People have had the same issues with Sally Mann's work. I think in some cases such as this the word pornography becomes a misnomer. I mean the images are somewhat unsettling, like I shouldn't be looking at her, or someone could be taking advantage of her innocence. But it's not exactly what I think of in terms of pornography. But that's been the crux of porn (at least in the US) for years- defining it. Like the judge said " I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it". I do agree that it is unfortunate the the nude body is instantly sexualized in many places around the world, and yes when kids are involved it becomes a highly slippery incline.
There is no doubt that the human form is one of the most wondrous subjects that an artist/photographer can render in a two dimensional medium.
As a parent first and a photographer second, I see no logical or ethical reason to use a 13 year-old child as the subject of such an artistic study. There is nothing wrong inherently with nudity. However, what could this photographer accomplish with a 13 year-old, that he couldn't with an 18 year-old? I am puzzled as to the reasoning of the parents in question. Why did they give their consent? How are these works of their daughter going to benefit culture or society? What benefit do these images hold for their daughter?
I think these are more important questions to find the answers for rather than if the works are art or pornography.
Erik Moore wrote:
Dude, get a grip. Lumping this photographer in with people that sexually assault children does not help your case.
I guess you think the Pulitzer prize winning photo of Vietnamese napalmed girl Kim Phuc was child porn too? I guess everyone at the World Press that voted it photo of the year are perverts too.
Did you google it to see which one I was talking about? If so, do you plan to turn yourself in?
The issue is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.
Keep in mind that the image you refer to was not posed and Kim Phuc's parents didn't sign a release for her to be photographed nude. It was a photo journalist's documentation of the violence of war. The only common denominator is they were both young and nude in a photograph. Hardly a fair comparison otherwise.
CRFTony wrote:
Re: my post above, would you say the same about Olivia Hussey or Thora Birch who were underage and topless in award winning films?
Is there a difference?
Yeah, they were 15 not 13. Age of consent varies from state to state in the US, but obviously...even in Australia she hadn't even attained the age of consent by Aussie standards. (her parents had to give consent). This makes the young girl a commodity. It treats her like the property of her parents, and they abused that trust...IMO.
1_of_9 wrote:
Yeah, they were 15 not 13. Age of consent varies from state to state in the US, but obviously...even in Australia she hadn't even attained the age of consent by Aussie standards. (her parents had to give consent). This makes the young girl a commodity. It treats her like the property of her parents, and they abused that trust...IMO.
I don't know about Hussey as the film was shot abroad 40 years ago, but I do know Birch was under the age of consent and her parents had to be on set when the nude scene was shot.
1_of_9 wrote:
Yeah, they were 15 not 13. Age of consent varies from state to state in the US, but obviously...even in Australia she hadn't even attained the age of consent by Aussie standards. (her parents had to give consent). This makes the young girl a commodity. It treats her like the property of her parents, and they abused that trust...IMO.
Sexual assault is a strong term, let's not jump to extremes here. We have to accept that the "age of consent" may exist as a legal principle, but is still a tricky thing to apply in real life. Does someone become responsible after the eve of their 18th birthday? Of course not. If the filming had taken place in America, and if our age of consent laws were more stringent, does that mean Olivia Hussey was more scarred by her movie experience than an 18-year-old in a porn film?
If one takes as a definition of porn the usual one, which involves an intention to create sexual arousal - then in my view it is not porn or, if is is an attempt to arouse, - it was a poor effort.
On the other hand it is by today's standards inappropriate and it was naive to take and exhibit it without anticipating the problems - which he probably did anyway.
1_of_9 wrote:
I think it is exploitation. A 13 year old doesn't have the legal or emotional...let alone intellectual where-with-all to decide what the consequences of this type of thing could lead to. The law sees her parents as the ones to decide what is in her best interest, and they fail her miserably by exploiting their own daughter, and allowing a photographer to exploit her as well. If she was of age - it would merely be another ho-hum nude among millions of equally average nudes. It is only her age that makes it garner attention.
This attitude seems borne of a genuine emotional reaction, which I can respect. And it's prevalent, if to a lesser degree outside of the US, in greater western society. But there have been and still are societies where a person is considered an adult at age 13 (or younger), and I can't help but wonder if a little dose of that attitude might not break the malaise of arrested development started with the me generation and progressed since. We cry, "Think of the children," when we really mean, "Think for the children because they're incapable of thinking for themselves!" Maybe if we spent more time in their formative years teaching them how to think for themselves instead of using shame and guilt (and forced memorization of Revolutionary War dates of interest) as teaching tools, we'd be less concerned about the choices they'll make as they mature. Maybe the subject is such a child, who made this choice for reasons her parents could respect.
You're right about one thing, though- what makes this photograph remarkable, in part, is her age. But not because it's exploitive. If it were titillating, if the expression on her face were coy or kittenish or trying to maintain a level of innocence, or if the pose were provocative, then you'd have a point. Instead the composition and lighting are subtle, if not revolutionary. The pose is conservative, a little utilitarian, not intentionally flattering. The expression is natural, comfortable. And that's what's truly remarkable. She looks like a 13 year old girl who is comfortable in her own skin.
Grognard wrote:
Its child porn. He is just calling it "Art" to avoid the stigma of being a child pornographer. I arrest people who do child porn, and sexually assault young girls. Images like this, he would be looking at 2-20 years here in Texas, and a well deserved 2-20 years IMHO. And if he had more than three images like this on his computer or camera, I could and would get him prosecuted under the Federal Child Pornography statute. Child Porn is child porn, regardless of how you dress it up as "art".
Isn't the point of pornography to titillate and arouse? If you're aroused at all by that photo, then I'm thinking the junior-miss swimsuit shots in a Sears catalog and a little imagination would probably do the same for you. Not that I'm defending kiddie-porn (or any use of the Sears catalog), but don't pedophiles and pederasts create more fantasy-driven pornography? Since their particular psychosis is one of passive dominance, wouldn't it be more difficult for them to objectify and victimize a girl looking so comfortable and confident? If so, then either the photographer failed miserably in his attempt to create kiddie-porn, or that wasn't his intent at all.
There was no exploitation. The girl on question was quite happy to be in the photo, and feels the same now - some 10 or so years later. Australia's next federal opposition leader owns some of his photos.
It's just a bunch of sexually repressed wowsers getting their panties bunched up over nothing.
It's amusing that I recently saw a show showing the Manet painting "Luncheon on the grass", showing a couple of scenes that were illegal at the time of the painting. The howls from the wowsers of the day was deafening. Today the painting is considered a masterpiece.
140 years later, and the barbarians are still at the gate.
you guys are getting carried away.......although i would not take a photo such as this, how can you call this porn?? the subject of a photo itself has no sexual overtone to it....its a young girl in which you are able to see her breasts.......there are no other sexual organs visible..and in that region of her body, its even darkened. she isn't touching herself in a sexual manner but covering herself......she doesn't look distressed in any manner.
i've seen more sexual posed photos on myspace of girls of the same age group taken amongst themselves.
I'm so sick of the "push it to the limits because I'm an artist" hey let me urinate in a glass and call it art, give me a freaking break. The guy's a perv plain and simple!
freaklikeme wrote:
Maybe if we spent more time in their formative years teaching them how to think for themselves instead of using shame and guilt (and forced memorization of Revolutionary War dates of interest) as teaching tools, we'd be less concerned about the choices they'll make as they mature.
Amen.
We Americans are so schizo about nudity and sexuality. I think one of the new definitions of porn is provocative images not designed to sell a product. We're drenched in sexuality, but it's used to sell.
It's no wonder teenagers are confused. I have a friend who's a youth director. He served one church with a middle to upper middle class congregation. The expected parental gift to their daughter when she turned 16 was breast augmentation. These same parents would probably find the image in question pornographic.
I think we're more repressed now than 45 years ago. Back then, even here in the South, you could visit a middle class home with a Playboy on the coffee table and nobody would think anything of it.
BTW, I don't think it's porn, nor do I think it's art. I think it's a crappy photograph.
Seems to me that in order for it to be classified as "child porn", that it would first have to be pornographic, which it certainly isn't. There is nothing sexual about it. It is simply a topless 13 year old. No big deal. If this is illegal in Texas, then I'm glad I don't live in Texas.
Grognard wrote:
Its child porn. He is just calling it "Art" to avoid the stigma of being a child pornographer. I arrest people who do child porn, and sexually assault young girls. Images like this, he would be looking at 2-20 years here in Texas, and a well deserved 2-20 years IMHO. And if he had more than three images like this on his computer or camera, I could and would get him prosecuted under the Federal Child Pornography statute. Child Porn is child porn, regardless of how you dress it up as "art".
Get a life will you, it might not be good art but it is ART, it's certainly not pornography! it worries me to think that people like yourself can get into positions of authority.
Bill Henson is one of Australia ’s leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world’s most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist’s work.
The reason why he uses 12/13 year old models was to show the awkwardness of adolescence, "who have one foot in childhood and the other in adulthood." Unsure of themselves as they go through a period of metamorphosis and transition to adulthood.
The above posters who can't understand why he doesn't use 18 year old models are totally missing the point of his intention. Why are we so uptight we look at a 13 year old nude and then look away with shame? What have we done to the innocence of childhood in our own minds?
How did we get from photos by a respected artist to the poster talking about child abuse? What does it say about you and the way you think?
?? the subject of a photo itself has no sexual overtone to it....its a young girl in which you are able to see her breasts.......there are no other sexual organs visible..and in that region of her body, its even darkened. she isn't touching herself in a sexual manner but covering herself......she doesn't look distressed in any manner.