that you are concerned that I, personally, will not be persuaded then I suggest that you should post your definitions anyway for the sake of everyone else in the thread.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:27 AM
Art is an individual emotional response.
Ah ... and now we have a definition to work with ... unfortunately not one that fits with any generally acknowledged common meaning of the word "art". That's a shame.

Now you are just slippery sloping.....
Excuse me?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:31 AM
Starting a thread with your already-held conclusion well in view doesn't invite much discussion, Wind.
40 posts in under 2 hours, including your contributions. Care to re-think?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:32 AM
Are you talking about yourself?
Excuse me?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:33 AM
Not really. But like in all things ideal fantasy has to give way to objective reality.
Meaning what, in context?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:37 AM
Wait. Don't you think all art (nude, non-nude, child, adult, etc) is produced the same way as the first list I gave?
No ... your list is specific to child nudity, as intended.

...I should add to that list: the person who is the subject of the production is either getting paid or voluntarily not getting paid.
Which just serves to reinforce my question as to relevance.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:41 AM
No ... your list is specific to child nudity, as intended.

Interesting.... how do you think what I've listed and how your definition of art is made?

Which just serves to reinforce my question as to relevance.

Enlighten me. How?

brodski
9th March 2010, 04:46 AM
Even though you whole-heartedly agree with it, and feel the need to say so? ...

Of course I agree with it, porn isn't a sport either, or a method of car maintainece. I'm sure you would agree with all of these statements, it dosen't make them useful.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:51 AM
I said it's a picture and how you view it is up to you.
Implying that any image can be deemed to be art by the beholder. That conflicts with just about every useful definition of "art" in a social context.
Which part(s) do you disagree with?
That part above.

No. You could take moral satisfaction from controlling them.
You could, but that doesn't alter my statement.

"Based on" is not equivalent to "is equivalent to". Were it not for the fact that perfectly normal biological drives have consequences for others, we would not require laws.
You can't have it both ways. You can't apply "the reality of biological drivers" case just when it suits.

We wouldn't be human , either.
Again, you can't have it both ways.

Kevin_Lowe
9th March 2010, 04:52 AM
Since the linked article is actually interesting, but Southwind17 is clearly just trolling and is not going to start a decent discussion, I guess it's up to the rest of us to discuss it.

The problem with the proposed legislation seems to be that since nobody (except possibly Southwind17) has ever come up with decent definitions of porn and art that are mutually exclusive, artists who portray people who are or might be underage in situations that someone could interpret as pornographic will need to pay duly appointed busybodies $500 per artwork to have their art officially rated.

Unless those artists make well over $500 per piece and are doing so well that they can survive while said busybodies take weeks to decide whether or not a given photograph is too naughty, this represents a significant chilling effect on art portraying underage people.

The Henson case demonstrated clearly that even artwork that is well within the bounds of what is legal in Australia can still be subjected to police investigation if self-appointed guardians of morality kick up a stink. As such, it's my view that currently such art is already over-scrutinised and over-regulated and that this legislation is a step in the wrong direction.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 04:52 AM
Okay. I misquoted you. That's fair. :)

But do we have to go through that again?
You don't have to "go through" anything. Are you on commission here?!

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:57 AM
Implying that any image can be deemed to be art by the beholder. That conflicts with just about every useful definition of "art" in a social context.

That part above.

But that's EXACTLY how your article is judging whether it's porn or art.


You could, but that doesn't alter my statement.

Make up your mind. Do you agree with the way the courts in are going to decide or are you arguing your definition (again).

You can't have it both ways. You can't apply "the reality of biological drivers" case just when it suits.


Again, you can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.

The article says that a bunch of people are going to decide whether a piece of work is child porn or art. That's EXACTLY what Soapy Sam is describing are you are disputing it.

Then I come up with a list of ways that a court can more objectively see the difference between a legitimate piece of work and something that actually caused harm, which would hold up more in court rather than someone's opinion and you dispute that.

Time for you to decide what this topic is about: are we discussing the article or your definition of porn and art?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:08 AM
Many people think that this is indeed impossible.

You should post your own definitions of art and pornography. Possibly by doing so you will prove those people wrong.

This is neither here nor there. If the sole thing holding you back from posting your definitions of art and pornography is that you are concerned that I, personally, will not be persuaded then I suggest that you should post your definitions anyway for the sake of everyone else in the thread.
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.

Cainkane1
9th March 2010, 05:10 AM
Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1025223/child-porn-laws-impose-costs-on-artists)
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.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:15 AM
Interesting.... how do you think what I've listed and how your definition of art is made?
Sorry, can you clarify what you're asking of me.

Enlighten me. How?
Because what you added bears no relationship to the topic of art vs. porn.

AWPrime
9th March 2010, 05:17 AM
Excuse me?

So much speculation, eh, with a pre-empted conclusion clearly drawn. Somehow I don't think you are willing to be persuaded (notwithstanding that you misunderstand my claim).

It looks like you were describing yourself.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:20 AM
Of course I agree with it, porn isn't a sport either, or a method of car maintainece. I'm sure you would agree with all of these statements, it dosen't make them useful.
You're looking at the wrong side of the coin - flip it over. If somebody seriously claimed that porn is a sport you'd find that an interesting viewpoint, I suspect, and worthy of discussion. Is porn art per se? Get it?

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 05:21 AM
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.

I can nitpick too.

Art - noun. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

I have seen some porn that fits that description.

Can you dispute that?

Brian-M
9th March 2010, 05:21 AM
Thinking about this... by some definitions of "child porn", my copy of "The Complete Illustrated Works of Lewis Carroll" contains child porn. After all, it does have drawings of naked children in the poetry section. (Well, fairy-children, but still...)

*Shock* *Horror* *Gasp* Child porn in a children's book for over 100 years... somebody think of the children!

:)

Of course, innocent nude drawings in a children's book aren't the same thing as photographs of nude children, but since we already have a precedent (and a conviction) that simple cartoon characters can count as child-porn (http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html), the question arises about how far does this go?

If E. Gertrude Thomson was alive today and living in Australia, he'd have to think twice about doing illustrations like the ones he did for Lewis Carrol's "Three Sunsets and Other Poems".

Idiot Wind
9th March 2010, 05:22 AM
As far as I can tell nobody is claiming that porn is art per se.

There's porn, there's art, and there's a huge grey area with possible overlap.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 05:23 AM
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.

Have you seen the start of Superman?

There was a naked little boy in there, arms outstretched.

I enjoyed that scene without being sexually aroused........

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:23 AM
It looks like you were describing yourself.
Well I wasn't, not intentionally, but so what. Your point?

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:31 AM
I can nitpick too.
Who else is nitpicking? I simply posted the definitions from the dictionary on my shelf, as requested.

I have seen some porn that fits that description.

You've seen SOME porn that fits within the definition of "art". So have I - I've admitted so. Some porn has some artistic merit associated with it. But here's the rub: not ALL porn fits within the definition of "art", ergo porn PER SE is not art.

That's all I'm getting at here. It's not complicated. Some people claim that porn PER SE is art. I don't believe it is. You, clearly (now), don't either. I don't know who here, if anybody, does, but I have my answer now.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:33 AM
As far as I can tell nobody is claiming that porn is art per se.
Oh, some people are, or at least were, I can assure you.

Southwind17
9th March 2010, 05:35 AM
Have you seen the start of Superman?

There was a naked little boy in there, arms outstretched.

I enjoyed that scene without being sexually aroused........
Probably because there was no intention to sexually arouse, and that was reflected in the way the image was portrayed. Hey ho.

Idiot Wind
9th March 2010, 05:40 AM
Oh, some people are, or at least were, I can assure you.

The article you cite in the OP never states all porn is art, only that some art might be porn.
Subsequently, artists are obliged to have their work checked by some sort of morality police, at a hefty price, probably to discourage artists from depicting naked children at all.
Where does anyone claim that if it's sexually explicit, it must be art?

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 05:49 AM
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.

So you are strongly against the stereotypical baby in the bath pictures?

brodski
9th March 2010, 05:50 AM
You're looking at the wrong side of the coin - flip it over. If somebody seriously claimed that porn is a sport you'd find that an interesting viewpoint, I suspect, and worthy of discussion. Is porn art per se? Get it?

You are mixing up art with artform. War poetry, battle paintings and millitary sculptures are all (usually) art, they are not an artform. Writing, painting, sculpture, film and photography are artforms- the fact of their subject (violence, sex or pretty flowers) does not change that. Porn describes the subject, not the artform.

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 05:51 AM
I have seen some porn that fits that description.

Can you dispute that?

Of course there are a lot of Renaissance masterpieces that are basically BDSM pictures. Remember the line, if it is expensive and for the rich it is art, if it is cheap and for the masses it is porn.

That is why porn is unacceptable and art is fine.

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 05:53 AM
The article you cite in the OP never states all porn is art, only that some art might be porn.

I would say all porn is art. The problem is that art is such a vague and subjective term.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 06:00 AM
Probably because there was no intention to sexually arouse, and that was reflected in the way the image was portrayed. Hey ho.

I was answering Cainkane1, who specifically said "nude children".

Idiot Wind
9th March 2010, 06:04 AM
I would say all porn is art. The problem is that art is such a vague and subjective term.

It is.

So, to the OP, what kind of point is to be made in saying a certain product might or might not fit into a certain ambiguous and ill-defined category?

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 06:09 AM
It is.

So, to the OP, what kind of point is to be made in saying a certain product might or might not fit into a certain ambiguous and ill-defined category?

Clearly if it is not art, then it is not covered by freedoms of artistic expression.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 06:10 AM
I say this as a firm supporter of the arts and defender of the ability to offend:

Some things are easy to define in the extreme, but lack a clear line separating middling cases. But if you're an artist and there's some question whether your work is art or CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, err on the side of not doing it at all.

In all seriousness, would someone provide an argument why its necessary for an artist to be including naked children in their work? This isn't Michelangelo vs. the Pope, this is a world where we're well aware what naked bodies look like. Artists can have long, successful careers pushing the limits of society's prudishness on many fronts. But let's just leave kids out of it.

Put another way, if whatever you want to express requires the presence of naked children, I think we can live without your input.

skip
9th March 2010, 06:30 AM
Art becomes art when the person creating it call it such… If I take a picture of “anything” and call it art than that’s what it is… Porn producers make porn. Artists make art. Sometimes these things overlap. There are lots of stuff I’ve seen that I do not consider art and I disagree with its validity, but if the “artist” says it’s his/her art than I say good for them. All art begins and ends in the mind of the artist.

just my two cents

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 06:34 AM
I say this as a firm supporter of the arts and defender of the ability to offend:

Some things are easy to define in the extreme, but lack a clear line separating middling cases. But if you're an artist and there's some question whether your work is art or CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, err on the side of not doing it at all.

So shut up and obey, that is what artists need to do. It doesn't matter if the laws are dumb or not, obey them don't challenge them.

Kevin_Lowe
9th March 2010, 06:50 AM
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

If those are your definitions then almost all of what is usually referred to as pornography is art. Creating porn, be it in the form of text or video or photographs, is an application of skill and creative imagination. It might be really bad art in many or most cases, but that is a different argument.

Perhaps more importantly, anything which would be put forward by artists to be rated under this new legislation is virtually certain to be art by your definition, whether or not it is also pornography.

This makes your initial post's accusation that people who thought that porn was art are misguided and self-indulgent quite curious, in the light of the definitions you have posted. It seems to me that if you accept your own definitions of art and pornography then it follows that you must consider yourself misguided and self-indulgent.

brodski
9th March 2010, 07:01 AM
I say this as a firm supporter of the arts and defender of the ability to offend:

Some things are easy to define in the extreme, but lack a clear line separating middling cases. But if you're an artist and there's some question whether your work is art or CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, err on the side of not doing it at all.

In all seriousness, would someone provide an argument why its necessary for an artist to be including naked children in their work? This isn't Michelangelo vs. the Pope, this is a world where we're well aware what naked bodies look like. Artists can have long, successful careers pushing the limits of society's prudishness on many fronts. But let's just leave kids out of it.

Put another way, if whatever you want to express requires the presence of naked children, I think we can live without your input.


I take it that you aboject to all the cherubs and other naked children in much classical art? Or is it only art made today which is wrong when it depicts naked (but not sexually explicit) children? One very good reason to include naked children in art is to underline the fact that nudity isn't allways sel.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 07:26 AM
Put another way, if whatever you want to express requires the presence of naked children, I think we can live without your input.

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.

Here therein lies the problem, only fifty-one posts into the thread: A picture of a nude child does not mean child pornography.

Let's go back to the Superman movie. Clearly, SW, you don't think it's meant to be sexual, but if one person finds it sexual, is aroused by the scene, does it become child pornography now?

If there is a chance that someone might see that scene and get aroused by it, does it become child pornography?

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 07:34 AM
I'll try to answer all the challenges at once to save space.

If you want to draw a picture of a naked kid, fine. If you want a naked kid to model, we have an issue.

Imagine a related first amendment hypothetical: say a group of people immigrates from a nation and establishes their religion in America. Part of their custom is to have all children under 12 attend service naked. There's no hard evidence that anything illegal or immoral is going on, but how do we deal with that?

I would argue that protecting actual children trumps first amendment claims made on behalf of both free expression and religion.

And sure, the line is difficult to find, but why find it? Do we need naked child models to draw cherubs--the medieval versions of which were comically unrepresentative of actual human anatomy. Did that affect the ability of those artists to express themselves?

Again, once actual children are involved the issues become very different from mere first amendment claims.

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 07:35 AM
Here therein lies the problem, only fifty-one posts into the thread: A picture of a nude child does not mean child pornography.

Let's go back to the Superman movie. Clearly, SW, you don't think it's meant to be sexual, but if one person finds it sexual, is aroused by the scene, does it become child pornography now?

If there is a chance that someone might see that scene and get aroused by it, does it become child pornography?

By this my parents are guilty by making a picture of their grandkids in the bath as babies their desktop. And forget family photos if you are say nudists.

ponderingturtle
9th March 2010, 07:37 AM
I'll try to answer all the challenges at once to save space.

If you want to draw a picture of a naked kid, fine. If you want a naked kid to model, we have an issue.

Imagine a related first amendment hypothetical: say a group of people immigrates from a nation and establishes their religion in America. Part of their custom is to have all children under 12 attend service naked. There's no hard evidence that anything illegal or immoral is going on, but how do we deal with that?

I would argue that protecting actual children trumps first amendment claims made on behalf of both free expression and religion.

And sure, the line is difficult to find, but why find it? Do we need naked child models to draw cherubs--the medieval versions of which were comically unrepresentative of actual human anatomy. Did that affect the ability of those artists to express themselves?

Again, once actual children are involved the issues become very different from mere first amendment claims.

So you would prosecute anyone who took a picture of their baby in the bath?

And what if everyone attended service naked, what is the issue. As for that whole thing, it would be covered either way as freedom of religion, provided no one took pictures, then it is child porn I guess.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 07:43 AM
So you would prosecute anyone who took a picture of their baby in the bath?

And what if everyone attended service naked, what is the issue. As for that whole thing, it would be covered either way as freedom of religion, provided no one took pictures, then it is child porn I guess.

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.

HansMustermann
9th March 2010, 07:58 AM
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
9th March 2010, 08:08 AM
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
9th March 2010, 08:32 AM
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
9th March 2010, 08:46 AM
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
9th March 2010, 08:49 AM
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
9th March 2010, 09:02 AM
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
9th March 2010, 09:17 AM
...

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. :p

BenBurch
9th March 2010, 09:37 AM
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
9th March 2010, 10:09 AM
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
9th March 2010, 10:23 AM
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
9th March 2010, 10:36 AM
Smut is in the mind of the beholder.

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

Mmmm, feet :p

Lithrael
9th March 2010, 10:39 AM
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
9th March 2010, 10:53 AM
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
9th March 2010, 11:06 AM
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? (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Images/sexology/Correggio-Danae.jpg)

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
9th March 2010, 12:34 PM
Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1025223/child-porn-laws-impose-costs-on-artists)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
9th March 2010, 12:42 PM
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
9th March 2010, 12:54 PM
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
9th March 2010, 12:55 PM
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
9th March 2010, 01:02 PM
<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 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533) 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 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/people-walmart-pokes-fun-shoppers-hurt-sales/story?id=8476189). 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 (http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/) 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 (http://www.dallasobserver.com/related/to/Jacqueline+Mercado) imagine that four rolls of film dropped off at an Eckerd Drugs (http://www.dallasobserver.com/related/to/Eckerd+Corporation) 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 (http://www.dallasobserver.com/related/to/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 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216344,00.html) 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 (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/index_np.html) 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 (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-HmXQTq1O1kJ:www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptertwo.htm+department+of+health+and+human+serv ices+60.7%25+unsubstantiated&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) 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 (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/index_np.html) 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
9th March 2010, 01:15 PM
"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.

BenBurch
9th March 2010, 01:26 PM
Gee... Cherubim in Roman Catholic churches world-wide are porn now?

quadraginta
9th March 2010, 01:27 PM
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.


You seem to be saying that it's okay to craft bad law if only a few people get hurt by it, and if maybe they can attempt some sort of restitution.

Perhaps instead of damage repair, or attempts at such, the wiser course would be to avoid draconian statutes which beg for misuse.

This isn't about child abuse. There are clear and unequivocal statutes in place to address abuse transgressions. This is about individual variations in perception. These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.

GreyICE
9th March 2010, 01:30 PM
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. Painting or Photograph, Trane.

If one did exist, and was unequivocally something that should not be banned, should not have been forbidden, and should not have been censored, and your standard would censor it, would criminalize the person who took the photograph or painted the painting, you agree that you are wrong?

Or does your position exist without reference to reality, without evidence or anything but belief to back it up?

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 01:41 PM
You seem to be saying that it's okay to craft bad law if only a few people get hurt by it, and if maybe they can attempt some sort of restitution.

Perhaps instead of damage repair, or attempts at such, the wiser course would be to avoid draconian statutes which beg for misuse.

This isn't about child abuse. There are clear and unequivocal statutes in place to address abuse transgressions. This is about individual variations in perception. These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. There are no laws that prohibit breastfeeding in public specifically--at least not in any of the cases brought up in this thread. I don't want to spend my time scouring state statutes, so I will say that if any such laws exist, it's silly.

The cases at issue all came to be through local authorities interpreting decency laws.

The are 2 ways in the United States to establish what is and what is not considered decent/indecent under the law:

1) The legislature crafts a statute--this would be nice, but they haven't done it.

2) Actual controversies are settled in the legal system.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but that's the framework.

Thus, when a local authority interprets the law to forbid breastfeeding in public (or taking pictures of it) the legitimacy of that act is decided in the courts. So far, none of those charges have been sustained (despite unfortunate and irreparable harm to the families involved) and lawsuits in response have been filed. I'd imagine most of them were settled, which is why there's little information about their ultimate conclusion.

So observed from the perspective of the nation in general, it appears that the legal system is rejecting attempts to define children in bathtubs and breastfeeding in public as indecent, pornography, or child abuse.

If you're upset that the system doesn't work more smoothly, I am in full agreement.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 01:49 PM
Painting or Photograph, Trane.

If one did exist, and was unequivocally something that should not be banned, should not have been forbidden, and should not have been censored, and your standard would censor it, would criminalize the person who took the photograph or painted the painting, you agree that you are wrong?

Or does your position exist without reference to reality, without evidence or anything but belief to back it up?

I think there are at least two perspectives with regard to child pornography at play here:

1) What the perverts do with the photos.

2) The production.

I am signficantly less concerned with 1 than 2, thus I'm not interested in censoring past works of art.

As for moving forward, if we make it well known that using naked, underage children in the production of art is forbidden, and an artist still tries to use a naked kid, then he will face punishment.

But again, what possible need in the 21st century could someone have for a nude child model? Somehow this argument has evolved such that the burden seems to be on me. I have to justify why such an act should be prohibited.

Let me turn that around and ask why a nude child would ever be necessary to the production of a work of art?

GreyICE
9th March 2010, 01:56 PM
Let me turn that around and ask why a nude child would ever be necessary to the production of a work of art?
To this I shall respond visually.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2658
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2657

Your absolute stance is stupid. Your refusal to consider the results of your rules is stupid. Your refusal to think about censorship is stupidly naive. One picture is worth one thousand words, and those two explain more completely and more absolutely than I ever could how your opinion and desire for censorship are destructive to our free speech and dialogue as a nation. Two thousand words condemn you and your answer is 'think of the children.' Someone should, you sure as hell haven't.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 02:02 PM
To this I shall respond visually.

Your absolute stance is stupid. Your refusal to consider the results of your rules is stupid. Your refusal to think about censorship is stupidly naive. One picture is worth one thousand words, and those two explain more completely and more absolutely than I ever could how your opinion and desire for censorship are destructive to our free speech and dialogue as a nation. Two thousand words condemn you and your answer is 'think of the children.'

Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?

I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.

Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

MortFurd
9th March 2010, 02:10 PM
On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.
Right. Define art. Fat piled in a corner, or smeared on a wall, or left in a pile on a chair? (http://artblart.wordpress.com/category/joseph-beuys/)
Beuys' "Fat Corner" was inadvertently destroyed when the room it was in was cleaned - the building custodian thought it was just a disgusting mess that someone hadn't bothered to clean up. How do you tell art from satire? You don't. Satire at that level is an art form.



An artistic painting or drawing of a nude woman makes me appreciate the skill of the artist and the beauty of the woman. A pornographic nude picture or drawing of a woman makes me wish I could get it on with that hot chick and appreciate the skill of the artist.

In other words:
It's artistic if you can concentrate on the technique and how the artist got the lighting just that way.

It's pornographic if you wonder how in the heck the artist managed to keep his hands off her long enough to paint the picture.

Bill Thompson
9th March 2010, 02:14 PM
Hard Porn and Art. Let's mix the two and call it Phart.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 02:23 PM
Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?

I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.

Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

I'm going to go back to Superman: The Movie. The film was made in 1978. In the scene when Kal-El landed on Earth and the Kents discovered him, the shot was a naked, well-under teenaged boy (I'd venrture a guess at eight years old), standing arms outstretched and smiling.

That is art, that is art that has nothing to do with something historic. Now according to your rule, nowadays, that scene could never be done because of "no nude children".

The way I see it, if we ban nude children in art, we AUTOMATICALLY make any picture of nude children pornographic, no matter what.

And anything that was made before the rule is okay? That's plain hypocritical.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 02:27 PM
I'm going to go back to Superman: The Movie. The film was made in 1978. In the scene when Kal-El landed on Earth and the Kents discovered him, the shot was a naked, well-under teenaged boy (I'd venrture a guess at eight years old), standing arms outstretched and smiling.

That is art, that is art that has nothing to do with something historic. Now according to your rule, nowadays, that scene could never be done because people would cry "child porn". Why?

Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

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

I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

GreyICE
9th March 2010, 02:28 PM
Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?
I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.
Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.
A stupid, ridiculous defense. Are photographs not art because they might depict something happening in the real world? What is a photograph?

Are photographers only artists when they pay people to be in their photos?

These questions are idiotic, the answers so trivial a child could give them to you.

You state these issues are easy to distinguish, and we should use the courts for that. You want to censor free speech unless a court says its okay, with appalling jail sentences if the court disagrees. Apparently no one has ever explained free speech to you.

I have answered the question, with evidence. Something you do not understand, you have provided none. Your misguided naked assertions are the opposite of agreeable.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 02:35 PM
A stupid, ridiculous defense. Are photographs not art because they might depict something happening in the real world? What is a photograph?

Are photographers only artists when they pay people to be in their photos?

These questions are idiotic, the answers so trivial a child could give them to you.


Haha, what a personality.

Here's one big difference:

In those photos, the "artists" captured events that were happening. They did
not create the events. There is nothing that I've said that would ever stop those photos from being taken.



You state these issues are easy to distinguish, and we should use the courts for that. You want to censor free speech unless a court says its okay, with appalling jail sentences if the court disagrees. Apparently no one has ever explained free speech to you.

I have to ask if you're serious here. How do you think we know what constitutes protected speech and what doesn't? What institution other than courts should decide such issues?

My point was merely that when the issues become unclear, we let the courts set the rules. That's our system of government, sorry.


I have answered the question, with evidence. Something you do not understand, you have provided none. Your misguided naked assertions are stupid.

That's an interesting use of the word "evidence." You've shown photographs of historical events and claimed that they cannot be distinguished from an artist contemplating a work.

Capturing events as they occur is different from causing an event to occur.

GreyICE
9th March 2010, 02:43 PM
Haha, what a personality.

Here's one big difference:

In those photos, the "artists" captured events that were happening. They did
not create the events. There is nothing that I've said that would ever stop those photos from being taken.

I have to ask if you're serious here. How do you think we know what constitutes protected speech and what doesn't? What institution other than courts should decide such issues?

My point was merely that when the issues become unclear, we let the courts set the rules. That's our system of government, sorry.

That's an interesting use of the word "evidence." You've shown photographs of historical events and claimed that they cannot be distinguished from an artist contemplating a work.

Capturing events as they occur is different from causing an event to occur.


I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend the difference. Certainly the photographer in Africa was searching for just such a model - that's why he was there, after all. According to him, he tried to feed the boy afterwards, which certainly counts as compensation. Would the difference be that he did not plan for that exact boy to be naked at that exact time? What level of randomization is acceptable?

So where does the damage come from? Kids being photographed naked? Nope, you just got done with that. Someone sexually molesting them? That's already illegal. Someone asking them to pose for photographs? Nope, we've ruled that out to.

Apparently, somewhere along the line, damage kicks in. You're not sure where, you can't document it, you can only tell us that you can legislate in such a way that you can prevent that damage without having any negative consequences at all, to free speech, to photography that we (now, apparently) both agree is art, to anything else.

Magical. I approve. Did a unicorn draft it?

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 02:45 PM
Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

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

I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. There's going to be art that will involve nude children. Some artists would feel that they need to express that. If they produce art that does not involve a child being abused or exploited, why can't they produce it?


I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

Okay, he was three years old. http://www.supermansupersite.com/aaron.html

Not eight, younger, but still very naked.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

I'm not sure about Superman III. But that's not the point. The ONLY reason for that child to have underwear on would be to appease the people who are uptight about such things. So we should make every scene in which a child would be naked, even in a scene as innocent as that one, not naked simply to appease the people who'd be offended? Isn't that censorship?

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 02:57 PM
I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend the difference. Certainly the photographer in Africa was searching for just such a model - that's why he was there, after all. According to him, he tried to feed the boy afterwards, which certainly counts as compensation. Would the difference be that he did not plan for that exact boy to be naked at that exact time? What level of randomization is acceptable?

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.

There was a famine in Africa, the photographer wandered around looking for a compelling image. An otherwise clothed and well-fed child was not disrobed and starved to produce the image.

Generally speaking, do you not distinguish between news and art?


So where does the damage come from? Kids being photographed naked? Nope, you just got done with that. Someone sexually molesting them? That's already illegal. Someone asking them to pose for photographs? Nope, we've ruled that out to.

Apparently, somewhere along the line, damage kicks in. You're not sure where, you can't document it, you can only tell us that you can legislate in such a way that you can prevent that damage without having any negative consequences at all, to free speech, to photography that we (now, apparently) both agree is art, to anything else.

Magical. I approve. Did a unicorn draft it?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/International/story?id=1919036&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/03offender.html

A google search will reveal plenty of such victims. Children do not have the ability to knowledgably consent to the use of their bodies and tragically, neither do their parents often times.

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.

That's enough for me.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 03:00 PM
I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. There's going to be art that will involve nude children. Some artists would feel that they need to express that. If they produce art that does not involve a child being abused or exploited, why can't they produce it?


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?

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


I'm not sure about Superman III. But that's not the point. The ONLY reason for that child to have underwear on would be to appease the people who are uptight about such things. So we should make every scene in which a child would be naked, even in a scene as innocent as that one, not naked simply to appease the people who'd be offended? Isn't that censorship?

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.

fuelair
9th March 2010, 03:01 PM
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"?

I'm claiming this is so much drivel as it was in the last column of this type. I could not care less about your attitude - you have it you put it out it bores I'm gone. Get new schtick.:D:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 03:20 PM
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?

Maybe I wasn't clear. That's not my argument.

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

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

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.

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

Your own statement
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.
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?

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?

quadraginta
9th March 2010, 03:40 PM
Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

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




There's at least two things problematic about this statement. The first is that there is no evidence that any harm is actually done to children by the existence of images which may be perceived as child pornography. This is a separate issue from images created by the abuse of children, which is adequately addressed by other statutes which need have no reference to art, content, or interpretation. The second is that it takes that illusory, alleged goal and presumes that such a law as we are discussing has any real, significant effect in achieving it.

All of this in complete disregard of fundamental rights of speech or expression.

You seem to be saying that it makes no difference if a harmless artistic image can be made, that presumptive prevention of alleged harm trumps all of that. This is a classic "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" argument. All rational thought must be sacrificed to that mantra. The problem is that the law in question does not address harm to children, it addresses the prurient sensibilities of some portion of the voting public in a shameless attempt to garner support through manufactured hysteria. There aren't any good reasons to advocate bad law, but that is certainly one of the worst of the bad ones.



I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?


So you're okay with an image that looks like a minor child and might be perceived in a licentious fashion by someone as long as the subject isn't really a minor, and simultaneously have no problem with laws which are demonstrably being abused to harass utterly innocent people for utterly innocent images because a little collateral damage is not important to the principle?

This seems inconsistent.

Brian-M
9th March 2010, 03:51 PM
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? :rolleyes:

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...

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

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
9th March 2010, 04:02 PM
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? :rolleyes:

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...

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

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
9th March 2010, 04:03 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:08 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:10 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:12 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:12 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:14 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:14 PM
<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
9th March 2010, 04:14 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:18 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:20 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:20 PM
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...
http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/sunbakers.jpg
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
9th March 2010, 04:22 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:25 PM
Here's another photo from the same photographic art gallary website I found the last one...
http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/sunbakers.jpg
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
9th March 2010, 04:34 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:40 PM
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. :mad:

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:42 PM
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
9th March 2010, 04:48 PM
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. :mad:

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
9th March 2010, 04:49 PM
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.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 04:51 PM
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.

Yes, I recognize that. My point is that you cannot ensure the safety of the child with any degree of reliability. The psychological impacts of using naked children, regardless of the artists intent, are potentially VERY damaging.

I linked this in another post, but I think it applies here as well:

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

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 04:51 PM
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.




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.




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.

And just how, pray tell, is a child naked in a movie like Superman the same thing as child porn?


ETA: Oh, and how can a child be harmed by what Brian-M pointed out above?

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.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 04:53 PM
Artistic expression and personal freedoms are being restricted in situations where there are no children are in any kind of danger.

And when that happens, I agree with anyone who will decry that as unjust.

It's ensuring there's no danger that's the catch...

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 04:56 PM
And just how, pray tell, is a child naked in a movie like Superman the same thing as child porn?

You need to read that article. It explains that in some depth. Again, the only thing that matters is how the child is affected. I have no idea what specific psychological impact being naked on that set for some unspecified amount of time had on the child.

And neither do you.


ETA: Oh, and how can a child be harmed by what Brian-M pointed out above?

Obviously those issues wouldn't concern me as they don't involve children. If someone is prosecuted or bothered for having pictures of small-breasted, legally aged women, then that's wrong. No disagreement there.

Paradox74
9th March 2010, 05:01 PM
*sigh* You really want to go down this road again?

Fine....here we go again.

This section from the article:


Sounds almost exactly like when here in America, the US Government had to decide what is porn and what is "obscene". The answer was pretty much the same: we'll decided that.

Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child

Now I realize that this isn't fool proof but it's a much better start. What I've outlined above, I feel, is a much clearer and less "it's my opinion" way of determining whether it's art or illegal rather than looking at a picture and just making a judgment.


Cheers to that! These guidlines by themselves should be enough to separate artistic child nudity from those child-porn-perverts.

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 05:05 PM
You need to read that article. It explains that in some depth. Again, the only thing that matters is how the child is affected. I have no idea what specific psychological impact being naked on that set for some unspecified amount of time had on the child.

And neither do you.

You do realize that could fit ANYTHING in a person's childhood. Let me go back to my altar boy example. (Now spelled correctly, sorry).

Even if a child wasn't abused by a priest, but was affected by being an altar boy later in life, does that mean that the entire Catholic religion should not have altar boys? Should we have a law telling all religions no altar boys at all?


Obviously those issues wouldn't concern me as they don't involve children. If someone is prosecuted or bothered for having pictures of small-breasted, legally aged women, then that's wrong. No disagreement there.

That's fine.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 05:09 PM
You do realize that could fit ANYTHING in a person's childhood. Let me go back to my altar boy example. (Now spelled correctly, sorry).

Even if a child wasn't abused by a priest, but was affected by being an altar boy later in life, does that mean that the entire Catholic religion should not have altar boys? Should we have a law telling all religions no altar boys at all?

The effects of abuse are pretty intensely studied and fairly well known. To just take one from the article I linked, participation in child porn leads children to believe there's nothing odd about the situation. This leaves the susceptible to abuse at significantly higher rates because they lose the ability to distinguish between proper adult-child relationships and exploitive ones.

Now, if you can assure me that those types of boundry issues were not affected by a given situation, I would have no problem with it. But I seriously doubt that can be done with the level of consistency that would justify the obviously grave risk.

As for just being an altar boy (I didn't know how to spell it either, glad you looked it up), I don't know of any studies that show the same type of problems arising from participation without abuse. I don't know, maybe the weird clothes and the fumes from that thing you swing around messes some kids up.

Brian-M
9th March 2010, 05:29 PM
And when that happens, I agree with anyone who will decry that as unjust.

It's ensuring there's no danger that's the catch...


It's impossible to ensure that there is no danger with anything. You can't ensure that there is no danger with your kid playing in the back-yard because he could get bitten by a venomous spider, for example.

No danger is not an achievable goal, but very low danger is.

Actual child porn producers, the kind that intentionally harm and abuse children to make their product won't be affected by this legislation in the slightest. Since their product is clearly illegal they won't be spending any money on getting it classified.

The only people who will be affected by this legislation will be legitimate artists and photographers, the kind that use willing children with parental consent to produce art of a non-sexual nature.

Take the picture in the spoiler below, for example. If someone is offended by it, the artist may have to spend $500 to have it officially declared non-porn. How does that protect the children? It doesn't stop these pictures being made, it doesn't affect genuine child-abusers. All it does is penalize artists who make controversial work.

http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/sunbakers.jpg
(Same picture I posted in the spoiler before because I couldn't be bothered finding another example.)

JFrankA
9th March 2010, 05:37 PM
The effects of abuse are pretty intensely studied and fairly well known. To just take one from the article I linked, participation in child porn leads children to believe there's nothing odd about the situation. This leaves the susceptible to abuse at significantly higher rates because they lose the ability to distinguish between proper adult-child relationships and exploitive ones.

Now, if you can assure me that those types of boundry issues were not affected by a given situation, I would have no problem with it. But I seriously doubt that can be done with the level of consistency that would justify the obviously grave risk.

As for just being an altar boy (I didn't know how to spell it either, glad you looked it up), I don't know of any studies that show the same type of problems arising from participation without abuse. I don't know, maybe the weird clothes and the fumes from that thing you swing around messes some kids up.

But there is a clear difference between a child being nude, let's say in a nude portrait of a mother and daughter, or a nude child as a cherub, which, I'm sure in such circumstances the list I gave is included in the procedure of shooting such a production (because, to be honest, most of that has to be included to shoot a nude with only adults included), and a child in a production in which actual sex/abuse/exploitation exists.

I cannot agree in saying no artist at all should ever use a nude child in a production no matter what. Once we do that then we are not only guilty of censorship, we are also guilty of making all people when they think of a child naked, that child is automatically sexualized. No matter what, no matter the intent, no matter the situation, no matter if it's past, present or future.

quadraginta
9th March 2010, 05:54 PM
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.




No one is sanctioning child abuse. You are asserting that any image of an unclothed child constitutes abuse, or should be assumed to.




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.


Apparently those who crafted the laws brought up by the OP we we are discussing feel that they can do just that.



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.


Of course not. Who said it was?



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

This is where your logic fails. An 'assume the worst' approach which posits guilt until absence of guilt is somehow proven.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 05:54 PM
It's impossible to ensure that there is no danger with anything. You can't ensure that there is no danger with your kid playing in the back-yard because he could get bitten by a venomous spider, for example...
http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/sunbakers.jpg
(Same picture I posted in the spoiler before because I couldn't be bothered finding another example.)

I agree the proposed legislation fails completely to deal with any of the issues raised herein.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 05:58 PM
But there is a clear difference between a child being nude, let's say in a nude portrait of a mother and daughter, or a nude child as a cherub, which, I'm sure in such circumstances the list I gave is included in the procedure of shooting such a production (because, to be honest, most of that has to be included to shoot a nude with only adults included), and a child in a production in which actual sex/abuse/exploitation exists.

I cannot agree in saying no artist at all should ever use a nude child in a production no matter what. Once we do that then we are not only guilty of censorship, we are also guilty of making all people when they think of a child naked, that child is automatically sexualized. No matter what, no matter the intent, no matter the situation, no matter if it's past, present or future.

If you think you can make those decisions for a minor and live with the results, more power to you.

I do not think I have the ability to know when nude modeling will harm a child and when it will be ok. Thus, I will stay away from it completely.

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 06:05 PM
No one is sanctioning child abuse. You are asserting that any image of an unclothed child constitutes abuse, or should be assumed to.

You are claiming that nude child modeling isn't abuse. That's sometimes true, sometimes not, I don't disagree.

I'm simply arguing 2 things:

1) The potential damage caused by using naked kids, even with good intentions, is being underestimated.

2) I, nor anyone I can find, can reasonably and consistently distinguish safe from potentially damaging situations for children. If you have some convincing way of doing that, I would probably join your camp.



Apparently those who crafted the laws brought up by the OP we we are discussing feel that they can do just that.

Then I disagree with them.


Of course not. Who said it was?


Almost literally everyone else on this thread. The whole point of these multiple arguments against my position is that there exists some safe, non-pornographical use for naked kids in works of art.

If you agree that abuse can occur even if the artist means well, how are you distinguishing between dangerous and safe situations?



This is where your logic fails. An 'assume the worst' approach which posits guilt until absence of guilt is somehow proven.

I have not even remotely made that argument.

I posit the guilt of no one, this is not an ex post facto argument. It's about developing a new program moving forward. I have not argued for the criminalization of anyone acting now or in the past.

And why do you think I wouldn't allow them to prove their case in court, as in every other crime?

quadraginta
9th March 2010, 06:05 PM
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.




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.




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.


There is no "huff and puff". I agree that abuse is wrong, and say that laws exist to address that, and that laws presuming guilt without cause are bad laws.

You are advocating laws which assume the presence of guilt without any evidence, and assert that this is a preferable form of social control. How many other potentials for negative behaviors would you apply this philosophy to?

TraneWreck
9th March 2010, 06:07 PM
There is no "huff and puff". I agree that abuse is wrong, and say that laws exist to address that, and that laws presuming guilt without cause are bad laws.

You are advocating laws which assume the presence of guilt without any evidence, and assert that this is a preferable form of social control. How many other potentials for negative behaviors would you apply this philosophy to?

Where have I said that?

Let's assume my suggestion becomes law. The DA would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any given defendant violated the tenants of that law, whatever they are.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have presumed nothing.

GreyICE
9th March 2010, 07:37 PM
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.

Demonstrably untrue.

tesscaline
9th March 2010, 10:21 PM
I'm simply arguing 2 things:

1) The potential damage caused by using naked kids, even with good intentions, is being underestimated.

2) I, nor anyone I can find, can reasonably and consistently distinguish safe from potentially damaging situations for children. If you have some convincing way of doing that, I would probably join your camp.

If those are your arguments, then you need to provide some evidence to back them up.

First of all, you need to define this "potential damage", and then you need to show that said "potential damage" actually occurs. After that, you need to demonstrate that said damage occurs in situations with good intentions. In addition, you need to demonstrate that there is a current estimate of said damage occurring in situations with good intentions. Then, you need to demonstrate how this damage is occurring in situations with good intentions at a higher level than that currently being estimated.

Without all of the above, your "argument" is nothing but baseless nonsense.

For the second argument... It's logically non-falsifiable, and not anything that anyone can reasonably address with any degree of accuracy or seriousness. It also suffers from some of the most basic logical fallacies. Insufficient sample size, for one. And then there's the lack of qualification. The way you've worded your "argument", anything that has even the slightest degree of risk to a child is automatically bad. Walking down the sidewalk has the potential for damage -- tripping and falling, getting hit by an out of control car, kidnapper grabbing them -- should we ban children from walking down the sidewalk? Eating has the potential for damage -- the child could choke, or maybe they might eat something that they're allergic to -- should we ban children from eating? Sleeping even poses a potential danger. Ever heard of SIDS? So we should ban children from sleeping too, right? This is the kind of logic you've put forth. Frankly, it's laughable.

MontagK505
9th March 2010, 10:54 PM
Here therein lies the problem, only fifty-one posts into the thread: A picture of a nude child does not mean child pornography.

Let's go back to the Superman movie. Clearly, SW, you don't think it's meant to be sexual, but if one person finds it sexual, is aroused by the scene, does it become child pornography now?

If there is a chance that someone might see that scene and get aroused by it, does it become child pornography?


Another question is:

How many people does it take before you cross over that art/porn line? Does it matter who these people are?

MontagK505
9th March 2010, 11:05 PM
In reference to the article in the OP, how does classifing art protect children from abuse? If your art fails, could your submission be used in evidence against you if someone thinks you might have commited a crime?

Kevin_Lowe
9th March 2010, 11:35 PM
In reference to the article in the OP, how does classifing art protect children from abuse? If your art fails, could your submission be used in evidence against you if someone thinks you might have commited a crime?

If the art is ever going to be published or displayed then people are going to see it anyway. If it's close enough to child porn to get someone to make a complaint to the police it will get seen and complained about one way or another.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:17 AM
I would say all porn is art. The problem is that art is such a vague and subjective term.
Well if that isn't one of the most blatant contradictions I've ever read ...

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 02:21 AM
Another question is:

How many people does it take before you cross over that art/porn line? Does it matter who these people are?

The actual question is: was the child who performed the scene actually abused and/or molested during the filming of the scene?

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:23 AM
If those are your definitions then almost all of what is usually referred to as pornography is art. Creating porn, be it in the form of text or video or photographs, is an application of skill and creative imagination. It might be really bad art in many or most cases, but that is a different argument.

Perhaps more importantly, anything which would be put forward by artists to be rated under this new legislation is virtually certain to be art by your definition, whether or not it is also pornography.

This makes your initial post's accusation that people who thought that porn was art are misguided and self-indulgent quite curious, in the light of the definitions you have posted. It seems to me that if you accept your own definitions of art and pornography then it follows that you must consider yourself misguided and self-indulgent.
Alternatively, you've read the definitions (which, as I clearly pointed out, are not mine, and I don't necessarily wholly subscribe to them) from a biased, unobjective perspective, looking for a pre-determined interpretation. Have you considered that possibility?!

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:28 AM
Here therein lies the problem, only fifty-one posts into the thread: A picture of a nude child does not mean child pornography.
Let's go back to the Superman movie. Clearly, SW, you don't think it's meant to be sexual, but if one person finds it sexual, is aroused by the scene, does it become child pornography now?
If there is a chance that someone might see that scene and get aroused by it, does it become child pornography?
As pointed out to you in a previous thread, you clearly had, and, sadly, continue to have, absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of pornography, even though you claim to be a pornographer. The fact that the questions that you ask could be equally validly asked of any physical object only serves to demonstrate so.

AWPrime
10th March 2010, 02:30 AM
Tranewreck,

If we follow your logic to its end, then we end up forcing children (boys and girls) to wear Burkas.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:33 AM
So are you saying that the producers, cast and crew of the Superman movie should be held accountable????
Only the accountants, surely! ;)

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:40 AM
I know porn when I see it.
And some art.
And some stuff that isn't intended to be porn, but is. [emphasis added]
Porn, by definition (any sensible definition) has intent (to sexually arouse). By definition, again, therefore, "unintentional porn" is somewhat of an oxymoron, and hence doesn't exist.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 02:43 AM
As pointed out to you in a previous thread, you clearly had, and, sadly, continue to have,absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of pornography, even though you claim to be a pornographer. The fact that the questions that you ask could be equally validly asked of any physical object only serves to demonstrate so.

And you, sir, sadly, continue to have,absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of art

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:44 AM
Smut is in the mind of the beholder.
For a foot-fetishist, a shoe catalog is porn. Let's ban them!
Smut might be in the eye of the beholder but porn isn't. Go research.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 02:49 AM
Smut might be in the eye of the beholder but porn isn't. Go research.

Have you read you own thread?

The majority of this thread is the discussion whether artful nudity of children should be or should not be done.

Notice, not porn, just simple nudity. We can't get beyond that yet.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 02:52 AM
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? (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Images/sexology/Correggio-Danae.jpg)

Don't waste your time trying to answer. There is no right or wrong answer.
But I will, because there is, although it might well elude us all, circa half a millenium later. Was Corregio's intention to sexually arouse? There you go - asked, answered, and asked!

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 02:57 AM
But I will, because there is, although it might well elude us all, circa half a millenium later. Was Corregio's intention to sexually arouse? There you go - asked, answered, and asked!

Let me ask you something:

How do you know what someone's intent is?

I made a porno, not to arouse, but to tell a story. That's my intent simply to tell a story. Now it may be hardcore, lots of sex, lots of close ups, but I say that it's not porno - it's not meant to arouse, it tells a story.

So now, is the production I shot a porno?

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 02:59 AM
Porn, by definition (any sensible definition) has intent (to sexually arouse). By definition, again, therefore, "unintentional porn" is somewhat of an oxymoron, and hence doesn't exist.


This means that the law you cited in your OP is only useful if the courts are able, somehow, to divine the intent of the artist. Not, as the article stated,

The laws adopt commonwealth provisions where the court looks at the artistic merit of the material when deciding whether it is child pornography, rather than relying on the defence of artistic purpose.

How will the telepathy credentials of those judging the intent of an artist be established? If a work of art is intended to arouse, but does so in a subtle and innocuous fashion under cover of some other purpose, say, childrens' clothing ads, how will this be apprehended? Will there be vigilante telepaths on the prowl for duplicitous intent?

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:12 AM
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: 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 miss the point, which is surprising, given that you go on to actually analyse the term "per se":
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?
Yes, yes, yes, yes and no, and the only reason for the "no" is simply because there are many people on Earth who are so dim-witted they wouldn't acknowledge art if it slapped them in the face, and then there are those like you, who elect to define art in such a way that it becomes meaningless, or who see something bizarrely esoteric about somebody sitting in a field with a canvas and some oils. What sensible, intelligent person (excluding those like you) would not categorize Constable's "The Haywain", for example, as simply "art". Is it the intrinsic nature of the canvas, oils or frame, or the "mysteriousness(?)" of Constable's psyche (or some combination of them) that's putting you off the trail do you think?!

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

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 03:16 AM
You miss the point, which is surprising, given that you go on to actually analyse the term "per se":

Yes, yes, yes, yes and no, and the only reason for the "no" is simply because there are many people on Earth who are so dim-witted they wouldn't acknowledge art if it slapped them in the face, and then there are those like you, who elect to define art in such a way that it becomes meaningless, or who see something bizarrely esoteric about somebody sitting in a field with a canvas and some oils. What sensible, intelligent person (excluding those like you) would not categorize Constable's "The Haywain", for example, as simply "art". Is it the intrinsic nature of the canvas, oils or frame, or the "mysteriousness(?)" of Constable's psyche (or some combination of them) that's putting you off the trail do you think?!


And still you miss the point.

And you are completely missing the point.

One cannot determine the intent of a person who makes a production. I can tell you I did make a video, that is erotic, but to "sexually arouse" someone wasn't my intent. I have to have it on a porn site because it does contain nudity.

...now since my intent wasn't to "sexually arouse", I say it's not porn. Therefore, by your definition, what I produced is art.

Thank you for the loophole.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:18 AM
"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,
Lets dig a bit deeper, though, and see what really happened to Lisa and A.J. Demaree. ABC News has this (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533) to share,
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."
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.
Lisa Demaree has a comment which I think lends itself to this discussion.
If you had pursued your investigations about breast feeding with a little more diligence you might have found this (http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/) case, which turned up at the top of a search with the keywords "breast feeding pictures pornography".
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 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216344,00.html) to say,
I don't believe that this issue is quite as simple and straightforward as you suggest, nor as harmless to the innocent.
And after ALL that beratement and hot air we're still, clearly (thank you) talking extremely isolated incidents, which I think essentially was TraneWreck's point. Wood and trees :rolleyes:

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 03:22 AM
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?

The answer is simple, he is unable to view nudity in a non sexual manner and wants his personal issues written into law.

HansMustermann
10th March 2010, 03:24 AM
But I will, because there is, although it might well elude us all, circa half a millenium later. Was Corregio's intention to sexually arouse? There you go - asked, answered, and asked!

But how do you know if all those greeks painting or sculpting naked sweaty guys wrestling actually did it purely for aesthetic reasons, or maybe because they (or their patrons) were gay and sexually aroused by that? How do you know if every single Venus/Aphrodite painting showing some breast was done purely as a religious icon of a goddess of sex, or was actually just porn before the invention of photography? How do you know if all those nudes since Renaissance were done really for art's sake, or maybe the artist just liked to look at naked women and get paid for it? How do you know they didn't intend to sell them to someone they knew is only interested in getting aroused by that picture? How do you know if at least some of those naked cherubs and cupids really weren't early child porn?

And the more interesting problem is that basically the same object can flip between art and non-art freely just based on what you guess the artist's intent might have been. Or even two identical items can then fall in different and supposedly mutually-exclusive categories, based on different guesses about what their author might have thought. That's not a very useful categorization, then.

Everything else tends to be less ambiguously categorized. A shoe is still a shoe, even if its designer has a foot fetish and only does it so he can get aroused. Handcuffs are still handcuffs regardless of whether the designer was just thinking of police work, or then went and beat off to the mental image of naked women handcuffed with those. A frilly slip is still a slip regardless of whether the designer was getting aroused at it and essentially designing his own sexual fantasy, or (like many fashion designers) was a gay guy who was actually getting turned _off_ by the female body.

They tend to be categorized by function, material, style, etc. You know, relatively objective stuff. Stuff where you can simply look at the item and say, "yep, it's a shoe" without needing any uninformed guesses about what someone else may have thought.

By comparison a categorization which is _all_ about such an uninformed guess about what someone else thinks, doesn't seem like a particularly useful one.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:27 AM
This means that the law you cited in your OP is only useful if the courts are able, somehow, to divine the intent of the artist. Not, as the article stated ...
How will the telepathy credentials of those judging the intent of an artist be established? If a work of art is intended to arouse, but does so in a subtle and innocuous fashion under cover of some other purpose, say, childrens' clothing ads, how will this be apprehended? Will there be vigilante telepaths on the prowl for duplicitous intent?
Evidence my friend ... evidence, just like when judges and jury apply their "telepathy credentials" in determining other, non-pornography cases where intent is key. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a child's clothing ad that you have determined is intended to sexually arouse in a "subtle and innocuous(!!!) fashion under cover of some other purpose", and explain your rationale for such determination. You'll excuse me if I choose not to hold my breath, I hope. :rolleyes:

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:30 AM
Gee... Cherubim in Roman Catholic churches world-wide are porn now?
Er ... no.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:36 AM
These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.
:eek: Well if that isn't a cynical, nay "draconian", view!

Cavemonster
10th March 2010, 03:45 AM
Evidence my friend ... evidence, just like when judges and jury apply their "telepathy credentials" in determining other, non-pornography cases where intent is key. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a child's clothing ad that you have determined is intended to sexually arouse in a "subtle and innocuous(!!!) fashion under cover of some other purpose", and explain your rationale for such determination. You'll excuse me if I choose not to hold my breath, I hope. :rolleyes:

Really? What kind of evidence specifically?

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:48 AM
One cannot determine the intent of a person who makes a production.
Why not?

I can tell you I did make a video, that is erotic, but to "sexually arouse" someone wasn't my intent.
Oh, you never fail to amuse, more so because it's always unwitting:

adj erotic relating to or arousing sexual desire
[The Chambers Dictionary 1998 reprint]

I have to have it on a porn site because it does contain nudity.
Nothing to do with it being "erotic" (pornographic), then?! :rolleyes:

...now since my intent wasn't to "sexually arouse", I say it's not porn. Therefore, by your definition, what I produced is art.
Notwithstanding that your ego trip could well be to blame for your clouded judgement, you seem to think that I'm claiming that porn and art are mutually exclusive. I suggest you start over.

Thank you for the loophole.
That you've proceeded to hang yourself with! :D

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 03:52 AM
And after ALL that beratement and hot air we're still, clearly (thank you) talking extremely isolated incidents, which I think essentially was TraneWreck's point. Wood and trees :rolleyes:


You say "extremely isolated". The last time we went through this more and more examples continued to be presented to you, so "extremely" gradually becomes "rare", and then, as in the Fox News (bastion of conservative propriety) article I offered in the post of mine you quoted, it turns out that the majority of abuse complaints may be unfounded.

But let's leave that obvious fallacy and evasion of yours aside and simply pursue the failed logic of defending bad law simply because the proven collateral damage may be rare. There ought to be some demonstration that actual benefits exist to offset the proven damage. That remains to be established.

No one is suggesting that child abuse should be condoned under any circumstances, but laws to protect children do not have to be conflated with pornography prohibition. They are two separate, unrelated issues, and the insistence on blending the two together is a baldfaced, disingenuous appeal to emotion.

It has been clearly established that child pornography laws will be misused by overzealous prosecutors. I don't think it is relevant to point to the frequency of this misuse if no demonstrable benefit to children can be established that is not already covered by laws which did not appeal to prurience or prudery.

Andrew Wiggin
10th March 2010, 03:55 AM
For some reason I'm reminded of the 30's german exhibitions of 'degenerate art'. You'd be hard pressed to tell why something in one of those exhibits was said to not be 'true' art, until you know its background and the context, and even then, there's plenty of wiggle room. Like in the OP, the main reason it would be 'degenerate' is that the powers that be say so, on a 'we know it when we see it' basis. Weak.

A

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 03:56 AM
To this I shall respond visually.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2658
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2657
And by doing so you make TraneWreck's case for him. That photo wasn't taken because of the nudity. The girl just happened to be nude. Had all the children in that photo been dressed it would still have been taken, for exactly the same reason, and still had the same impact. QED

Now, please review this ill-considered tripe:
Your absolute stance is stupid. Your refusal to consider the results of your rules is stupid. Your refusal to think about censorship is stupidly naive. One picture is worth one thousand words, and those two explain more completely and more absolutely than I ever could how your opinion and desire for censorship are destructive to our free speech and dialogue as a nation. Two thousand words condemn you and your answer is 'think of the children.' Someone should, you sure as hell haven't.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:02 AM
Right. Define art. Fat piled in a corner, or smeared on a wall, or left in a pile on a chair? (http://artblart.wordpress.com/category/joseph-beuys/)
Beuys' "Fat Corner" was inadvertently destroyed when the room it was in was cleaned - the building custodian thought it was just a disgusting mess that someone hadn't bothered to clean up. How do you tell art from satire? You don't. Satire at that level is an art form.
An artistic painting or drawing of a nude woman makes me appreciate the skill of the artist and the beauty of the woman. A pornographic nude picture or drawing of a woman makes me wish I could get it on with that hot chick and appreciate the skill of the artist.
In other words:
It's artistic if you can concentrate on the technique and how the artist got the lighting just that way.
It's pornographic if you wonder how in the heck the artist managed to keep his hands off her long enough to paint the picture.
Although you claim to appreciate the skill of artists I don't think you actually appreciate what the word "skill" actually means. Without appreciating the latter you cannot, I'm sorry to inform you, legitimately claim to appreciate the former.

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 04:09 AM
Evidence my friend ... evidence, just like when judges and jury apply their "telepathy credentials" in determining other, non-pornography cases where intent is key. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a child's clothing ad that you have determined is intended to sexually arouse in a "subtle and innocuous(!!!) fashion under cover of some other purpose", and explain your rationale for such determination. You'll excuse me if I choose not to hold my breath, I hope. :rolleyes:


You don't need my determination. Here's (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/18/nyregion/calvin-klein-cancels-ads-with-children-amid-criticism.html?pagewanted=1) one for you from a mayor of New York.

Calvin Klein Cancels Ads With Children Amid Criticism

By ANDY NEWMAN

Published: February 18, 1999

Calvin Klein decided yesterday to cancel an advertising campaign for his new line of children's underwear after heavy criticism from conservative groups, psychologists and the Mayor, among others.

Calvin Klein Inc. had planned to unveil a huge billboard in Times Square today -- in the middle of Fashion Week -- showing two boys who appeared to be about 6 years old, one clad only in jockey shorts, the other in boxers, standing on a sofa and arm-wrestling.
...

The new campaign for boys' and girls' underwear, developed by the company's in-house agency, CRK Advertising, and shot by the fashion photographer Mario Testino, ''was intended to show children smiling, laughing and just being themselves,'' the statement said.

''We wanted to capture the same warmth and spontaneity that you find in a family snapshot,'' the statement continued.
...

''I think they're in very bad taste,'' Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said yesterday before the company announced that it was pulling the ads. ''But I can't stop them. I mean, there's the First Amendment.''

The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told The Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was ''nothing more than pornography.''

This is the latest in a long string of Calvin Klein ad campaigns that have drawn fire for what was perceived to be sexual content.

Twice within three months in 1995, the company canceled ad campaigns under barrages of criticism. One, for jeans, featured teen-age models in poses and settings that critics said reeked of cheap X-rated movies. The other showed men modeling underwear in what some said appeared to be a state of arousal.



Not my "rationale" and not my "determination". This is the real world.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:09 AM
You say "extremely isolated". The last time we went through this more and more examples continued to be presented to you, so "extremely" gradually becomes "rare", and then, as in the Fox News (bastion of conservative propriety) article I offered in the post of mine you quoted, it turns out that the majority of abuse complaints may be unfounded.
Yes, I suppose 1 increasing to 3 via 2 could technically be described as "more and more". 3, however, indeed 30, or even 300, in context, is not only "rare", but still "extremely isolated". Now, those 300 cases, or even 30, remind me, were which?

But let's leave that obvious fallacy ...
:eek:

... and evasion of yours aside and simply pursue the failed logic of defending bad law simply because the proven collateral damage may be rare.
Sorry - off topic. "Evasion"?!

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 04:16 AM
These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.
:eek: Well if that isn't a cynical, nay "draconian", view!

You're right (for a change)! It isn't.

It's a simple statement of fact.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:23 AM
Interesting how nude photos of children ACTUALLY suffering is okay with you ...
Interesting how juvenile this statement is. If it's your genuine interpretation then that's even more sad.

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:25 AM
40 posts in under 2 hours, including your contributions. Care to re-think?

Considering the number and length of the bigfoot threads, I don't think that this is a very good argument in your favor.

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:26 AM
Excuse me?

That biological reality must be considered... didn't Frank say that ?

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:29 AM
Thinking about this... by some definitions of "child porn", my copy of "The Complete Illustrated Works of Lewis Carroll" contains child porn. After all, it does have drawings of naked children in the poetry section. (Well, fairy-children, but still...)

Same thing for cherubs in some renaissance artwork.

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:30 AM
Probably because there was no intention to sexually arouse, and that was reflected in the way the image was portrayed. Hey ho.

Although, intent nonwithstanding, a person watching the movie could be aroused, nonetheless.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:31 AM
You don't need my determination. Here's (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/18/nyregion/calvin-klein-cancels-ads-with-children-amid-criticism.html?pagewanted=1) one for you from a mayor of New York.
...
...
Not my "rationale" and not my "determination". This is the real world.
Ah ... it seems we're on the same page after all, not like the mayor. This would appear to be yet another "extremely isolated" incident. You don't seem to grasp the driver for modern newscasting do you. Not surprising really, as that's why the driver is what it is - people, generally, pander to it. The trick, though, is contextualizing, something that you, evidently, like most, fail to do. But yes, you're right ... this certainly is the real world.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:40 AM
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? :rolleyes:
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...
]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.
It's only art if skill is involved. I would suggest that the photographer of the bridge applied some skill in composing the shot, and suspect some also in determining the exposure, possibly selecting the film stock, hence art. But if he just happened to be driving along, spotted an interesting image, grabbed the instamatic, pointed and shot, that's not art, unless you want to stretch credibility to claiming that he applied skill in recognising the photographic merit of a chance circumstance, in which case drop me your address and I'll send you an invitation to my first exhibition soon.

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:42 AM
Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?

I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.

Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

Basically, Trane, what you're saying is that photographing nude children is WRONG ALWAYS. Except for family pictures. Oh, and historical documents, too. Oh, and probably for medical purposes.

Are there any other exceptions to your initial absolutist comment, now ?

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:44 AM
Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

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

I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

Ah, so in SOME art we have other exceptions, and if it's NECESSARY also. Gee, that doesn't leave much, does it ?

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:48 AM
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.
Popped your cherry a mile high did he? Welcome to the Club. Time's a great healer eh! ;)

Belz...
10th March 2010, 04:50 AM
Find me the compelling need to allow naked kids in art.

I think the onus is on you to demonstrate the harm in doing so, not the reverse.

So far you think Superman III wouldn't be as good, or something.

Superman III WASN'T as good. :D

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 04:58 AM
I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude or condescending but are you even reading my posts?
I suspect he's having the same problem that I often have with them. Law of averages suggests culpability.

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 04:59 AM
Ah ... it seems we're on the same page after all, not like the mayor. This would appear to be yet another "extremely isolated" incident. You don't seem to grasp the driver for modern newscasting do you. Not surprising really, as that's why the driver is what it is - people, generally, pander to it. The trick, though, is contextualizing, something that you, evidently, like most, fail to do. But yes, you're right ... this certainly is the real world.


You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. Now, predictably, you say "Oh. Well. Okay. How about some more evidence." Actually, if you had bothered to read the quote I cited it included more evidence.

This is the latest in a long string of Calvin Klein ad campaigns that have drawn fire for what was perceived to be sexual content.


I feel confident that I could discover still more for you, but I am unwilling to continue to do further research on your behalf that you yourself are reluctant to undertake.

You will string out the "isolated incident" duck and weave until people get tired of playing. You do this because you are unwilling to engage the real question. "Why is any incident justifiable."

The rest of your post bears a startling resemblance to sentences, but I suspect that is an artifact of having words strung together in a series that way. It's helpful if they combine to communicate some coherent meaning. Your efforts there have failed.

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 05:03 AM
It's only art if skill is involved. I would suggest that the photographer of the bridge applied some skill in composing the shot, and suspect some also in determining the exposure, possibly selecting the film stock, hence art. But if he just happened to be driving along, spotted an interesting image, grabbed the instamatic, pointed and shot, that's not art, unless you want to stretch credibility to claiming that he applied skill in recognising the photographic merit of a chance circumstance, in which case drop me your address and I'll send you an invitation to my first exhibition soon.


If you think that is stretching credibility then you are demonstrating a weak, if not non-existent grasp of both photography and art.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 05:09 AM
Why not?


Oh, you never fail to amuse, more so because it's always unwitting:

adj erotic relating to or arousing sexual desire
[The Chambers Dictionary 1998 reprint]


Nothing to do with it being "erotic" (pornographic), then?! :rolleyes:


Notwithstanding that your ego trip could well be to blame for your clouded judgement, you seem to think that I'm claiming that porn and art are mutually exclusive. I suggest you start over.


That you've proceeded to hang yourself with! :D

Oh well then.

I have another film that tells the story of a married couple finding some common ground. They are so happy they share their joy together. It's a film showing their love for one another and is not meant to be sexual or erotic in anyway. Their bodies are a work of art, how the interact is emotional and loving.

It is my intent to show this story, to show their love for each other. Not my intent to be erotic or sexual.

So if you see it as porn, then realize that is not my intent.

Thanks again for clarification of your little loophole.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 05:12 AM
I suspect he's having the same problem that I often have with them. Law of averages suggests culpability.

No, he eventually showed he understood my point.

Seems to me that you don't want to understand mine because you can't counter with anything credible.

A lot of other people on this (and the previous) thread feel the same way. So I suspect they are having the same problem with your argument that I often have with it. Law of averages suggests culpability.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 05:14 AM
And you, sir, sadly, continue to have,absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of art
Seems we need to educate each other then. You free tonight?! ;)

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 05:19 AM
It's only art if skill is involved. I would suggest that the photographer of the bridge applied some skill in composing the shot, and suspect some also in determining the exposure, possibly selecting the film stock, hence art. But if he just happened to be driving along, spotted an interesting image, grabbed the instamatic, pointed and shot, that's not art, unless you want to stretch credibility to claiming that he applied skill in recognising the photographic merit of a chance circumstance, in which case drop me your address and I'll send you an invitation to my first exhibition soon.

Maplethorpe.

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

These are his more tamer photos. Some of them are out and hard core. So much so that in some places he was called a pornographer.

Andrew Blake.

From wiki:

Andrew Blake's films are characterized by high production values, artistic stylization, and rigorous technique. His style has been compared to that of the seminal fashion photographer Helmut Newton, and described as "decadent, lush, opulent, unfailingly arousing, moneyed and sophisticated."[2] Blake's contemporaries include the established pornographic director/producers Viv Thomas, Michael Ninn and Marc Dorcel.

Blake's work has been described as "lavishly produced and lovingly edited,"[3] and sex writer Violet Blue says of Blake's work: "It's a whole different genre of explicit erotic filmmaking evident from the first frame -- pure high fashion, glossy candyland fantasy. It is luxuriously designed from nip tip to toe. And it's stylish as hell."[2]

But then again, Andrew Blake's work was never in a museum. So does your definition: "If it was never in a museum, it isn't art" apply to Blake?

Idiot Wind
10th March 2010, 05:20 AM
I've kind of lost the point Southwind was trying to make,
but Tranewreck is suggesting that simple nudity without any sexual context puts a child at such a great risk of psychological problems in later life that it should be outright forbidden.
Any proof perhaps? Any studies done on this?

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 05:20 AM
Let me ask you something:
How do you know what someone's intent is?
By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.

I made a porno, not to arouse, but to tell a story. That's my intent simply to tell a story. Now it may be hardcore, lots of sex, lots of close ups, but I say that it's not porno - it's not meant to arouse, it tells a story.
So now, is the production I shot a porno?
Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse? I'd say so. Perhaps we need different categories of child porn, resultant laws and punishments, like we have for homicide.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 05:32 AM
By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.


Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse? I'd say so. Perhaps we need different categories of child porn, resultant laws and punishments, like we have for homicide.

No no no. You are dodging the question.

I made a video with no intention of any erotic or arousal. My intention is only to tell this story and convey the emotional bonding that these two people have rekindled. I don't know if it will sexually arouse anyone, it doesn't matter. It is not my intent.

I say to you, by your definition, it is not porn. It is art.

Southwind17
10th March 2010, 05:36 AM
Really? What kind of evidence specifically?
It would, of course, depend on the individual circumstances, but could include, off the cuff, driver/motivation, production methodology, nature of imagery, treatment of subject, marketing and distribution/display of end product.

It's not difficult, based on evidence, to conclude that "Big Jugs", for example, is pornographic, and that the Vietnam nepalm photo isn't. Most instances of child nudity will, I suggest, be equally unequivocal, so don't pretend this poses a pandemic problem warranting mass hysteria. If you ask me, the vast majority of "artists", indeed most artists engaging in incidental child nudity imagery, know what the evidence will show, if tested, and wouldn't lose sleep over it.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 05:39 AM
It would, of course, depend on the individual circumstances, but could include, off the cuff, driver/motivation, production methodology, nature of imagery, treatment of subject, marketing and distribution/display of end product.

It's not difficult, based on evidence, to conclude that "Big Jugs", for example, is pornographic, and that the Vietnam nepalm photo isn't. Most instances of child nudity will, I suggest, be equally unequivocal, so don't pretend this poses a pandemic problem warranting mass hysteria. If you ask me, the vast majority of "artists", indeed most artists engaging in incidental child nudity imagery, know what the evidence will show, if tested, and wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Maplethorpe had nude children in his exhibition. They were hung in a museum. Some people called it porn, some people called it art.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 06:08 AM
Oh well then.

I have another film that tells the story of a married couple finding some common ground. They are so happy they share their joy together. It's a film showing their love for one another and is not meant to be sexual or erotic in anyway. Their bodies are a work of art, how the interact is emotional and loving.

It is my intent to show this story, to show their love for each other. Not my intent to be erotic or sexual.

So if you see it as porn, then realize that is not my intent.

Thanks again for clarification of your little loophole.

Why not just tell him to go watch Shortbus?

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 07:01 AM
Why not just tell him to go watch Shortbus?

Uhm....because I never heard of the film! I have to see it now. Thanks :)

MontagK505
10th March 2010, 07:04 AM
Maplethorpe had nude children in his exhibition. They were hung in a museum. Some people called it porn, some people called it art.

And how much political influnce each group has would be the determining factor in "classifing" such art. Also note any actual harm to the children isn't the issue in making such judgements.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 07:14 AM
Uhm....because I never heard of the film! I have to see it now. Thanks :)

It is the best example I have seen of a non porn film that is sexually explicit, but is really a artistic independent film about relationships. It is by the guy who did Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

Are parts of it arousing? Well depends on what you find arousing, but sure some of them are likely to be to many people.

The only note I would make is that it contains both explicit heterosexual and explicit male male homosexual sex(not really much explicit female female). So if that would bother someone too much they shouldn't watch the movie.

Drudgewire
10th March 2010, 07:26 AM
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.

Unless Charlie Laine is in it, then it's art regardless. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/swoon.gif

I Ratant
10th March 2010, 08:25 AM
The actual question is: was the child who performed the scene actually abused and/or molested during the filming of the scene?
.
I couldn't find any screen credit for that actor, to see what kind of a life of crime he pursued later.

I Ratant
10th March 2010, 08:29 AM
Maplethorpe had nude children in his exhibition. They were hung in a museum. Some people called it porn, some people called it art.
.
And some ( such as me) called it pandering filth and crap.

I Ratant
10th March 2010, 08:31 AM
Unless Charlie Laine is in it, then it's art regardless. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/swoon.gif
.
Googled....
Boggled! :D

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 08:44 AM
.
I couldn't find any screen credit for that actor, to see what kind of a life of crime he pursued later.

I've already posted it on this thread:

http://www.supermansupersite.com/aaron.html

Yeah, being nude in a movie at three years old really set him on the life of crime.......

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 08:48 AM
.
And some ( such as me) called it pandering filth and crap.

Have you actually seen those pictures? I have. I don't think of it as filth and/or crap.

The point is, how is this decided as porn or not?

According to SW, it isn't because Maplethorpe didn't intend it to be sexually arousing.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 08:50 AM
.
Googled....
Boggled! :D

I agree there. :)

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 08:58 AM
Basically, Trane, what you're saying is that photographing nude children is WRONG ALWAYS. Except for family pictures. Oh, and historical documents, too. Oh, and probably for medical purposes.

Are there any other exceptions to your initial absolutist comment, now ?

Not even close.

I'm saying I have no way of reliably judging when it's wrong and when its right, so nude children should not be used in the production of art because their safety trumps the limited benefit of having naked kids in artwork.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 09:01 AM
Not even close.

I'm saying I have no way of reliably judging when it's wrong and when its right, so nude children should not be used in the production of art because their safety trumps the limited benefit of having naked kids in artwork.

That makes no sense.

So, we have no way of knowing if anyone is going to become an alcoholic in order to protect all people from the possibility of becoming alcoholics, we should ban all alcohol.

Belz...
10th March 2010, 09:13 AM
It's only art if skill is involved.

Wow. So amateur people who take pictures and are bad at it aren't doing art ? Or does "no skill" qualify ?

Belz...
10th March 2010, 09:15 AM
By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.

Again, how do you gather evidence of intent, especially when the person is dead ?

Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse?

Who cares ? You said it was the intent that mattered.

Belz...
10th March 2010, 09:17 AM
Not even close.

I'm saying I have no way of reliably judging when it's wrong and when its right, so nude children should not be used in the production of art because their safety trumps the limited benefit of having naked kids in artwork.

That makes no sense. When do you ban something on the mere possibility that it can do harm ?

Again, do you ban chainsaws because someone may hurt themselves by shaving with it ?

At some point you're going to have to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 09:21 AM
I've already posted it on this thread:

http://www.supermansupersite.com/aaron.html

Yeah, being nude in a movie at three years old really set him on the life of crime.......

It is worse than that, be became an ACTOR!!!

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 09:21 AM
If those are your arguments, then you need to provide some evidence to back them up.

I've already linked multiple articles.


For the second argument... It's logically non-falsifiable, and not anything that anyone can reasonably address with any degree of accuracy or seriousness. It also suffers from some of the most basic logical fallacies. Insufficient sample size, for one. And then there's the lack of qualification. The way you've worded your "argument", anything that has even the slightest degree of risk to a child is automatically bad. Walking down the sidewalk has the potential for damage -- tripping and falling, getting hit by an out of control car, kidnapper grabbing them -- should we ban children from walking down the sidewalk? Eating has the potential for damage -- the child could choke, or maybe they might eat something that they're allergic to -- should we ban children from eating? Sleeping even poses a potential danger. Ever heard of SIDS? So we should ban children from sleeping too, right? This is the kind of logic you've put forth. Frankly, it's laughable.

This is a pure argument from ignorance. Because you cannot distinguish from abusive situations to normal situations, no one can. Again, examine the international study presented at the US Embassy in Stockholm. It deals with those issues in great detail.

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 09:24 AM
That makes no sense. When do you ban something on the mere possibility that it can do harm ?

When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.


Again, do you ban chainsaws because someone may hurt themselves by shaving with it ?

An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

Deciding on behalf of a child to allow them to participate in the creation of art in the nude is a mental state of intent, beyond mere negligence.



At some point you're going to have to give other people the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what that means.

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 09:27 AM
That makes no sense.

So, we have no way of knowing if anyone is going to become an alcoholic in order to protect all people from the possibility of becoming alcoholics, we should ban all alcohol.

There are a massive number of things that children are outright banned from doing (contractually obligating themselves, consenting to sex, driving, responsibly consume alcohol...etc.). I am simply arguing that consenting to appear naked in the production of artwork should be one of those.

It's one thing to argue that nude participation in art shouldn't be on the list, it's another to pretend like this some astonishing, new legal concept.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 09:37 AM
There are a massive number of things that children are outright banned from doing (contractually obligating themselves, consenting to sex, driving, responsibly consume alcohol...etc.). I am simply arguing that consenting to appear naked in the production of artwork should be one of those.

It's one thing to argue that nude participation in art shouldn't be on the list, it's another to pretend like this some astonishing, new legal concept.

You are condriciting yourself:

When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.

Do you know how many children can be potentially harmed by alcohol? It should be banned.

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 09:44 AM
You are condriciting yourself:

Do you know how many children can be potentially harmed by alcohol? It should be banned.

I'm not sure why you think those things are contradictory. What is permissible for an adult need not be what is permissible for a child.

And if an adult drinks to the point that the child is harmed, then they've commited a crime.

We presume alcohol can be used responsibly. If it isn't, liability is incurred.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

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.

If an adult chooses to place themself in a potentially damaging situation, that's their choice. No issue there.

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 09:48 AM
By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.


Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse? I'd say so. Perhaps we need different categories of child porn, resultant laws and punishments, like we have for homicide.


What happened to "intent"? I thought you had decided that was the gold standard.

Are your goal posts on the move?

I Ratant
10th March 2010, 09:49 AM
...
An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

....
.
An adult gives a chainsaw to another adult, knowing the other adult is a booze hound.
It almost worked.
The guy was only seriously maimed.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 09:51 AM
When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.

Depends on how you look at it. Many things that are banned are banned because the thing is harmful, and not potentially harmful. Unless you are arguing that say rape is only a potential harm and not an actual harm.

As for this, having sex with kids is harmful, no potential about it. Now it gets complex when you try to define kids(see sexting teens for issues with that), so for this lets leave it at prepubescent children. So it becomes when is something sufficiently sexual for it to be unacceptable vs sufficiently non sexual for it to be OK.

Nudity in this regard is rather suspect as it can be entirely non sexual. For example you would seem to think that a nude child is inappropriate but dressing them head to toe in latex fetish gear is OK, or at least you have made no issue that I have seen about when fully clothed pictures are too much.


An adult chooses to pick up a chainsaw and take on the risk. If they negligently leave a chainsaw near a child and that child harms themself, that parent would be guilty of abuse.

Are they abusive if the child didn't hurt themselves though? And either way this is not abuse but neglect.

Deciding on behalf of a child to allow them to participate in the creation of art in the nude is a mental state of intent, beyond mere negligence.

What age are we talking about? Teens and tweens can certainly make some decisions on what they want to do. Why shouldn't they be able to express themselves as artists?

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 09:58 AM
I'm not sure why you think those things are contradictory. What is permissible for an adult need not be what is permissible for a child.

And if an adult drinks to the point that the child is harmed, then they've commited a crime.

We presume alcohol can be used responsibly. If it isn't, liability is incurred.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

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.

If an adult chooses to place themself in a potentially damaging situation, that's their choice. No issue there.

Nude modeling isn't the only sort of depiction being subject to control. For that matter, neither is child modeling in general. We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.

JFrankA
10th March 2010, 09:59 AM
I'm not sure why you think those things are contradictory. What is permissible for an adult need not be what is permissible for a child.

And if an adult drinks to the point that the child is harmed, then they've commited a crime.

We presume alcohol can be used responsibly. If it isn't, liability is incurred.

Wait. Isn't it an ADULT who films/photographs a nude child? Isn't it an ADULT'S decision to do that to a child? Just like it's an ADULT'S decision to drink and potentially harm a child?

I see no difference in the logic. None. An adult drinking has the potential of harming a child just like an adult photographing a child nude has the potential of harming a child.

If someone can give me a clear process or a reliable method of distinguishing between the sort of nude modelling that creates the psychological damage described in the US Embassy report and they type of nude modeling that doesn't, fine, I would have no problem.

No, you need to provide evidence that the majority of children who have posed nude became damaged later in life.

What you are asking of us is to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.

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've listed a start of how to distinguish the difference. Have you missed that post?

If an adult chooses to place themself in a potentially damaging situation, that's their choice. No issue there.

But again, in a child posing nude for art, wouldn't the adults BE involved in order to do it? Wouldn't the parents either okay it or not? Wouldn't the photographer keep the well being of the child in mind throughout?

For a producer of any media the model's safety, consent and comfort are first. Adult or child.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 09:59 AM
Nude modeling isn't the only sort of depiction being subject to control. For that matter, neither is child modeling in general. We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.

Hmm, there might be something too this. This will outlaw all pictures of kids, then you will never again be bothered by coworkers showing you pictures of their kids....

Might be worth it.

quadraginta
10th March 2010, 10:01 AM
Hmm, there might be something too this. This will outlaw all pictures of kids, then you will never again be bothered by coworkers showing you pictures of their kids....

Might be worth it.


Well, there is that.

A silver lining for everything. :)

Bob from NJ
10th March 2010, 10:04 AM
I have 2 horrible demonic questions:

1) Is the lingere section of the Sears Catalog porn or art? (this one's a joke but the next one's not so funny)
2) If certain people are born with a genetic disposition towards pedophilia, just as some are born to be homosexual, wouldn't that make pedophilia just as natural and healthy as homosexuality?

(the answer to question 2 is "NO!!!!" but what is the reasoning why? Please pick apart the wooly thinking behind this argument)

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 10:07 AM
Depends on how you look at it. Many things that are banned are banned because the thing is harmful, and not potentially harmful. Unless you are arguing that say rape is only a potential harm and not an actual harm.

As for this, having sex with kids is harmful, no potential about it. Now it gets complex when you try to define kids(see sexting teens for issues with that), so for this lets leave it at prepubescent children. So it becomes when is something sufficiently sexual for it to be unacceptable vs sufficiently non sexual for it to be OK.

Nudity in this regard is rather suspect as it can be entirely non sexual. For example you would seem to think that a nude child is inappropriate but dressing them head to toe in latex fetish gear is OK, or at least you have made no issue that I have seen about when fully clothed pictures are too much.

Well, that depends on how you're using the word "potential." THe US Embassy Report on Child Pornography lists a bunch of very serious harm to the kids, absent any physica abuse. So when it happens, it really is harmful.

I don't disagree that there is some category of nude child modeling that is both non-sexual and harmless, I just don't know how (nor has anyone remotely tried to provide a method) to distinguish between them.

For example, one of the primary damages from using children as naked models is that it hampers their ability to develop proper adult-child relationships. They come to believe that there's nothing odd about being naked around an adult who is not their relative and DRASTICALLY increses the chance that they will become an abuse victim.

If you can assure me that artwork X will cause that psychological damage, then I have no problem. But again, no one has even suggested a reliable way of doing that.



Are they abusive if the child didn't hurt themselves though? And either way this is not abuse but neglect.

Legally speaking, neglect is a subset of abuse, but I get your point. No, if the child is not hurt it's not abuse.


What age are we talking about? Teens and tweens can certainly make some decisions on what they want to do. Why shouldn't they be able to express themselves as artists?

Yes, I agree that the age of consent doesn't have to be 18, but that's a separate issue. We're dealing with whatever age an artist wants to use a nude child.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 10:31 AM
I have 2 horrible demonic questions:

1) Is the lingere section of the Sears Catalog porn or art? (this one's a joke but the next one's not so funny)

Not since the internet gave teen boys something better to masturbate to.

2) If certain people are born with a genetic disposition towards pedophilia, just as some are born to be homosexual, wouldn't that make pedophilia just as natural and healthy as homosexuality?

(the answer to question 2 is "NO!!!!" but what is the reasoning why? Please pick apart the wooly thinking behind this argument)


Well it depends on what one means by natural and healthy. It might well be perfectly natural, and I would argue that a pedophile should not be persecuted solely for their sexuality. The thing here is that pedophilia can not be expressed in a healthy adult relationship unlike homosexuality. So it might have similar causes, but the effect is in creating a sexuality that can not be ethically expressed.

I certainly feel bad for pedophiles who know that abusing children is wrong and seek out chemical castration and such to try to make it easier on them to resist their impulses to molest children.

So the sticking point is, can you call a sexuality that can not ethically be expressed healthy? Natural, sure why not, nothing about nature is makes it a good ethical guideline.

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 10:31 AM
Wait. Isn't it an ADULT who films/photographs a nude child? Isn't it an ADULT'S decision to do that to a child? Just like it's an ADULT'S decision to drink and potentially harm a child?

I see no difference in the logic. None. An adult drinking has the potential of harming a child just like an adult photographing a child nude has the potential of harming a child.

You may be shocked to learn this, but in child custody situations alcohol consumption is closely monitored. When it has been an issue in the past, a parent can have their kids taken from them for falling off the wagon. That basically illegalizes alcohol for that person.

But, of course, you will argue that we wait until the child is harmed, then monitor alcohol. Ok, that doesn't mean we have to adopt the same procedure with nude child models.

People are trying to make this some vast moral issue about free expression. Let me reiterate that all I am advocating is not using nude child models in the production of art. I don't care if someone draws a naked kid from an existing photo, or uses someone of age who looks much younger.

No one has tried to explain why it's necessary to the artworld to be able to use naked kids. Just that they don't have the burden, so they don't have to defend the activity on its merits.



No, you need to provide evidence that the majority of children who have posed nude became damaged later in life.

What you are asking of us is to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.


What? How is asking you to distinguish between situations that harm children from those that don't a request to prove a negative? It's a request to develop some way of ensuring that children aren't harmed.

I do find it interesting that you think the burden is on me. THere's possibly a Constitutional argument you could make, but no one has tried that. I would say the burden is on the artist to prove that their use of nude children will not harm those children.


I've listed a start of how to distinguish the difference. Have you missed that post?

No, I saw it. You made a list to distingusih PORN from ART, not a list that distinguishes situations that harm children from those that don't.



But again, in a child posing nude for art, wouldn't the adults BE involved in order to do it? Wouldn't the parents either okay it or not? Wouldn't the photographer keep the well being of the child in mind throughout?

For a producer of any media the model's safety, consent and comfort are first. Adult or child.

At this point we're just talking in circles. I understand your point, and disagree, I will cheritably assume the opposite.

I am arguing that this should not be a decision a parent makes for a child. It should be up to the child. Because a child cannot legally consent, it should simply be avoided until the individual is of a legal age. Parents cannot force their children into labor, nor should they have the ability to use their children's body as a commodity.

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 10:32 AM
Nude modeling isn't the only sort of depiction being subject to control. For that matter, neither is child modeling in general. We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.

And as I've said before, the statute in the OP is stupid. We have no disagreement there.

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 10:35 AM
Well, that depends on how you're using the word "potential." THe US Embassy Report on Child Pornography lists a bunch of very serious harm to the kids, absent any physica abuse. So when it happens, it really is harmful.

And what did they class as child pornography? If children are raise were it is normal of them to swim nude why is it abuse to take a picture of them swimming? If anything this whole idea that they can't have any photos of themselves playing seems more warping than the photos would be.

For example, one of the primary damages from using children as naked models is that it hampers their ability to develop proper adult-child relationships. They come to believe that there's nothing odd about being naked around an adult who is not their relative and DRASTICALLY increses the chance that they will become an abuse victim.

So the whole nudist colonies are full of child molesters arguments.


Legally speaking, neglect is a subset of abuse, but I get your point. No, if the child is not hurt it's not abuse.

So how if no harm comes from the pictures why are they harmful?

ponderingturtle
10th March 2010, 10:36 AM
You may be shocked to learn this, but in child custody situations alcohol consumption is closely monitored. When it has been an issue in the past, a parent can have their kids taken from them for falling off the wagon. That basically illegalizes alcohol for that person.

In child custody cases church attendance might be monitored by a judge, it all depends on what judge you get.

TraneWreck
10th March 2010, 10:45 AM
And what did they class as child pornography? If children are raise were it is normal of them to swim nude why is it abuse to take a picture of them swimming? If anything this whole idea that they can't have any photos of themselves playing seems more warping than the photos would be.

That would be a problem with the proposed statute, not my argument.

It's fairly easy to distinguish parents taking photos of their children from atrists using nude child models.

As the parents move down the line of publicizing those photos, they move closer to dangerous territory. Like every other issue in this country, that line would eventually be drawn by court decisions.


So the whole nudist colonies are full of child molesters arguments.

Have you seen any studies on children who grow up in nudist colonies? I haven't. My opinion towards those institutions would depend on those results.

But conceptually I agree with you. There are lots of cultures that have few concerns about nudity. More power to them.

I am only concerned with protecting children, thus all that matters is the subjective response of the kids in question.

If anyone could show me a reliable way of ensuring that kids modelling nude for artists would not harm those kids I would gladly allow it. It's not the nudity that bothers me.



So how if no harm comes from the pictures why are they harmful?

If no harm comes, they're obviously not harmful. I am merely arguing that it's impossible to determine which situations are harmful and which aren't.

If you read that study, horrible things happen to children involved in pornography, even if they aren't physically abused. That's one extreme.

The other would be a happy nudist colony or culture that didn't particularly care.

Somewhere in the middle lies the point at which nude children aren't harmed and the point at which they are.

No one has even really tried to define that line. I am acknowledging that I cannot. The price for a misdrawn line is so high that the prudent choice is to remain cautious. Especially since the benefit, art with naked kids in it, isn't particularly important. Art will go on without the participation of naked kids.