neither. it's not artistic, nor is it porn. i just don't see the purpose of photographing a topless 13-yr-old, except perhaps, for scientific developmental studies. i'm somewhat leery of the "artists" motivations.
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".
First I want to come back on the philosophical or ethical concept of "let's the children think themselves", which seems to give more respect to the children population. However the laws are not written to unable the children to think but to protect them against misuse of the options that they take during this period. A children has to be able to think and to do errors without compromising his future life. So laws are, written on a cultural based context, the necessary protection to avoid that children options (good or bad) compromise their future as adult and their integrity as child.
Furthermore (my reaction is a combination between my hobby as photographer and my work as European police officer specialized in IT crime, including child pornography), some pictures realized in all respect of the model are misused by the viewer ... I encountered depraved child pornography addicted people looking at simple naked children pictures as a pornographic material. So taking a picture and publishing this picture (on the net, in a book or ever other way) is more than only representing a child, but giving the representation to this child to be viewed by an unfiltered population. As is it the same with adults, the fact is that adult models are able to know that they picture will be viewed sometimes by depraved people as pornography and that children - still free to think - most of the times simply ignores how the world can be cruel (and it is a child privilege to protect). If the girl on the pictures seems to be happy doesn't care ... will she remain happy in ten or twenty years ?
To conclude, for my very own point of view, it's a picture made by an artist with a major risk on the child "human" integrity and so, child abuse. Anyway not the most shocking picture related to child pornography that I encountered so far.
By itself I wonder at the motive and context etc. of this image, but my first impression is that it is not porn. And obviously does not fit the legal definition.
As pointed out in the legal link, child porn is “visual depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in explicit sexual conduct”. This clearly does not fit that description.
As was also mentioned, cultural factors also play a huge role. For example, this image would have a very different reception in Saudi Arabia vs some European countries. There is a sad tendency by some to confuse nudity=sex=porn. I know it is an idiotic suggestion, but everyone should be REQUIRED spend some time a nude beach sometime . You would have a much better understanding that nudity is not always sexual. Perhaps this girl lives in a home where non-sexual nudity is the norm. Obviously we have no idea. Although I would not be comfortable with that norm myself, I am mature enough to realize that it is not “immoral”.
Although I vigorously applaud efforts to eliminate child porn, I also fear the tendency of some law enforcement people to try and criminalize things like this. I am sure there is plenty of unambiguous child porn to keep the legal system busy without going out of our way to stretch the definition to images where there is reasonable debate.
paulhodson wrote:
No - it's well established (as per National Geographic over the years) that black people naked are OK - but whites aren't!
My point exactly
ijameson wrote:
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....Show more →
I was thinking of that painting exactly when this topic arose - how art sometimes flies in the face of current morality. Another poster made the great observation on accountability and ability to think for themselves. We have what is apparently a boatload of do-gooder wannabees that are just crusading for the next big rescue of whatever they determine is exploited and/or underprivileged. Much has been written in the last few years about the lack of cultural rites of passage in Western society. About the closest we are familiar with is the Jewish bar and bat mitzvahs. Western society seems hell bent on keeping our children as - children for the rest of their lives. No wonder we have such a selfish spoiled brood trying to make their way in the world at this point. Sorry for the OT rant. :P
Jon
it isnt about censorship. It is about a child of 14 making that decision. Given the level of modesty my daughters had at that age there is NO WAY they would have allowed such pics: and anyhow, at that age, who made the decision for them to pose? Was it some pushy parent? At foutrteen tha law doesnt hold the person to be sufficiently responsible. Lots of questions yes. Was it porn. Not in my opinion, but was it right? NO.
tim
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.
Which makes it _more_ acceptable? At least in the photo linked up top, both the parents and the "model" knew and agreed to be photographed. Kim Phuc was photographed nude as the victim of violence. Her naked image was published all over the world, probably without her permission. That's better?
I'm not claiming that any time there is consent, nude children is ok, and it's not porn, only that the lines are much more blurry than "if there's nudity and kids, it's porn".
PIctures of small girls running around without shirts and naked babies seem to be generally acceptable. Do we need to define a lower age limit on kiddy porn too? At what point does it turn from cute to explicit? A pedophile might be aroused by pictures that the rest of us think are cute. Does that mean the pictures should be off limits for the rest of us? I don't think so. What the worst of society might do with a photo is a poor measuring stick. A better one, I think, is what the intent of the photograph was.
I personally don't think either of them should be banned, but I think that Annie Liebowitz's recent photos of Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair were in much poorer taste than the photo linked in the top of this thread, because those photos very obviously tried to depict her in a sexually suggestive way. But even that line is not so clear.
The only clear delineation I can see is if the subject is doing something sexual in the photo, beyond that, it's up for debate. Simple nudity is not necessarily pornography.
CRFTony wrote:
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.
According to IMDB, she was 18.5 when the movie was released. Dunno about when the scene was shot.
Erik Moore wrote:
According to IMDB, she was 18.5 when the movie was released. Dunno about when the scene was shot.
That is incorrect. She was born in 4/1951. The movie was released in 9/1968. She was therefore 17 years and 5 months old when it was released. The movie was shot when she was 15. Here's the info from her bio; "At the age of 15, when most young women are nurturing dreams of romance, Olivia Hussey was giving life to Juliet". And from another article about the "controversy": "The film is notable for being one of the first filmed versions of the play in which the main actors are near the ages of the characters in the play; Leonard Whiting was seventeen during filming, and Olivia Hussey was fifteen. The film was once rated G in the United States, but was later re-rated PG (which, in 1968, was the only rating below R) primarily because of a nude scene featuring Hussey. Zeffirelli had to get special permission for Hussey to appear nude in the film as she was only 15 years old at the time. Hussey later amusingly recalled that she was not permitted to view the film because it contained her own breasts."
CRFTony wrote:
That is incorrect. She was born in 4/1951. The movie was released in 9/1968. She was therefore 17 years and 5 months old when it was released. The movie was shot when she was 15. Here's the info from her bio; "At the age of 15, when most young women are nurturing dreams of romance, Olivia Hussey was giving life to Juliet". And from another article about the "controversy": "The film is notable for being one of the first filmed versions of the play in which the main actors are near the ages of the characters in the play; Leonard Whiting was seventeen during filming, and Olivia Hussey was fifteen. The film was once rated G in the United States, but was later re-rated PG (which, in 1968, was the only rating below R) primarily because of a nude scene featuring Hussey. Zeffirelli had to get special permission for Hussey to appear nude in the film as she was only 15 years old at the time. Hussey later amusingly recalled that she was not permitted to view the film because it contained her own breasts."...Show more →
Sorry, I was talking about Thora Birch and American Beauty.
...if it violates the law, then it's illegal...
I agree with hassy501 based on that statement/logic above. Come to think of it, if the Law said that posting my grandma's nude picture is a porn and illegal then either I don't post it or will try to change the LAW, there is nothing to it.
BTW, the newspaper published the girl picture without censor it should be persecute too!
freaklikeme wrote:
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....Show more →
I think this is the most reasoned response in this thread. I have to agree, and will only add that the real remakable thing about this image is not the arangement of subject, lighting, age or anything else pictured, but in an odd way, what makes this image 'art' is the societal reaction and argument it evokes. It truly is a reflection of the society in which is was created, and therein lies it's genious, such that it is.
I agree with hassy501 based on that statement/logic above. Come to think of it, if the Law said that posting my grandma's nude picture is a porn and illegal then either I don't post it or will try to change the LAW, there is nothing to it.
BTW, the newspaper published the girl picture without censor it should be persecute too!
Yeah i don't understand how the newspaper can post that image........is it freedom of the press ? First amendment right ?
. You would have a much better understanding that nudity is not always sexual. Perhaps this girl lives in a home where non-sexual nudity is the norm. Obviously we have no idea. Although I would not be comfortable with that norm myself, I am mature enough to realize that it is not “immoral”. 