NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358221,00.html

I think next they should try forcing the kids to have abortions while starving them in a corner...

http://ch.pedobear.ru/title.jpg

Nice.

In my opinion, traditional art form does very little for me, whether it's a canvas-based piece of art or anything static essentially, I'm generally uninterested.

I prefer dynamic art, images, sounds and movement, I think film, distortion and digital give us so much breadth to expand our ability to express life in different, disturbing ways.

I'm good for mashed-up photography, to be honest I find compelling photography better than canvas. I also prefer architecture as a better art form than sculpture.

I think Michael Gow is wrong, provocative should mean 'thought-provoking' and, to be honest, paintings and photos of underage children is pretty old, hardly thought provoking, merely provocative.

Essentially I'd find something like this far more interesting than any static based art I can think of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx0UwY5IQMo

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence that the kids were "forced" to pose for these photos, that their parents didn't consent, or that the photographs were in any way pornographic?

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence that the kids were "forced" to pose for these photos, that their parents didn't consent, or that the photographs were in any way pornographic?

...due to complaints about frontal nudity in the photos of 12 and 13-year-olds...

As for consent: obviously they have it, or else this would have been shut down a long-ass time ago and there wouldn't be an controversy at all. I think the controversy here is not whether or not consent was needed, but whether or not consent should have been given, and more importantly, whether or not it should have been needed at all.

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence that the kids were "forced" to pose for these photos, that their parents didn't consent, or that the photographs were in any way pornographic?

Catch 22, if the photos are pornographic then any evidence thereof is illegal for us to see.

Pornography =/= Art.

If some sick fuck masturbates in front of the statue of David, does that make it pornography?







I needed to relieve some stress, that's all! :p

Okay, some basic research on Google has revealed that Fox News is, predictably, kinda full of crap. The exhibit was not of "naked kids," but rather featured a few photographs of one nude 13-year-old girl. I found one of the photos being criticized, and I have to say that it looks like a rather nice and tasteful nude. It does not at all look like it is intended to be sexual. Whether or not non-sexualized nudes of consenting teenage models are okay is an issue worth debating, but it would be very much inaccurate to conflate them with pornography. The intent of the photographer, at least in the one photo I found, is clearly not titillation; the girl in the picture looks sweet, wistful, innocent, and rather beautiful, and quite definitely not sultry or sexy.

Okay, some basic research on Google has revealed that Fox News is, predictably, kinda full of crap.

Police shut down Bill Henson's installation at a Sydney gallery before it even began due to complaints about frontal nudity in the photos of 12 and 13-year-olds, according to a Sky News report.

Oh noooo, Fox news! Oh noooo I can't believe it if it's from Fox! Fox is always wrong and if they said pigs couldn't fly I'd believe they could just cuz it's Fox! Oh noooo!

(To be read with the voice of that guy from Family Guy...)

...

I am a bit surprised this has taken so long to be posted on this forum.

Anyway, while I have seen the photos, I do not know why people would sit down and say these are sexually suggestive, the main contention with this is that it may not technically be breaking the law, as NSW law has an exception with naked children for various reasons one of them being artistic purposes.

Of course this reminds me of the old joke. What's the difference between art and pornography? A government grant.

...

They're both Murdoch no?

There's a running joke in Private Eye about how Murdoch cross-promotes all his media outlets. A report from Sky, covered in Fox and written about in The Sun today said...

The point is, and relevant here, that Murdoch loves to tap into moral outrage as a means to sell his media, hence he has no interest in providing a balanced view and always one that provokes outrage from Colonel Tippington in Barnsley-on-the-Wold.

Okay, some basic research on Google has revealed that Fox News is, predictably, kinda full of crap. The exhibit was not of "naked kids," but rather featured a few photographs of one nude 13-year-old girl. I found one of the photos being criticized, and I have to say that it looks like a rather nice and tasteful nude. It does not at all look like it is intended to be sexual. Whether or not non-sexualized nudes of consenting teenage models are okay is an issue worth debating, but it would be very much inaccurate to conflate them with pornography. The intent of the photographer, at least in the one photo I found, is clearly not titillation; the girl in the picture looks sweet, wistful, innocent, and rather beautiful, and quite definitely not sultry or sexy.

Well it isn't quite FOX news fault, as I have seen this story since it broke out, and all the Australian media outlets, some of which aren't owned by Murdoch were saying the exact same thing. It is not a fault of FOX news but more of a fault with the media in general that is in every story they cover

...

Um, okay, I guess I could rephrase that as, "Fox News AND Sky News, which are both part of the exact same media conglomerate and frequently get their reports from each other, are, predictably, kinda full of crap." I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes, though, seeing as the article in question remains sensationalist and inaccurate regardless of which of Murdoch's pets first picked it up.

...

Yes, yes. None of this changes the fact that Fixed news has a well deserved reputation as being an unreliable news source.

I'm really wondering where people are getting the "Fox is crap" thing on this one. Where's the spin? Some people are saying it's porn, other people are saying it's art, one guy says that stopping it is censorship. That's pretty much all there is. It's all of a paragraph.

Um, okay, I guess I could rephrase that as, "Fox News AND Sky News, which are both part of the exact same media conglomerate and frequently get their reports from each other, are, predictably, kinda full of crap." I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes, though, seeing as the article in question remains sensationalist and inaccurate regardless of which of Murdoch's pets first picked it up.

And if no Murdoch outlet was the first to pick it up?, but rather is continuing the report and sensationlising the news as every media outlet does regardless of who owns it. Really it doesn't matter if FOX news picked it up the fact of the matter is, is that is what is happening, time to get to the matter at hand instead of bashing FOX

Um, okay, I guess I could rephrase that as, "Fox News AND Sky News, which are both part of the exact same media conglomerate and frequently get their reports from each other, are, predictably, kinda full of crap." I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes, though, seeing as the article in question remains sensationalist and inaccurate regardless of which of Murdoch's pets first picked it up.

Yes, yes. None of this changes the fact that Fixed news has a well deserved reputation as being an unreliable news source.

Oh noooo, Fox news! Oh noooo I can't believe it if it's from Fox! Fox is always wrong and if they said pigs couldn't fly I'd believe they could just cuz it's Fox! Oh noooo!

(To be read with the voice of that guy from Family Guy...)

...

...

This is starting to approach copy paste spam on your part.

Fox News in action: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8334812884258107003&q=simpsons+fox+news&ei=4o07SN2OAoL6-gGt7eHVAw&hl=en

I rest my case. :)

I'm really wondering where people are getting the "Fox is crap" thing on this one. Where's the spin? Some people are saying it's porn, other people are saying it's art, one guy says that stopping it is censorship. That's pretty much all there is. It's all of a paragraph.

You really don't see any bias in presenting an exhibition of quite a lot of different photos including three tasteful nudes of one thirteen-year-old girl as an "exhibition of images of naked children"? Really? You really don't see any spin in presenting all the criticism first, including the ridiculous judgment on the part of a non-artist and non-art critic that "the photos" (which suggests the exhibition as a whole) were "without artistic merit"? Really? You don't see that as just an eensy-wee bit sensationalist and calculated to provoke outrage?

You really don't see any bias in presenting an exhibition of quite a lot of different photos including three tasteful nudes of one thirteen-year-old girl as an "exhibition of images of naked children"? Really? You really don't see any spin in presenting all the criticism first, including the ridiculous judgment on the part of a non-artist and non-art critic that "the photos" (which suggests the exhibition as a whole) were "without artistic merit"? Really? You don't see that as just an eensy-wee bit sensationalist and calculated to provoke outrage?

I am sure you will say that that is FOX's fault for doing that but the first I heard of this days ago, was on Channel 7 and is no way owned by Murdoch, and it was saying the same things as FOX and other Murdoch owned outlets were saying.

Found his work by searching google images. The model is sexualized only if you consider all nudity sexual. If she were 18 or older it would be considered rather a tasteful nude. So the question becomes, can one do a tasteful nude of someone under the age of 18?

I am sure you will say that that is FOX's fault for doing that but the first I heard of this days ago, was on Channel 7 and is no way owned by Murdoch, and it was saying the same things as FOX and other Murdoch owned outlets were saying.

...I don't believe I've ever suggested that other media outlets were incapable of sensationalizing news. Fox is particularly noted for its sensationalism and shoddy fact-checking, but it hardly has a monopoly on lousy news.

But, hey, thanks for being "sure" of what I'll say based on no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps next if I say that I find it unsurprising that Bush said something stupid, you can pretend that means I think Bush is the only politician ever to say stupid things. :p

I am sure you will say that that is FOX's fault for doing that but the first I heard of this days ago, was on Channel 7 and is no way owned by Murdoch, and it was saying the same things as FOX and other Murdoch owned outlets were saying.

Here's Channel 7 news: http://au.news.yahoo.com/080526/19/170h0.html

It puts Kevin Rudd under fire rather than the artist for one and, though the reporting is not dissimilar, the emphasis is different.

One could say that Channel 7 has an agenda against Kevin Rudd, which is fair enough, but Fox News does have a good history of partially telling the story.

I get the BBC, CNN and FOX here and, to be honest, I watch FOX for its entertainment value, certainly not for fair and balanced news. There's simply no in-depth reporting that I can see, it's generally more about the presenters than the news, and those presenters have a very specific angle - nearly all FOX news is about provoking moral outrage.

Here's Channel 7 news: http://au.news.yahoo.com/080526/19/170h0.html

It puts Kevin Rudd under fire rather than the artist for one and, though the reporting is not dissimilar, the emphasis is different.

One could say that Channel 7 has an agenda against Kevin Rudd, which is fair enough, but Fox News does have a good history of partially telling the story.

I get the BBC, CNN and FOX here and, to be honest, I watch FOX for its entertainment value, certainly not for fair and balanced news. There's simply no in-depth reporting that I can see, it's generally more about the presenters than the news, and those presenters have a very specific angle - nearly all FOX news is about provoking moral outrage.

Well that is not the original news story on the issue the original did take a shot at the artist, and I doubt that Channel seven or any Australian media outlets have an agenda against Rudd, but that is a discussion for another thread. The original news story did indeed talk about how it could be viewed as porn, as others didn't think so. Regardless of what the media did or did not say the NSW police have taken the pictures away as evidenced and are considering charging the artist and the gallery owners.

Regardless, we shouldn't be talking about the media we should be discussing on the what the OP said and if it is child pornography or just art.

Regardless, we shouldn't be talking about the media we should be discussing on the what the OP said and if it is child pornography or just art.

Fair enough, as I originally said, in terms of art I think it neither original nor interesting - I doubt it can be called porn.

I saw the paintings. Anyone can find them by a quick google search. The ones of particular concern were of a topless 13 year old. I found them honestly quite sublime, beautiful and classy, not in the least bit sexual or sultry. She looked wistful, lonely, but positive... a very well taken artwork. Not porn. It was in fact very un-sexual. Almost the opposite.

And anyway, evidence points to Henson having a history of being extremely gentle with his models, never coercing and always ensuring consent, comfort and security, so why should it have been different this time? I'm quite sure consent was achieved.

I think this is a perfect example of a vocal minority halting progress and culture for the sake of their own moral superiority. Like the whiny kids who rat to the parents when their mates are gonna sneak out after dark... no damage is being done, and although it MAY TECHNICALLY be illegal it isn't wrong, and everyone is unhappy at the end of it.

I saw the paintings.

Um, photographs, aren't they?

Pornography =/= Art.

If some sick fuck masturbates in front of the statue of David, does that make it pornography?
I know you are joking, but you raise a good counter point. If I do some really messed up sexual act, but all the participants are willing and I call it performance art, is it porn?

If there was some meaningful backdrop to the picture, and the nude was used to bring reference to the backdrop, perhaps. But it was just a plain background with a topless 13 year old. If she can't pose for Playboy, why does calling it art, when there is limited artistic merit, make it O.K.?

I loathe Murdoch but, in fairness to his empire, this brouhaha was started by the police raiding a gallery after a complaint was made to them. All of Australia's media has leapt on the bandwagon, some balanced, some not. The Fairfax press (printer of the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald - the supposed "quality" papers in Oz) have provided a very balanced forum for people to give their views.

The two sides, represented by the art sector and the morals sector, are arguing too different points:

The arts sector: this is serious art, not pornography, and should not be subject to sanction.

The morals sector: the subject is only 13 years old, and that is too young to give informed consent.

Never the twain shall meet.

'Twould make a good issue for NS.

I know you are joking, but you raise a good counter point. If I do some really messed up sexual act, but all the participants are willing and I call it performance art, is it porn?

If there was some meaningful backdrop to the picture, and the nude was used to bring reference to the backdrop, perhaps. But it was just a plain background with a topless 13 year old. If she can't pose for Playboy, why does calling it art, when there is limited artistic merit, make it O.K.?
You missed LG's point.

His point actually was that, if the art is not made to be porn, then even if someone else uses it to get off, that doesn't make it porn. The David was not made to be sexually arousing, so if "some sick fuck" masturbates to it, that doesn't mean it's a pornographic image. Here's an alternate example of the same point: If the responses of people with hang-ups and fetishes were what determine whether a thing is porn or not, then it would be illegal to sell shoes or walk barefoot near children -- but it isn't, despite all the people in the world who get off sexually on shoes and/or feet.

However, your version of it says something entirely different. You start form the position that it is porn, that it was made for no other reason than sexual titillation, and you base that on the absence of other features that you (whoever you are) claim should be there to make it not porn. But you fail to show how the presence of those features would make it not-porn. (Go look up the history of erotic art, and you'll find plenty of porn with fancy, supporting backgrounds.) The only reason you seem to think it's not OK is that it contains nudity, but you fail to show how nudity = porn.

Basically, I read LG's point as "if it wasn't made for porn but someone uses it that way, it doesn't suddenly become porn", and your point as "if I think it's porn, then it's porn." Two completely unrelated ideas, and I happen to think LG's is the more reasonable one.

Pornography =/= Art.

If some sick fuck masturbates in front of the statue of David, does that make it pornography?







I needed to relieve some stress, that's all! :p

The difference between porn and art is simple.

If it has urns then it's art.

They're both Murdoch no?

There's a running joke in Private Eye about how Murdoch cross-promotes all his media outlets. A report from Sky, covered in Fox and written about in The Sun today said...

The point is, and relevant here, that Murdoch loves to tap into moral outrage as a means to sell his media, hence he has no interest in providing a balanced view and always one that provokes outrage from Colonel Tippington in Barnsley-on-the-Wold.

It;s a running joke yes but it's nonsense. Murdoch just doesn't have that much control over the editing staff, he's just a venture capitalist looking for money. Sky news and Fox news are very different, the only thing that links them is the umbrella corporation that owns them both.

You missed LG's point.

His point actually was that, if the art is not made to be porn, then even if someone else uses it to get off, that doesn't make it porn.
But who determines this. The artist?

However, your version of it says something entirely different. You start form the position that it is porn, that it was made for no other reason than sexual titillation, and you base that on the absence of other features that you (whoever you are) claim should be there to make it not porn. But you fail to show how the presence of those features would make it not-porn.
I did say "maybe". I was trying to give some wiggle room for the artist, where I honestly felt he didn't deserve it. I think there are very few occaisions where a photo of a naked child could be justified. The only one I can think of, is showing the horrors of man. For example, the award winning picture of the naked girl running from napalm.

Basically, I read LG's point as "if it wasn't made for porn but someone uses it that way, it doesn't suddenly become porn", and your point as "if I think it's porn, then it's porn." Two completely unrelated ideas, and I happen to think LG's is the more reasonable one.
I think that's a slightly unfair representation of my post, as I hope the above paragraph shows. Basically, if the act required to produce this "art" is illegal, then I have big problems with using "art" as a get out of jail free card. A 13 year old, legally can't give her consent to these pictures being taken. I would also question if legally the parent's are allowed to.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358221,00.html

I think next they should try forcing the kids to have abortions while starving them in a corner...

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/zomg-43287.jpg

I loathe Murdoch but, in fairness to his empire, this brouhaha was started by the police raiding a gallery after a complaint was made to them. All of Australia's media has leapt on the bandwagon, some balanced, some not. The Fairfax press (printer of the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald - the supposed "quality" papers in Oz) have provided a very balanced forum for people to give their views.

The two sides, represented by the art sector and the morals sector, are arguing too different points:

The arts sector: this is serious art, not pornography, and should not be subject to sanction.

The morals sector: the subject is only 13 years old, and that is too young to give informed consent.

Never the twain shall meet.

'Twould make a good issue for NS.
There's an additional potential point of argument, which might be "is the controversy over nudity reasonable or unreasonable?"

The morals sector might argue that the "subject is only 13 years old" and cannot give "informed consent," but that implies that there is something inherently wrong, controversial or risky about posing nude for an artwork. I wonder if that is not an unreasonably prudish viewpoint to start from. I wonder if nudity, per se, is the wrong point at which to draw the line between art and porn.

For example, there is a photo of WW2 war orphans by the great photographer Cecil Beaton which today is considered extremely controversial by the "morals sector" because it depicts several very young girls (little kids) lying down side by side, naked, looking up at the camera which is a ways above them. Some people claim the image is titillating. Personally, I wonder about those people, because when I look at it, I see the image as rather clinical, looking at naked children the way a doctor or surgeon looks at them. The emotion it evokes in me is pity, not arousal -- it shows these fragile, lost, scared, little beings who have lost everything in the London blitz, all their shelter, all their protection, survived extreme trauma, and are in the hands now of bureaucrats and doctors who see them just as a problem to be solved when they can find some place to put them.

Another example: Several years ago, after a disastrous flood somewhere in Africa or the Caribbean that killed hundreds of people and wiped out whole villages, one of the wire services posted a photo, showing a young boy who had just pulled himself out of the mud and was standing in the road (now a road of mud) in utter and complete shock. The boy was naked because the flood waters and mud had stripped all his clothes off, just by the force of the current. The photo, snapped just as the child was taken into care by rescuers, captured the suddenness and totality of the devastation these people had suffered. The Metro newspaper here in Boston put it on the front page, and they got a letter, which they printed, from a woman scolding them for printing a "titillating" picture of a naked boy. That really pissed me off, and I wrote a counter letter, which they printed, which found a polite way to wish that some perverts could take five minutes to think about something other than what's going on in their own fantasies, and see what else is happening in the world for once.

To my eye, there is nothing even remotely sexual about those two images, and I think people who see sex in them should go to a therapist, asap. On the other hand, I can't stand the movie "The Exorcist" because, despite its storyline and content, I can't get past the fact that they used a real child (young Linda Blair) for the most controversial scenes in the film and that it did cause her emotional trauma. To me, that film is an exercise in child abuse that makes it impossible for me to watch it. By the way, the book is even more violent and graphic, and I personally blame the filmmakers for knowing that and still using so young a child in those scenes.

I guess, for me, the cut-off between OK and non-OK use of children in the arts is in both the intent of the makers for the final work and their treatment of the models/actors. Just being nude isn't enough to measure by. And the responses of some people who will see sex in anything -- including images of devastation and suffering -- do not and should not matter, in my opinion, let alone be the deciding factor.

But who determines this. The artist?
Yes, and that was rather the point of what I was saying. If you want to argue differently, then I'd invite you to give an example of a movie, book, or image that today is generally believed to be and accepted as porn that was not originally intended to be porn by the artist(s) who made it.

The old standard of "I know it when I see it" in defining "porn" and "obscenity" may be unquantifiable but in application it's quite accurate -- unless you are dealing with people who have an ulterior moralistic motive. This is because most people do instinctively understand, or at least feel, the difference between mere nudity and a deliberate attempt to create sexual arousal in viewers of an image. Even the most obsessive shoe fetishists do not pretend that shoes stores are sex shops just because they pop wood when they go into them. They know that the shoes were not made for the purpose of sexing them up, just like the David was not made for the purpose of turning on LG's hypothetical sick fuck.

The only people who have a problem with such distinctions seem to be people who are struggling with their own inner sexual conflicts or who have a moralistic social agenda and wish to expand the definition of porn in order to control/censor more art.

I did say "maybe". I was trying to give some wiggle room for the artist, where I honestly felt he didn't deserve it. I think there are very few occaisions where a photo of a naked child could be justified. The only one I can think of, is showing the horrors of man. For example, the award winning picture of the naked girl running from napalm.
So, in your opinion, the classic family baby photo (baby you/me/whoever naked in or after our first bath or whatever) is without "justification" and is meant to be porn? After all, it's a photo of a naked child, and the occasion claimed to justify it is the birth/existence of the child. There are only a few people who would consider that a "horror of man," so by your argument, all those millions of families who take such photos and show them off to all and sundry are engaging in child porn. Is that correct?

Frankly, I see in your statement nothing but your own bias, possibly based on an a priori assumption that artistic depictions of nudity are meant to be sexual, which you still fail to show the sense of, and which I consider to be an unreasonable assumption.

I think that's a slightly unfair representation of my post, as I hope the above paragraph shows. Basically, if the act required to produce this "art" is illegal, then I have big problems with using "art" as a get out of jail free card. A 13 year old, legally can't give her consent to these pictures being taken. I would also question if legally the parent's are allowed to.
That, however, is an entirely different question from whether the art is porn or not or whether the artist needs to justify the artwork itself.

I'm really wondering where people are getting the "Fox is crap" thing on this one. Where's the spin? Some people are saying it's porn, other people are saying it's art, one guy says that stopping it is censorship. That's pretty much all there is. It's all of a paragraph.

The spin is that Fox is playing it up to be an exhibit full of pictures of naked children, when in fact its a picture of one naked child and the rest are pictures of other things.

There's an additional potential point of argument, which might be "is the controversy over nudity reasonable or unreasonable?"

The morals sector might argue that the "subject is only 13 years old" and cannot give "informed consent," but that implies that there is something inherently wrong, controversial or risky about posing nude for an artwork. I wonder if that is not an unreasonably prudish viewpoint to start from. I wonder if nudity, per se, is the wrong point at which to draw the line between art and porn...<snip>

Agreed. The issue is implied in most of the debate over the pictures, though not always honestly stated.

Some people here in Oz have made the valid point, IMO, that clothed 13 year old girls are far more sexualised in advertising and popular magazines than are the subjects of the Henson pictures. Yet we all seem to happily accept these advertising and publishing practices.

The spin is that Fox is playing it up to be an exhibit full of pictures of naked children, when in fact its a picture of one naked child and the rest are pictures of other things.

Maybe so in this exhibition but Henson has done them before. Galleries in Newcastle, Albury and Melbourne have removed Henson pictures from public display as a result of the raid. I find it alarming.

Agreed. The issue is implied in most of the debate over the pictures, though not always honestly stated.

Some people here in Oz have made the valid point, IMO, that clothed 13 year old girls are far more sexualised in advertising and popular magazines than are the subjects of the Henson pictures. Yet we all seem to happily accept these advertising and publishing practices.

That is indeed a very valid point. I am far more disturbed when I see 12-year-old girls in tube tops and micro-miniskirts with "SLUT" written across the ass then I am by the picture I saw from this exhibit, and yet the former is socially condoned while the latter is not. I find that more than a little bizarre.

Maybe so in this exhibition but Henson has done them before. Galleries in Newcastle, Albury and Melbourne have removed Henson pictures from public display as a result of the raid. I find it alarming.
I find it alarming, too, but maybe not so much for Henson himself. Maplethorpe was put through a similar ringer -- and many of his photos are arguably definite pornography -- yet eventually the furor died down about that particular artist, and those photos are still displayed, published, bought and sold pretty freely. It is not likely that Henson's career will suffer because of these few images. What is alarming about it, to me, is the urge among so many, just in a general way, to censor, condemn, villify and accuse other people on such flimsy grounds, to declare crimes that are not proven to have occurred, and convict people of said crimes solely in the court of public opinion, against which there can be no appeal and little legal recourse. It shows an aggressiveness on the part of these modern-day Comstocks that I find especially disturbing.

Agreed. The issue is implied in most of the debate over the pictures, though not always honestly stated.

Some people here in Oz have made the valid point, IMO, that clothed 13 year old girls are far more sexualised in advertising and popular magazines than are the subjects of the Henson pictures. Yet we all seem to happily accept these advertising and publishing practices.

That is indeed a very valid point. I am far more disturbed when I see 12-year-old girls in tube tops and micro-miniskirts with "SLUT" written across the ass then I am by the picture I saw from this exhibit, and yet the former is socially condoned while the latter is not. I find that more than a little bizarre.
Ditto.

That is indeed a very valid point. I am far more disturbed when I see 12-year-old girls in tube tops and micro-miniskirts with "SLUT" written across the ass then I am by the picture I saw from this exhibit, and yet the former is socially condoned while the latter is not. I find that more than a little bizarre.

Indeed. A naked child - in context - can be argued to be nothing more than art featuring a naked child.

On the other hand, it is socially acceptable for Britney Spears to dress like she's underage to sell records. It is socially acceptable to watch/be a cheerleader - which is little more than packaging sex - even if that cheerleader is 'below the age of consent'.

It's part of the hypocrisy of western culture. A lot of people like to look at underage girls in 'allowable' sexual situations, but they'll attack even non-sexual situations that don't meet their particular requirements.

Indeed. A naked child - in context - can be argued to be nothing more than art featuring a naked child.

On the other hand, it is socially acceptable for Britney Spears to dress like she's underage to sell records. It is socially acceptable to watch/be a cheerleader - which is little more than packaging sex - even if that cheerleader is 'below the age of consent'.

It's part of the hypocrisy of western culture. A lot of people like to look at underage girls in 'allowable' sexual situations, but they'll attack even non-sexual situations that don't meet their particular requirements.
Well, I think it's a matter of arbitrary standards in service of a hypocritical viewpoint. The whole mindset that equates nudity with sex is so blatantly arbitrary and unworkable that it amazes me that so many people (particularly Americans) adhere to it. Its glaring flaws are obvious, but we might also note that it is always invoked in judging what other people do, never when the judgers are evaluating their own behavior.

You missed LG's point.

His point actually was that, if the art is not made to be porn, then even if someone else uses it to get off, that doesn't make it porn. The David was not made to be sexually arousing, so if "some sick fuck" masturbates to it, that doesn't mean it's a pornographic image. Here's an alternate example of the same point: If the responses of people with hang-ups and fetishes were what determine whether a thing is porn or not, then it would be illegal to sell shoes or walk barefoot near children -- but it isn't, despite all the people in the world who get off sexually on shoes and/or feet.

However, your version of it says something entirely different. You start form the position that it is porn, that it was made for no other reason than sexual titillation, and you base that on the absence of other features that you (whoever you are) claim should be there to make it not porn. But you fail to show how the presence of those features would make it not-porn. (Go look up the history of erotic art, and you'll find plenty of porn with fancy, supporting backgrounds.) The only reason you seem to think it's not OK is that it contains nudity, but you fail to show how nudity = porn.

Basically, I read LG's point as "if it wasn't made for porn but someone uses it that way, it doesn't suddenly become porn", and your point as "if I think it's porn, then it's porn." Two completely unrelated ideas, and I happen to think LG's is the more reasonable one.

*Awards you a taco for your comprehension skills* :D

The intent of the photographer, at least in the one photo I found, is clearly not titillation; the girl in the picture looks sweet, wistful, innocent, and rather beautiful, and quite definitely not sultry or sexy.

Agreed, as I'd suspected.

Found his work by searching google images. The model is sexualized only if you consider all nudity sexual. If she were 18 or older it would be considered rather a tasteful nude. So the question becomes, can one do a tasteful nude of someone under the age of 18?

Of course one can. The question of "consent" is up to the parents. The question of "art" is up to both the artist and the percipient (perceiver). The most excellent point of something being wrong with those who find any nudity instantly sexual has been made, and made in superior fashion, by Muravyets.

I know you are joking, but you raise a good counter point. If I do some really messed up sexual act, but all the participants are willing and I call it performance art, is it porn?

If there was some meaningful backdrop to the picture, and the nude was used to bring reference to the backdrop, perhaps. But it was just a plain background with a topless 13 year old. If she can't pose for Playboy, why does calling it art, when there is limited artistic merit, make it O.K.?

Says who? You? She can't pose for Playboy because that magazine is on record as presenting images for the purpose of sexual arousal. Those images may have high production values (and enough PhotoShop work to keep Adobe in business) but there's no dissembling about their purpose. Art photography and painting of nudes is meant to extol the human form and/or use it to express some other concept.

This is the problem inherent in censorship: who decides? No offense, Fishu, but I'd rather it not be you, just as I'm sure you'd rather it not be me. That being the case, we should warn, not censor. "Dear Patron: if you're the kind of person who sees all nudity as bieng prurient and sexual in nature, DO NOT ATTEND THIS EXHIBIT. Despite our best efforts to ensure that works using nudity are presented tastefully, there are always those who want to control what the public has access to with regard to art. We will not give in to those people. You have been warned." Or something better worded than that.

You missed LG's point.

His point actually was that, if the art is not made to be porn, then even if someone else uses it to get off, that doesn't make it porn. The David was not made to be sexually arousing, so if "some sick fuck" masturbates to it, that doesn't mean it's a pornographic image. Here's an alternate example of the same point: If the responses of people with hang-ups and fetishes were what determine whether a thing is porn or not, then it would be illegal to sell shoes or walk barefoot near children -- but it isn't, despite all the people in the world who get off sexually on shoes and/or feet.

However, your version of it says something entirely different. You start form the position that it is porn, that it was made for no other reason than sexual titillation, and you base that on the absence of other features that you (whoever you are) claim should be there to make it not porn. But you fail to show how the presence of those features would make it not-porn. (Go look up the history of erotic art, and you'll find plenty of porn with fancy, supporting backgrounds.) The only reason you seem to think it's not OK is that it contains nudity, but you fail to show how nudity = porn.

Basically, I read LG's point as "if it wasn't made for porn but someone uses it that way, it doesn't suddenly become porn", and your point as "if I think it's porn, then it's porn." Two completely unrelated ideas, and I happen to think LG's is the more reasonable one.

Muravyets, Philosopher Queen!

Well said.

But who determines this. The artist?

Yes. Only the artist truly knows their intent. I have perceived things in many works of art that were never inteded by the artist (mostly in musical compositions), so the true determination is made by a combination of artist and percipient.

I did say "maybe". I was trying to give some wiggle room for the artist, where I honestly felt he didn't deserve it. I think there are very few occaisions where a photo of a naked child could be justified. The only one I can think of, is showing the horrors of man. For example, the award winning picture of the naked girl running from napalm.

It's good to know that your opinion on who deserves what consideration is uninportant in this context. Naked children are all over my family album from birth through toddling age, none of us suffering any more horrors than a bath or a run through the sprinkler on a 100-degree day. Were my parents pronographers?

I think that's a slightly unfair representation of my post, as I hope the above paragraph shows. Basically, if the act required to produce this "art" is illegal, then I have big problems with using "art" as a get out of jail free card. A 13 year old, legally can't give her consent to these pictures being taken. I would also question if legally the parents are allowed to.

Then I would question your grip on reality. The parents are the only people legally able to give consent for anything involving their children. Unless the act is expressly illegal, as opposed to subject to debate (like the definition of art or the often ridiculous "obscenity" laws), what right has anyone to say they can't allow their daughter to be so represented in a work of art? If you can show me the law that makes it illegal to depict the nude human form, regardless of age, in a work of art, by all means please do so.

Also, what's the huge hangup with age? So a woman posing for a nude art piece is doing so illegally at age 17 and 364 days, but tomorrow it's legal? Rubbish.

Well, I think it's a matter of arbitrary standards in service of a hypocritical viewpoint. The whole mindset that equates nudity with sex is so blatantly arbitrary and unworkable that it amazes me that so many people (particularly Americans) adhere to it. Its glaring flaws are obvious, but we might also note that it is always invoked in judging what other people do, never when the judgers are evaluating their own behavior.

No kidding. This is the kind of blinkered, Philistine pig-ignornace that tried to stop Wendy and Richard Pini's production of the landmark graphic novel series ElfQuest. The Pinis' elves were creatures born outside of the human world and did not have some of the ridiculous taboos associated with it. As such, the Pinis felt obliged to allow their characters to be who they were -- free, open, and occasionally unclothed. It was never for the sake of being unclothed, and never in a prurient way, but there were plenty who were shrieking "pornography" without even attempting to understand why those they drew the way they did (in perhaps a total of 10 panels over 25+ years) were so presented.

It's asinine and designed, as the vast majority of the news coverage of this temptest in a teapot is designed, to stir up "moral outrage" in the censorious crusader demographic. These are people who can look at the other atrocites going on around them an in the world and still manage to see an exposed breast and portend the end of civilization. People with perspective issues.

This thread is worthless without pics.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358221,00.html

I think next they should try forcing the kids to have abortions while starving them in a corner...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the OP fails spectacularly! The crowd cheers! http://www.degrassi-boards.com/images/smilies/cheerleader.gif

this is obviously abuse what should be done. is the poor nude female teenager girls should be sent out of country and raised in the US. I will adopt them don't worry.

The boys should be sent to england.


and parents and photographer should all be arrested and never seen again.

this is obviously abuse what should be done. is the poor nude female teenager girls should be sent out of country and raised in the US. I will adopt them don't worry.

The boys should be sent to england.


and parents and photographer should all be arrested and never seen again.

Why?

this is obviously abuse what should be done. is the poor nude female teenager girls should be sent out of country and raised in the US. I will adopt them don't worry.

The boys should be sent to england.


and parents and photographer should all be arrested and never seen again.

Okay, and I think you should be slapped repeatedly with a dead salmon until either the salmon or your opinions begin to smell better -- but that doesn't mean it's the right (or even remotely sensible) thing to do.

Doesn't look like pornography to me so I don't give a shit

I am always amused at the emotions and idiocies the timeless art vs. pornography debate brings out.

I know you are joking, but you raise a good counter point. If I do some really messed up sexual act, but all the participants are willing and I call it performance art, is it porn?

If there was some meaningful backdrop to the picture, and the nude was used to bring reference to the backdrop, perhaps. But it was just a plain background with a topless 13 year old. If she can't pose for Playboy, why does calling it art, when there is limited artistic merit, make it O.K.?

The Venus de Milo is similarly nude, as are several classical paintings. Are they also of "limited artistic merit"? What about the picture of the girl makes it of any more limited artistic merit than other artistic representations of nudes?

Found his work by searching google images. The model is sexualized only if you consider all nudity sexual. If she were 18 or older it would be considered rather a tasteful nude. So the question becomes, can one do a tasteful nude of someone under the age of 18?


Of course one can. The question of "consent" is up to the parents. The question of "art" is up to both the artist and the percipient (perceiver). The most excellent point of something being wrong with those who find any nudity instantly sexual has been made, and made in superior fashion, by Muravyets.

To clarify I was presenting that for discussion rather than presenting it as my personal opinion. I agree with what seems to be the common consensus so far, "Yes, you can."

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the OP fails spectacularly! The crowd cheers! http://www.degrassi-boards.com/images/smilies/cheerleader.gif

How, exactly?

Or are you just trolling for the lulz?




(ZOMG I called you a troll that means I win.)

How, exactly?

Or are you just trolling for the lulz?
(ZOMG I called you a troll that means I win.)

No. No. No.

He just needed an excuse to post that arousing cheerleader .gif.

So we've firmly established that looking at it as porn doesn't make it porn. Does wanting Girls Gone Wild to not be porn make it tasteful art? Not that I'm saying the picture is or isn't porn. Just a thought.

No. No. No.

He just needed an excuse to post that arousing cheerleader .gif.

That is acceptable.

Also, arousing? The "...Freaky..." thread is closed...

So we've firmly established that looking at it as porn doesn't make it porn. Does wanting Girls Gone Wild to not be porn make it tasteful art? Not that I'm saying the picture is or isn't porn. Just a thought.

Well.. if you can't make something porn by viewing it as such, you probably can't unmake something as porn. Or make something notporn.

But I will have to review the material you used as an example while trying very hard to view it as tasteful art.

That is acceptable.

Also, arousing? The "...Freaky..." thread is closed...

It is socially acceptable to watch/be a cheerleader - which is little more than packaging sex - even if that cheerleader is 'below the age of consent'.

Words of wisdom.

<snip>

This is semi-valid. It may be socially acceptable for younger girls to be cheerleaders, but every time I see an outfit like this (http://images.footballfanatics.com/productImages/_124000/FF_124452_l.jpg) I die a little inside (unrelated to whatever school that is).

And it's only OK to think high school cheerleaders are hot if you're in high school. That's my rule, anyways.

This is semi-valid. It may be socially acceptable for younger girls to be cheerleaders, but every time I see an outfit like this (http://images.footballfanatics.com/productImages/_124000/FF_124452_l.jpg) I die a little inside (unrelated to whatever school that is).

And it's only OK to think high school cheerleaders are hot if you're in high school. That's my rule, anyways.

What if the cheerleader in question is 18-19?

What if the cheerleader in question is 18-19?

Then you need to be a wealthy middle-aged singer.

What if the cheerleader in question is 18-19?

Still creepy and weird, but forgivable if she's just that hot.

Well.. if you can't make something porn by viewing it as such, you probably can't unmake something as porn. Or make something notporn.

But I will have to review the material you used as an example while trying very hard to view it as tasteful art.
Good luck with that. :p

And you're right. If the work was made to be porn -- i.e. specifically planned to present sexual content in such a way so as to sexually arouse the viewer -- then it's porn. If it fails to turn a viewer on, then it's bad porn, but still porn.

To clarify I was presenting that for discussion rather than presenting it as my personal opinion. I agree with what seems to be the common consensus so far, "Yes, you can."

Got it -- thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I tarred you unfairly as a result.

So we've firmly established that looking at it as porn doesn't make it porn. Does wanting Girls Gone Wild to not be porn make it tasteful art? Not that I'm saying the picture is or isn't porn. Just a thought.

Not this because of...

Good luck with that. :p

And you're right. If the work was made to be porn -- i.e. specifically planned to present sexual content in such a way so as to sexually arouse the viewer -- then it's porn. If it fails to turn a viewer on, then it's bad porn, but still porn.

...this.

Porn is easily identifiable as such by it's rather pointed and obvious need to get down to "business" with as little exposition and plot as possible. Some films from the late 60s through the 70s were not thus driven (The Story of O, The Opening of Misty Beethoven), but were still clearly porn because of the sheer amount of time spent on sex scenes that furthered neither plot nor anything else.

Why?

because there pictures are up and the all of Australia knows who they are the shame. and besides i would do well with a house full of teenage girls.

The old standard of "I know it when I see it" in defining "porn" and "obscenity" may be unquantifiable but in application it's quite accurate -- unless you are dealing with people who have an ulterior moralistic motive.This is because most people do instinctively understand, or at least feel, the difference between mere nudity and a deliberate attempt to create sexual arousal in viewers of an image.
But this is a very dangerous road to travel. As is the artist saying "it's not porn, therefore it isn't". I have not done any research in to child porn, and have no wish to do so. I imagine though, that a significant amount of child porn images are no more hard core then the ones in this show. Every child porn site that is "soft porn" changes it's name from "Johns kiddy whack off site", to John art show, and it's O.K. He's saying it's not porn.

The only people who have a problem with such distinctions seem to be people who are struggling with their own inner sexual conflicts or who have a moralistic social agenda and wish to expand the definition of porn in order to control/censor more art.
I'm disappointed you'd go down the path of trying to stifle debate by suggesting anyone who opposes your view point has an agenda or issues. Normally your posts don't resort to those tactics.

So, in your opinion, the classic family baby photo (baby you/me/whoever naked in or after our first bath or whatever) is without "justification" and is meant to be porn? After all, it's a photo of a naked child, and the occasion claimed to justify it is the birth/existence of the child. There are only a few people who would consider that a "horror of man," so by your argument, all those millions of families who take such photos and show them off to all and sundry are engaging in child porn. Is that correct?
Of course not, and I think you know that. I did mention that the "horrors of man" was the only one I can think of. This was because I was thinking of photos that are meant for mass consumption.
Most photo's that involve naked children are capturing a moment. Birth, children playing in the bath, etc. They are also not designed for mass consumption, just for a few friends. Even then, if it is put in a gallery, it is different, as the scene in the photo is captured, not created.

Frankly, I see in your statement nothing but your own bias, possibly based on an a priori assumption that artistic depictions of nudity are meant to be sexual, which you still fail to show the sense of, and which I consider to be an unreasonable assumption.
Of course it's my bias. You also have a bias that it isn't sexual. The scene was created. It has a naked 13 year old. I can't see what artistic merit having a 13 year old photographed in the nude. You obviously think there is.

Yes. Only the artist truly knows their intent. I have perceived things in many works of art that were never inteded by the artist (mostly in musical compositions), so the true determination is made by a combination of artist and percipient.

In regards to the artists intent, I'd like to segue a bit here. He knows that this would cause a huge stink. Any publicity is good publicity, right. He has used the picture of the 13 YO naked woman to get publicity. Exploitation, pure and simple.

Someone also mentioned about how the movie "The Exorcist" was an abuse of the child due to her mental anguish from doing the film. I would be interested to see how this 13 year old will be treated at school. This picture will cause her friends and aquaintances to treat her differently.

Then I would question your grip on reality. The parents are the only people legally able to give consent for anything involving their children. Unless the act is expressly illegal, as opposed to subject to debate (like the definition of art or the often ridiculous "obscenity" laws), what right has anyone to say they can't allow their daughter to be so represented in a work of art?
While you may think the laws are ridiculous, they are on the books. A parent can only do so much. Just as an adult can't sign away their rights, a parent can't sign away their child's rights.
Also, what's the huge hangup with age? So a woman posing for a nude art piece is doing so illegally at age 17 and 364 days, but tomorrow it's legal? Rubbish.
Once again, the law. A line needs to be drawn. The difference between someone 15 and 364 days, and 16 is trivial, but one can legally have sex, the other can't.
What do you want the law to do. Make every decision done on a case by case basis? She's 20, but has the maturity and looks of a 15 year old. Does he get done for statuatory rape.
A line is drawn, because people need consistency.

But this is a very dangerous road to travel. As is the artist saying "it's not porn, therefore it isn't". I have not done any research in to child porn, and have no wish to do so. I imagine though, that a significant amount of child porn images are no more hard core then the ones in this show. Every child porn site that is "soft porn" changes it's name from "Johns kiddy whack off site", to John art show, and it's O.K. He's saying it's not porn.

You never replied to my point. Are the Venus de Milo, David, or other famous nudes (sculpture or painting) "soft porn"? If not, then why are these photographs "soft porn" in your book?

You never replied to my point. Are the Venus de Milo, David, or other famous nudes (sculpture or painting) "soft porn"? If not, then why are these photographs "soft porn" in your book?
I would not consider most of the famous nudes soft porn. There's a huge difference between a sculpture, a painting and a photo. Art should have some degree of interpretation required. This photo seems to have very little of this. Obviously that depends on the person looking at the "art" though.

You also have not discussed my comment about the artist's intent. I think he did this to bring attention to the gallery. That is exploitation. The exploitation to get publicity aspect, then brings some serious questions about is it porn, due to his intent not being that pure.

I would not consider most of the famous nudes soft porn. There's a huge difference between a sculpture, a painting and a photo. Art should have some degree of interpretation required. This photo seems to have very little of this. Obviously that depends on the person looking at the "art" though.

You also have not discussed my comment about the artist's intent. I think he did this to bring attention to the gallery. That is exploitation. The exploitation to get publicity aspect, then brings some serious questions about is it porn, due to his intent not being that pure.

So - if there is 'exploitation' (suspected), the work becomes porn? What if the person being 'exploited' isn't in any sexual context?

I think your 'intent' concept is a bit of a non-starter, at least - as you've set it. Exploitation doesn't make a thing porn or un-porn. The intent to tittilate is probably a better measure. The intent to lead to sexual arousal as the main goal is probably the best measure... no?

By which token - if a nude is photographed, but the intent is... for example... to create a dynamic study of light and shade, it's not porn... right?

By which token - if a nude is photographed, but the intent is... for example... to create a dynamic study of light and shade, it's not porn... right?
There's been a huge focus on intent. If the dynamic study of light and shade is the intent, a nude really isn't required, especially not a nude 13 year old. Choosing to use a nude 13 year old is for the controversy, which means you have to question it's artistic merit.
As soon as you question the artist's motives, then his statement about what he's trying to achieve can be questioned. People here are right. Only the artist knows what he's trying to achieve. But is what he's trying to achieve and what he has said he's trying to achieve the same thing?

By which token - if a nude is photographed, but the intent is... for example... to create a dynamic study of light and shade, it's not porn... right?
You've been at DeviantArt too long where they have long since confused art and softcore porn. You don't require nudity, or BDSM especially, to create a picture exemplifying artistic measures.

There's been a huge focus on intent. If the dynamic study of light and shade is the intent, a nude really isn't required, especially not a nude 13 year old. Choosing to use a nude 13 year old is for the controversy, which means you have to question it's artistic merit.
As soon as you question the artist's motives, then his statement about what he's trying to achieve can be questioned. People here are right. Only the artist knows what he's trying to achieve. But is what he's trying to achieve and what he has said he's trying to achieve the same thing?

If you are choosing to demonstrate light and shade, a nude isn't required.... correct. However, I'm not entirely sure I see any reason to automatically exclude nudes from the light-and-shade portfolio, either.

You say "Choosing to use a nude 13 year old is for the controversy". Other's have said choosing to use a 13 year old nude MUST be for the pornographic value. I say you are both wrong. Because both assume that controversy or pornography MUST be the reason - neither allows for, for example, just really liking the way the model looks in partial light.

Also - your assumption that, because it courts controversy, the 'artistic merit' can be questioned, is poppycock. You can question the artistic merit all you like, with or without questioning the motives of the artist. Even if the artist is absolutely motivated by both pornographic imagery AND controversial content... neither of those actually has any bearing on the artistic merit of the piece.

You've been at DeviantArt too long where they have long since confused art and softcore porn. You don't require nudity, or BDSM especially, to create a picture exemplifying artistic measures.

On the other hand, including nudity, softcore porn imagery, or BDSM isn't automatically contrary to artistic measures either.

Personally, I happen to find the mature female form an extremely aesthetically pleasing image - I certainly don't see why featuring a naked woman invalidates art, in your estimation.

But this is a very dangerous road to travel. As is the artist saying "it's not porn, therefore it isn't". I have not done any research in to child porn, and have no wish to do so. I imagine though, that a significant amount of child porn images are no more hard core then the ones in this show. Every child porn site that is "soft porn" changes it's name from "Johns kiddy whack off site", to John art show, and it's O.K. He's saying it's not porn.
:rolleyes: Try looking at the work, not just the title. What is its content? How is it structured? What is its emphasis? THAT and not any specific title is what determines whether it is porn or not.

For example, there's the famous 1970s porn movie, "Behind the Green Door." Not much sexuality in that title, eh? Yet, trust me, NOBODY who saw that movie had, or could have had, any confusion about what it was about or what the filmmakers' intent with it was.

You can title a movie or artwork anything you like. That doesn't change its nature. Its content -- as chosen by the artist, and indicative of the artist's intent -- does that.

I'm disappointed you'd go down the path of trying to stifle debate by suggesting anyone who opposes your view point has an agenda or issues. Normally your posts don't resort to those tactics.
I'm disappointed that you would defensively try to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my argument instead of addressing the argument.

I have stated my belief that your opinion is based on a pre-existing general bias and not on a reasoned critique of any given artwork/movie. You could prove me wrong by laying out your reasoning for me, but all you have done so far is repeat the statements I have said look biased to me. As for "agendas", did I say that YOU are pursuing a social agenda, or did I say that many judgmental approaches to this subject belong to people pursuing a social agenda? Why do you assume I'm including you in that group since I did not actually say that?

Of course not, and I think you know that. I did mention that the "horrors of man" was the only one I can think of. This was because I was thinking of photos that are meant for mass consumption.
Most photo's that involve naked children are capturing a moment. Birth, children playing in the bath, etc. They are also not designed for mass consumption, just for a few friends. Even then, if it is put in a gallery, it is different, as the scene in the photo is captured, not created.
Nonsense. There are tons of naked baby photos published for "mass consumption" every year. Whole books of them, in fact. Photos and video of naked babies are used in advertising, even. Are you telling me that ads are not meant for mass consumption?

And just one movie example off the top of my head is the Czech surrealist horror film "Little Otik" ("Otesanek" by Jan Svankmeyer; highly recommended, btw). The movie is about an infertile woman who desires a baby so much that her yearning ends up transforming a vaguely baby-shaped tree stump into a living baby-creature. The opening credits feature naked baby boys floating before the camera which dotes lovingly over their little bodies in full frontal nudity, and the movie continues visually obsessing over the details of baby bodies throughout, to emphasize the woman's maternal obsession as well as the intense intimacy that mothers feel towards their babies, the intense physical intimacy of caring for babies. There is absolutely no way, however, for a normal person (i.e. not someone with a sick fetish) to see anything sexual in these depictions of babies, nor is there any way for you to successfully argue that a movie that received international release was not meant for mass consumption.

The fact is, the lines you are drawing for "acceptable" and "not acceptable" are completely arbitrary and do not match reality because they are too broad. You are trying to claim that "OK" naked baby pictures are seen by just a few people, but "not-OK" ones are made for public consumption. But in reality, far more people at large are going to be shown and will look at "OK" naked baby pics, than "not-OK" naked baby pics. This is because nudity =/= sex.

Of course it's my bias. You also have a bias that it isn't sexual. The scene was created. It has a naked 13 year old. I can't see what artistic merit having a 13 year old photographed in the nude. You obviously think there is.
I have said nothing at all about the artistic merit of the given photos. That is irrelevant to the issue, in my opinion. It does not matter whether the art is good or bad. The only thing that matters is, what is the intent of the artist in making it.

Now it's true, that I do not believe that nudity = sex, but I think I have more evidence to support the reasonableness of my "bias" than you do. I have shown numerous examples of non-sexual nudity in everyday life and in public, and those are examples of people other than me treating nudity in a non-sexual way, indicating that in general society nudity and sex are two different things. What have you shown to support the reasoning behind your opinion?

In regards to the artists intent, I'd like to segue a bit here. He knows that this would cause a huge stink. Any publicity is good publicity, right. He has used the picture of the 13 YO naked woman to get publicity. Exploitation, pure and simple.
How do you know that is why he made the images? Did he say so somewhere? What has he said about these images?

Someone also mentioned about how the movie "The Exorcist" was an abuse of the child due to her mental anguish from doing the film. I would be interested to see how this 13 year old will be treated at school. This picture will cause her friends and aquaintances to treat her differently.
That was me, and the trauma suffered by Linda Blair was far more extreme than merely being teased or snubbed at school and was also related to neglectful and emotionally abusive behavior of her parents. She has talked about her experiences extensively during her life -- and recovery from addiction.

While you may think the laws are ridiculous, they are on the books. A parent can only do so much. Just as an adult can't sign away their rights, a parent can't sign away their child's rights.
Since the laws are on the books and you think they say what you say they say, I'm sure you can link the relevant passages for us?

Parents make work and profession decisions for children every day. Underage actors and athletes, for instance, must trust their parents/guardians to sign contracts for them that will commit them to far more labor than a photo shoot. Such parents also sign contracts on behalf their children that permit various kinds of publication and release of images of the children, for various kinds of payment. Most of the time, this is a good and safe arrangement for the kids. Sometimes, it isn't, depending on the parents. After all, Linda Blair's parents broke no laws in signing her up for "The Exorcist."

Once again, the law. A line needs to be drawn. The difference between someone 15 and 364 days, and 16 is trivial, but one can legally have sex, the other can't.
What do you want the law to do. Make every decision done on a case by case basis?
Yes. It's called the judicial system. It's why each case gets its own hearing.

She's 20, but has the maturity and looks of a 15 year old. Does he get done for statuatory rape.
No, he doesn't.

A line is drawn, because people need consistency.
And they have consistency. Apparently, it's not the consistency you would like, but it exists nonetheless.

I would not consider most of the famous nudes soft porn. There's a huge difference between a sculpture, a painting and a photo. Art should have some degree of interpretation required. This photo seems to have very little of this. Obviously that depends on the person looking at the "art" though.

You also have not discussed my comment about the artist's intent. I think he did this to bring attention to the gallery. That is exploitation. The exploitation to get publicity aspect, then brings some serious questions about is it porn, due to his intent not being that pure.
Again, you give us nothing but biased speculation. Please quote the statement by the artist in which he said that the only reason he made these images was to bring attention to this gallery. We'll wait.

And what is this "pure" intent nonsense? Any intent is "pure" for whatever it might be. An intent to exploit can be pure, too. After all, advertising's intent is pure -- pure exploitation to make money -- as pure as pure heroin. Are you attempting to attach some kind of moral value to the word "pure"? Then what do you consider "pure" artistic intent to be -- purely in conformity with your biases in order to qualify for your approval?

As Grave_n_Idle pointed out, "exploitation" is not intent enough to qualify a work as porn or not because there are lots of different kinds of exploitation, not all of them negative.

There's been a huge focus on intent. If the dynamic study of light and shade is the intent, a nude really isn't required, especially not a nude 13 year old. Choosing to use a nude 13 year old is for the controversy, which means you have to question it's artistic merit.
As soon as you question the artist's motives, then his statement about what he's trying to achieve can be questioned. People here are right. Only the artist knows what he's trying to achieve. But is what he's trying to achieve and what he has said he's trying to achieve the same thing?

You've been at DeviantArt too long where they have long since confused art and softcore porn. You don't require nudity, or BDSM especially, to create a picture exemplifying artistic measures.
These last two posts are just censor-speak. You don't get to decide what subjects/objects artists are allowed to use for what purposes. Any artist worth his or her salt would be within their rights to tell both of you fuck off for trying it.

As I write, there is a copy of a Man Ray photo on my wall. It is a dynamic light and shadow study. It is a close up of the naked torso of Man Ray's girlfriend standing in front of a window covered by sheer curtains, and the sunlight coming through the curtains casts a fluid pattern of shadows (from the fabric) across her body, transforming it into a near-abstract form. It is beautiful but it is not a sex photo, and other people do not get to declare that he did not "require" these elements to make this arresting and thought-provoking image.

There's been a huge focus on intent. If the dynamic study of light and shade is the intent, a nude really isn't required, especially not a nude 13 year old.

Nudes have been a huge part of art for as long as there has been art. Of course they're not "required" - no one holds a gun to an artist's head and says, "Create nudes or else!" - but neither are pictures of flowers "required," and no one gets all upset about those. People don't produce art because it's "required;" they produce it because it's worth looking at. I am a photographer myself, and while I have zero interest in creating porn, I would dearly love to have the opportunity to shoot some nudes, because the human form is a lovely and fascinating thing which can create truly beautiful images. It is frankly absurd and even offensive to me to assume that nudity is inherently sexual and should only be depicted if it is somehow "required."

Also - your assumption that, because it courts controversy, the 'artistic merit' can be questioned, is poppycock. You can question the artistic merit all you like, with or without questioning the motives of the artist. Even if the artist is absolutely motivated by both pornographic imagery AND controversial content... neither of those actually has any bearing on the artistic merit of the piece.
Most of the posters here are agreeing that intent is critical. "If the artist isn't intentionally making porn, then it isn't porn" is a common theme. If the intent is to court controversy by intentionally offending people, then the artistic merit can, and should, be questioned.

Artistic merit is about what it communicates to people. Otherwise, why show it in a gallery? What he is communicating to me is "I want to offend people and stir up controversy to get publicity". I understand he may be communicating other things to other people but, I think that many people will see this photo as lacking artistic merit.

Also, if it is meant to offend, the way it is offensive, is that it could be seen as porn. Thus part of the artists intent is to produce something that could be perceived as porn, thus by the earlier definitions, making this porn.

Nudes have been a huge part of art for as long as there has been art. Of course they're not "required" - no one holds a gun to an artist's head and says, "Create nudes or else!" - but neither are pictures of flowers "required," and no one gets all upset about those. People don't produce art because it's "required;" they produce it because it's worth looking at. I am a photographer myself, and while I have zero interest in creating porn, I would dearly love to have the opportunity to shoot some nudes, because the human form is a lovely and fascinating thing which can create truly beautiful images. It is frankly absurd and even offensive to me to assume that nudity is inherently sexual and should only be depicted if it is somehow "required."
Funny thing: When Georgia O'Keefe first started doing her large flower paintings, one of the criticisms of them was that they were indecently erotic, which just goes to show that some people will see sex in anything. That is why I kick at any argument that says anything like "it's porn if I think it is."

Artistic merit is about what it communicates to people. Otherwise, why show it in a gallery? What he is communicating to me is "I want to offend people and stir up controversy to get publicity". I understand he may be communicating other things to other people but, I think that many people will see this photo as lacking artistic merit.

Whoop-de-do for them. Many people very famously thought Stravinsky's Rite of Spring lacked artistic merit, too - so what? Many people looked at the early Impressionists' works and thought they lacked artistic merit, since art was obviously all about depicting things realistically and clearly. Should art museums therefore toss out all their Monets?

Heck, if we're really going to judge "artistic merit" on the basis of how many people like something, Thomas Kinkaid has more "artistic merit" than Vincent Van Gogh. Is that really an argument you want to make?

Funny thing: When Georgia O'Keefe first started doing her large flower paintings, one of the criticisms of them was that they were indecently erotic, which just goes to show that some people will see sex in anything. That is why I kick at any argument that says anything like "it's porn if I think it is."

Ha, I forgot about that. Excellent point.

By the way, I think I know the Man Ray photo you were talking about before, and it's one of my favorites, too. :)

Most of the posters here are agreeing that intent is critical.


Not that I'm disagreeing, but appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.


"If the artist isn't intentionally making porn, then it isn't porn" is a common theme. If the intent is to court controversy by intentionally offending people, then the artistic merit can, and should, be questioned.


Not at all - you can question whether it is right to offend peole, to court controversy... but that isn't the same as the artistic merit of the piece.


Artistic merit is about what it communicates to people.


I disagree. I'd say artistic merit is HOW WELL it communicates to people.


Otherwise, why show it in a gallery? What he is communicating to me is "I want to offend people and stir up controversy to get publicity".


What he is communicating to me is, apparently, not what he is communicating to you. And - to be honest, I wouldn't object if he were. The iconoclasts, les artistes terroristes, the culture-jammers... are some of the most important figures on our socio-cultural horizons.


I understand he may be communicating other things to other people but, I think that many people will see this photo as lacking artistic merit.


That's okay. Lots of people consider Cubism to be without merit.


Also, if it is meant to offend, the way it is offensive, is that it could be seen as porn. Thus part of the artists intent is to produce something that could be perceived as porn, thus by the earlier definitions, making this porn.

This picture was withdrawn: http://991.com/newgallery/Dubstar-Disgraceful-198695.jpg

This picture replaced it: http://www.lemec.net/billeder/dubstar.jpg

Both are furry pencil cases. By your definition (and apparently, by the definition of some others), the first pencil case is porn.

How, exactly?
Really? Do you have to ask? My word, you're not telling me that you meant it seriously? That just makes everything even worse, and your failure even more so.

Your OP doesn't have anything to do with the case at hand.

Your OP doesn't contribute anything to any debate, and doesn't even offer a comment or thought on the pictures.

Your OP doesn't make sense whatsoever, as it somehow comments on the pictures - pictures taken by parental consent, I assume - by jumping down the slippery slope to expecting serious violations of the bodily integrity and direct and possibly fatal abuse of children.

And that's how you fail spectacularly and impressively.

because there pictures are up and the all of Australia knows who they are the shame. and besides i would do well with a house full of teenage girls.
So because "all of Australia" knows who they are, and you feel a shame - not the girls, but you - the parents and photographer should be arrested "and never seen again"?

You don't make much sense, and only offer an extremely disproportional response for... well, the shame you feel.

Seriously. Your shame is your problem. Suck it up.

Should art museums therefore toss out all their Monets?

Yes.



As long as they tell only me in advance, and let me know which dumpster they will be using >.>

Yes.



As long as they tell only me in advance, and let me know which dumpster they will be using >.>

Fine, but I call dibs on all the discarded Pissarros and Degas-es. ;)

Most of the posters here are agreeing that intent is critical. "If the artist isn't intentionally making porn, then it isn't porn" is a common theme. If the intent is to court controversy by intentionally offending people, then the artistic merit can, and should, be questioned.
No. Your argument is invalid for the following reasons:

1) You are misusing the term "artistic merit," as if it is synonymous with "artistic intent." It is not. "Artistic merit" refers to the aesthetic value of an artwork, and is a highly subjective quality. "Artistic intent" refers to the what the artist wants the artwork to do and there is nothing subjective about that -- it is what the artist says it is. Intent and merit are separate considerations and one does not affect the other.

2) Your argument implies that there can be no such thing as political artwork, if "intent to court controversy" undermines artistic merit. So, by that argument Picasso's "Guernica" would be a bad painting lacking in merit, rather than the world-renowned classic that it is. So would Goya's series "The Capriccios" and "The Horrors of War." So would all works of surrealism and many other modernist movements.

Artistic merit is about what it communicates to people.
No, it isn't. See above.

Otherwise, why show it in a gallery?
Galleries are retail shops. Art is shown in them to sell them and/or to advertise the artist so that other works may be sold (if the given ones are not for sale at the moment).

What he is communicating to me is "I want to offend people and stir up controversy to get publicity". I understand he may be communicating other things to other people but, I think that many people will see this photo as lacking artistic merit.
On what basis do you think that? You admit that many people will disagree with your interpretation, but you still think they'll agree with your conclusion? Why?

Also, if it is meant to offend, the way it is offensive, is that it could be seen as porn. Thus part of the artists intent is to produce something that could be perceived as porn, thus by the earlier definitions, making this porn.
Your logic is screaming in pain from all the twisting you're putting it through.

FIRST: The works of the Dada movement were specifically meant to offend, but they were not porn (except for when they were). For instance, Man Ray's object titled "Object To Be Destroyed" was so offensive to mainstream social tastes of the time that a group of "reactionary students" (as they were described) stormed into a gallery where it was being shown and destroyed it, in response to which Man Ray commented on their literal-mindedness. Luckily, Man Ray photographed it before displaying it and made replicas of it later, so we know what it looked like:
http://z.about.com/d/arthistory/1/7/T/O/dada_paris_06.jpg
Sexy, huh? Apparently, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder (irony).

SECOND: Now you are trying to make the artist responsible for what goes on in the minds of other people. Early in this thread, it was pointed out that a "sick fuck" could find Michelangelo's David a sexual turn-on, but that doesn't make the David pornographic. By this argument now, though, you would take a clearly non-pornographic work and make it porn if some pervert says so. So you're making the perverts of the world the arbiters of "artistic merit" and "artistic intent," both. We're not just back at my original characterization of your position -- "It's porn if I think it is" -- now, you're saying "If I think it's porn, then that means it was always the intent of the artist to make porn." I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit.

Wrap your brain around this: Some things just do not follow other things. If some people misuse a thing, it does not mean that their misuse is actually the original intended use of it. This is the basic flaw in your argument as of now.

Fine, but I call dibs on all the discarded Pissarros and Degas-es. ;)

Cool. Can I get the Caravaggios?

Fine, but I call dibs on all the discarded Pissarros and Degas-es. ;)
The Manets are mine! :)

Cool. Can I get the Caravaggios?

He's not an Impressionist. You'll have to wait for the next wave of censorship to fight me for him. :p

He's not an Impressionist. You'll have to wait for the next wave of censorship to fight me for him. :p

I'm opting out of Impressionism to get an early stake on him. :)

:rolleyes: THAT and not any specific title is what determines whether it is porn or not. {Lots more trimmed stuff discussing the titles of things, which was not my point at all}
The change in title was not the relevant point. The point is that people who like "soft kiddie porn" would have web sites with material just like that gallery.
A new web site says it's artistic, and suddenly it's alright? We've already established that only the artist can work out if it's porn or not. Great back door for heaps of legal kiddie "art" sites.

I'm disappointed that you would defensively try to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my argument instead of addressing the argument...... As for "agendas", did I say that YOU are pursuing a social agenda, or did I say that many judgmental approaches to this subject belong to people pursuing a social agenda? Why do you assume I'm including you in that group since I did not actually say that?
Let's look at your post again shall we.
The only people who have a problem with such distinctions seem to be people who are struggling with their own inner sexual conflicts or who have a moralistic social agenda and wish to expand the definition of porn in order to control/censor more art..
You didn't say many, you said "the only". I haven't done set theory in maths for a while now, but using the term "the only people" means I must be in that set. At least have the intellectual decency to accept when you've been called out for attacking the poster, not the post, instead of trying to hide by using rhetoric... and provably false rhetoric at that.
Nonsense. There are tons of naked baby photos published for "mass consumption" every year. Whole books of them, in fact. Photos and video of naked babies are used in advertising, even. Are you telling me that ads are not meant for mass consumption?
Even then, nearly all of them do not show genitalia, and they don't have breasts yet. There is a substantial difference between a baby, and a 13 year old. In other cultures, and other times, she'd no longer be a virgin, and maybe be pregnant. There is a much higher potential sexual element in a 13 year old, then a baby.
{Rambling movie reference that is used to show naked baby images are for mass consumption}
Once again you have gone off on a tangent. I accept that naked pictures of babies are produced for mass consumption. The part about mass consumption, was why I didn't think of it straight away, and only thought of horrors of man. Also, another reason I didn't think of baby photos, is I haven't seen any picture of babies that any sane person could think of as sexual. The pose of the 13 Year old, could easily be a pose an adult would do in a porn mag.

You are trying to claim that "OK" naked baby pictures are seen by just a few people, but "not-OK" ones are made for public consumption.
No, I am not. You have drawn a lot of assumptions from my post to come to that conclusion.
I'll make a big assumption now though. I assume this discussion has been done many times, and most of the times you get a rabid religious nut job focused on nude = porn. I am not that person.
The reason I think that the photo may very well be porn, is that I think the artist took this photo with the intent to cause controversy. I believe a significant section of society would see it as porn. A smaller, intellectual elite section would see it as art.

How do you know that is why he made the images? Did he say so somewhere? What has he said about these images?
It's going to court. If his intent was to cause controversy, do you think he's going to tell the truth now? I have no way of knowing his intent was to cause controversy, but you have no way of knowing that he wasn't intending to make porn either.

That was me, and the trauma suffered by Linda Blair was far more extreme than merely being teased or snubbed at school and was also related to neglectful and emotionally abusive behavior of her parents.
So a bit of emotional trauma is alright if the art is good. O.K. :rolleyes:

And they have consistency. Apparently, it's not the consistency you would like, but it exists nonetheless.
How'd you get to that conclusion? I was rebutting the point another poster did about a 17 year 364 day old person, and an 18 year old are really no different. Of course they aren't, but one is allowed to do porn films, etc, one isn't.
I gave my silly example, to show that the mental maturity of the person can not be assessed on a case by case basis, a line has to be drawn. Every guy or girl trying to pick up, shouldn't be worried that the 17 year old they are with may be deemed sexually immature and get done for statuatory rape, or assume the 15 year old they are with will be deemed sexually mature, be wrong, and get done for statuatory rape.

As Grave_n_Idle pointed out, "exploitation" is not intent enough to qualify a work as porn or not because there are lots of different kinds of exploitation, not all of them negative.
I'm not saying exploitation is enough, but if there is a degree of exploitation, then it bring in to question how truthful his statements of his intent of it not to be porn are.

These last two posts are just censor-speak. You don't get to decide what subjects/objects artists are allowed to use for what purposes. Any artist worth his or her salt would be within their rights to tell both of you fuck off for trying it.
We don't get to decide, but the government thinks it does.

It is beautiful but it is not a sex photo, and other people do not get to declare that he did not "require" these elements to make this arresting and thought-provoking image.
So you want to censor my right to say I think a piece of artwork is wrong. I get to declare it all I want. You get to argue that I'm wrong. You don't get to make me not declare it. Or is censorship valid when it is shutting up close minded people?

The Manets are mine! :)

All the Dalís are mine!!!

The change in title was not the relevant point. The point is that people who like "soft kiddie porn" would have web sites with material just like that gallery.
A new web site says it's artistic, and suddenly it's alright? We've already established that only the artist can work out if it's porn or not. Great back door for heaps of legal kiddie "art" sites.
Bullshit. And it's some kind of logical fallacy as well -- strawman? Something like that.

Plus you are declaring that kiddie porn looks just like that artist's photos. Question: How do you know? (You may treat that as rhetorical.) Once again, you are making assertions of fact about things you clearly have no actual knowledge of.

Your entire defense of your position is dependent on ignorance and unfounded speculation. Your ignorance about art and about public use of images of children have already been demonstrated. You speculate wildly about why the artist did this or that, what other people think about the pictures, what effect the images/photo shoot had on the girl model, what kiddie porn pervs would put on their websites, etc, etc. I'm sorry, but your fantasy world is not generating a compelling argument for people who live in reality.

Let's look at your post again shall we.
.
You didn't say many, you said "the only". I haven't done set theory in maths for a while now, but using the term "the only people" means I must be in that set. At least have the intellectual decency to accept when you've been called out for attacking the poster, not the post, instead of trying to hide by using rhetoric... and provably false rhetoric at that.
Clearly you do need a set theory refresher, as your math in this instance is even worse than mine. Let's look at my sentence again, shall we?
The only people who have a problem with such distinctions seem to be people who are struggling with their own inner sexual conflicts or who have a moralistic social agenda and wish to expand the definition of porn in order to control/censor more art.(emphasis added)

The "only" set clearly contains TWO separate subsets -- people with personal issues and people with a social agenda. In addition, the use of the phrase "seems to be" indicates a subjective value based on personal observation, which my original post also made clear, I believe. I mention this to show that the statement is a personal interpretation. This is relevant when we look at it in its original context, in which I was explaining my attitude towards the idea that nudity = sex.

Further, the "only" set is not all-inclusive. It is limited to "people who have a problem with such distinctions." Clearly this does not include all people who criticize art or may dislike a certain artwork, or even all people who may personally find a particular non-porn artwork to be erotic. It only includes the groups of people specifically listed.

And finally, I don't see you mentioned anywhere in it.

So, yeah... tell us again how this is a personal attack against you?

Even then, nearly all of them do not show genitalia, and they don't have breasts yet. There is a substantial difference between a baby, and a 13 year old. In other cultures, and other times, she'd no longer be a virgin, and maybe be pregnant. There is a much higher potential sexual element in a 13 year old, then a baby.
I see, so if you see a picture of baby genitals, you can't help but think of sex? Hm... Why do I doubt that?

Are you also saying that the fact that it is possible to have sex with a 13-year-old girl automatically makes any nude depiction of such a person pornographic? Hm... why do I doubt that, too?

{Rambling movie reference that is used to show naked baby images are for mass consumption}
Now who's making negative personal characterizations?

Once again you have gone off on a tangent. I accept that naked pictures of babies are produced for mass consumption. The part about mass consumption, was why I didn't think of it straight away, and only thought of horrors of man. Also, another reason I didn't think of baby photos, is I haven't seen any picture of babies that any sane person could think of as sexual. The pose of the 13 Year old, could easily be a pose an adult would do in a porn mag.
The same can said of lots of things. I remind you of my remark earlier about Georgia O'Keefe's flower paintings, which some critics imagined massive close ups of female genitals, and some liked that and others didn't. That doesn't change the fact that the pictures are of flowers. Also, Man Ray (again) did a series of pictures of small wooden art manniquins in sexual poses (the Mr. and Mrs. Woodman series). Is this porn?:

http://www.ragoarts.com/onlinecats/10.02MOD/106.jpg

Please note, there are no genitals in this picture.

No, I am not. You have drawn a lot of assumptions from my post to come to that conclusion.
I have explained why I read your argument the way I do. If you can show the place where I went wrong, please do so.

I'll make a big assumption now though. I assume this discussion has been done many times, and most of the times you get a rabid religious nut job focused on nude = porn. I am not that person.
Your assumption is incorrect.

The reason I think that the photo may very well be porn, is that I think the artist took this photo with the intent to cause controversy.
And I said earlier, intent to cause controversy =/= porn. You have yet to show any reason why I should think otherwise.

I believe a significant section of society would see it as porn.
Yet, you have yet to show any evidence for such an assertion, i.e. any reason for you to think that.

A smaller, intellectual elite section would see it as art.
I see, so now you're not only making an (unfounded) appeal to popularity for your argument (itself a logical fallacy, as has been pointed out), you're also trying to marginalize those who disagree by binding them round with words that tend to imply they are somehow separate and out of touch with this majority you claim but cannot prove exists.

It's going to court. If his intent was to cause controversy, do you think he's going to tell the truth now?
A) How does intent to cause controversy = lying?

B) If he is in court, he will likely be put under oath, in which case, yes, it would be in his interest to be truthful about everything, and I think he will do so. And what makes you think he hasn't been truthful up to now?

I have no way of knowing his intent was to cause controversy,
'Nuff said. Thank you for admitting on this one point that you don't know what you are talking about.

but you have no way of knowing that he wasn't intending to make porn either.
But I can know that he did not make porn. How? Because porn has certain content requirements that these photos do not meet.

So a bit of emotional trauma is alright if the art is good. O.K. :rolleyes:
Let's all roll our eyes at each other. :rolleyes: The reason I said that was to show that the reason I consider the making of "The Exorcist" to have been abusive to Linda Blair was because of the direct and immediate trauma it caused her -- that trauma may be taken as a fact because she herself has attested to it -- while your unsupported speculation of lesser social stigmas that may or may not have been experienced by the girl in Henson's photos does not measure up to the fact of what happened to Linda Blair. I said, I don't like this movie because of the way it hurt this girl. You said, well, those photos could have hurt this girl in another way. And you seem to think that was somehow a counter to my statement.

How'd you get to that conclusion? I was rebutting the point another poster did about a 17 year 364 day old person, and an 18 year old are really no different. Of course they aren't, but one is allowed to do porn films, etc, one isn't.
I gave my silly example, to show that the mental maturity of the person can not be assessed on a case by case basis, a line has to be drawn.
More flaws:

Mental age does not matter in age of consent laws. That is a subjective measure, and it is not where the law draws the line. The law draws the line at utterly non-subjective physical age. It does not matter if the 17-year-old has the mental age of a 55-year-old who would not be in the least bit traumatized by making sex movies. Nor does it matter if the 18-year-old has the mental age of a 10-year-old and would be terribly traumatized by making sex movies. It is still legal for the 18-year-old. Mental age has nothing to do with it. The measure is physical age. Now, yes, the physical age is chosen because a preponderance of expert opinion says that mental age is likely to follow physical age, but mental age is still subjective and still uncertain. Thus, age of consent laws are an imperfect system that over-protects some individuals and under-protects others.

Every guy or girl trying to pick up, shouldn't be worried that the 17 year old they are with may be deemed sexually immature and get done for statuatory rape, or assume the 15 year old they are with will be deemed sexually mature, be wrong, and get done for statuatory rape.
If you are so convinced that mental age is the measure for statutory rape, I ask you again to post links to the laws that say so. Mental age has nothing to do with it. If a 30-year-old wants to have sex with a 15-year-old who has the brain of a 50-year-old brothel-keeper, he/she should still refrain, because the law will not care that the 15-year-old is jaded and experienced. And no, no law that I know of will "do someone for statutory rape" for having sex with someone of legal age but immature mind. If that is not correct, please post the relevant laws.

I'm not saying exploitation is enough, but if there is a degree of exploitation, then it bring in to question how truthful his statements of his intent of it not to be porn are.
Just how movable are these goalposts of yours -- or how broad, flexible and vague are your standards of judgment? First, just the nudity was enough to make the images porn. Then it was presumed exploitation of the model. Then it was their controversial nature. Then it was the "purity" of the artist's intent. Now it's his honesty. Just what the hell are you critiquing here?

We don't get to decide, but the government thinks it does.
Let it, but I wonder if you think it is going to agree with you, and if so, why?

So you want to censor my right to say I think a piece of artwork is wrong. I get to declare it all I want. You get to argue that I'm wrong. You don't get to make me not declare it. Or is censorship valid when it is shutting up close minded people?
I was expressing the uselessness and lack of substance in such declarations. You fail to show any logical reasoning or compelling social interest for why a dynamic study of light and shadow should not be considered a valid artwork if the object of the study is the human body, rather than an inanimate object. Without either logical reasoning or a compelling social interest, you fail to present any reason why anyone should not simply laugh at and reject your assertion that nudity in a light/shadow study somehow saps it of artistic merit.

You have the absolute right to say whatever you like, but you don't have a right to be treated with respect and deference when you say something ridiculous.

This debate has got out of hand. The amount of attacks on the poster, not the post is ridiculous.
From the semantic attack on the use or misuse of the term "artistic merit", to the attempt to show I think any naked child is porn (I do not), that I think attempting to offend makes something porn (I do not), and the amount of contradictions..
Here's one and it was even in the same post.
I understand he may be communicating other things to other people but, I think that many people will see this photo as lacking artistic merit.
On what basis do you think that? You admit that many people will disagree with your interpretation, but you still think they'll agree with your conclusion? Why?
I never admitted many, I said some. The intellectual dishonesty is piling up.

And again when you try to say you weren't actually doing a personal attack.
Further, the "only" set is not all-inclusive. It is limited to "people who have a problem with such......And finally, I don't see you mentioned anywhere in it. distinctions."So, yeah... tell us again how this is a personal attack against you?
By my posts I have clearly showed that I have a problem with such, Thus the post is clearly meant for me and is an attack.I truly don't care. You go on internet forums, you expect to be attacked, especially if they aren't that interested in debating your point. The intellectual dishonesty is pathetic though. To actually keep trying to defend the undefendable is laughable. You are damned by your own words.

And weirdly, you were so focused on arguing against me, that you somehow thought I was arguing the opposite point, when we both agreed regarding arbitrary lines for age of consent.
...to show that the mental maturity of the person can not be assessed on a case by case basis, a line has to be drawn
Thus, age of consent laws are an imperfect system that over-protects some individuals and under-protects others.
If you are so convinced that mental age is the measure for statutory rape, I ask you again to post links to the laws that say so. Mental age has nothing to do with it.
The quote of mine shows I don't think so.

Now I've gone across all the poor debating part, back on topic.
To try to sum up my position in brief. An old saying is "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be reasonably sure it is a duck." So, lets look at some examples already suggested.
On Jim's gay porn site he puts up a picture of the statue of David. He gets a barrage of mail from his paying customer saying "It's a male, but WTF, I pay good money, give me porn"
Next day on his sister porn site he puts up the furry pencil cases. Another barrage of mail. "If you imagine real hard it looks like a vagina, but I pay you so I can get hard without imagining real hard".
He then posts the "art" pictures in his Jim's kiddie porn site. He doesn't get a barrage of e-mails. He get's a few "Not bad. It's a bit artistic and she's a bit old, get one of her younger sister".

The artist saying it isn't porn isn't enough. The final arbiter is society. If you like it or not. A paedophile says "It's an act of love" doesn't make it so. Society says there's no love in that act. If society is a bunch of phillistines who are too dumb to appreciate high art, bad luck.

Obviously we are in the realm of speculation and assumptions. Any opinions and debates on people and things we don't know 1st hand are, so it is pointless to say "How do you know society thinks that". You assume he did it purely to make art. Unless you can read his mind, just because he said that's what he did it for, doesn't make it true.

My personal opinion is an artist is generally a good judge of how people will react. He knew people would react poorly to this and consider it porn. He knew there would be controversy about this. To get the controversy, he has to make it close enough to porn, that in effect, he is deliberately creating porn.

This debate has got out of hand. The amount of attacks on the poster, not the post is ridiculous.
I agree.

From the semantic attack on the use or misuse of the term "artistic merit", to the attempt to show I think any naked child is porn (I do not), that I think attempting to offend makes something porn (I do not), and the amount of contradictions..
Here's one and it was even in the same post.
You should try reading your own posts again. The way you wrote them, this is how more than one reader has interpreted them. If it was not your true meaning, then the fault is yours for not being clear.

I never admitted many, I said some. The intellectual dishonesty is piling up.
Indeed it is. You also said:

I believe a significant section of society would see it as porn. A smaller, intellectual elite section would see it as art.
Now explain to us all how a "significant section of society" compared to a "smaller, intellectual elite" is not claiming that most people would agree with your views on this subject.

People who try to lie about their own arguments are so tedious because it forces me to have to read their crap over and over to expose their lies.

And again when you try to say you weren't actually doing a personal attack.
That's right. It's not personal, because it is about the flaws in your argument and tactics, not in you.

By my posts I have clearly showed that I have a problem with such, Thus the post is clearly meant for me and is an attack.
I suppose, by this reasoning, that if I were to talk about my experiences with men (and you happened to be a man) that would mean I was talking about you personally, even though I've never met you. I am not responsible for your feelings about yourself any more than the artist is responsible for your sex taboos. I was talking about people in general, not you, and that can easily be proven by the fact that I didn't mention you in the remark. It's not my fault if you think everything is about you.

I truly don't care. You go on internet forums, you expect to be attacked, especially if they aren't that interested in debating your point. The intellectual dishonesty is pathetic though. To actually keep trying to defend the undefendable is laughable. You are damned by your own words.
No more than you. Have you officially now given up trying to defend your argument in favor of just bitching and personally attacking me (irony)?

And weirdly, you were so focused on arguing against me, that you somehow thought I was arguing the opposite point, when we both agreed regarding arbitrary lines for age of consent.


The quote of mine shows I don't think so.
More of what can only be called confusion, at best. Here is what you actually said:
How'd you get to that conclusion? I was rebutting the point another poster did about a 17 year 364 day old person, and an 18 year old are really no different. Of course they aren't, but one is allowed to do porn films, etc, one isn't.
I gave my silly example, to show that the mental maturity of the person can not be assessed on a case by case basis, a line has to be drawn.

Every guy or girl trying to pick up, shouldn't be worried that the 17 year old they are with may be deemed sexually immature and get done for statuatory rape, or assume the 15 year old they are with will be deemed sexually mature, be wrong, and get done for statuatory rape.
In it, you say that a line has to be drawn for mental age, and then talk about how uncertainty on the issue of "maturity" can lead to problems. I pointed out that the line is drawn at physical age, not mental age or sexual maturity. So no uncertainty about "maturity" exists. The guy/girl in the bar's opinion about what he/she "deems" to be the maturity of the 15-year-old doesn't matter. 15 = jail. Period. No uncertainty. A nice bright line.

Now prove that Henson crossed that line.

I would also remind everyone who may be reading this at this point, that no one was having sex with the girl in those photos.

Now I've gone across all the poor debating part, back on topic.
To try to sum up my position in brief. An old saying is "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be reasonably sure it is a duck." So, lets look at some examples already suggested.
This, in and of itself, is a flawed standard, because who are you that I should believe that you know anything at all about ducks?

Likewise, if you're some shoe fetishist who is going to tell me how sexy shoes are, how they get you off everytime you look at them, would it be reasonable of me to be sure that shoes are sex toys?

On Jim's gay porn site he puts up a picture of the statue of David. He gets a barrage of mail from his paying customer saying "It's a male, but WTF, I pay good money, give me porn"
Next day on his sister porn site he puts up the furry pencil cases. Another barrage of mail. "If you imagine real hard it looks like a vagina, but I pay you so I can get hard without imagining real hard".
He then posts the "art" pictures in his Jim's kiddie porn site. He doesn't get a barrage of e-mails. He get's a few "Not bad. It's a bit artistic and she's a bit old, get one of her younger sister".
So I was right. You are proposing to make the perverts of the world the arbiters of social morality. And you do wish to hold one person responsible for what goes on the mind of another person. I see. Yeah, that's fair and just -- and realistic, too. /sarcasm

Did you notice that you didn't suggest what if Henson were to post these photos on a kiddie porn site? No, you still have Mr. Henson completely unconnected to the kiddie porn fiend, but still want to blame Mr. Henson for what the kiddie porn fiend does. And what if in fact the David and the pencil cases had gotten the site visitors off? Would that make them porn, in your opinion? And what if the perv's at the kiddie site hadn't found Henson's photos sufficiently sexy? Would that redeem Mr. Henson in your view?

You cannot accuse a person of a crime because of what someone else does, unrelated to them. You are trying to condemn Henson for things he has not done.

The artist saying it isn't porn isn't enough. The final arbiter is society. If you like it or not.
Spoken like a true censor.

A paedophile says "It's an act of love" doesn't make it so. Society says there's no love in that act. If society is a bunch of phillistines who are too dumb to appreciate high art, bad luck.
I do not allow the bullshit of criminals to dictate my world view. What the paedophile says about his own actions is irrelevant because what matters is the fact and the effect of those actions. The fact is that he violated the law. Why he claims to have done it doesn't matter. The effect of that action is that he did harm to a child. Whether he thinks it was harmful or not doesn't matter. The harm is measured by the child, not him.

It has yet to be shown that Henson broke any laws by those photos or that his actions harmed the girl in any way -- your speculations notwithstanding.

If he did not break any laws, and if the girl was not harmed, then your opinion of his work need not be any interest to anyone but you.

Obviously we are in the realm of speculation and assumptions. Any opinions and debates on people and things we don't know 1st hand are, so it is pointless to say "How do you know society thinks that". You assume he did it purely to make art. Unless you can read his mind, just because he said that's what he did it for, doesn't make it true.
I see, so when you make assertions of fact that you cannot support, you should get a bye on that because you said it in a debate and you were talking about something you had no knowledge of anyway? Yeah, I don't think so. If you have any reason to think what you do about Henson, please post links to the sources that gave you the information upon which you based your remarks.

My personal opinion is an artist is generally a good judge of how people will react.
Why would you think that? Artists are not psychologists or psychiatrists or behaviorists. They don't get training in that, and they are not licensed professionals in that area.

He knew people would react poorly to this and consider it porn. He knew there would be controversy about this. To get the controversy, he has to make it close enough to porn, that in effect, he is deliberately creating porn.
100% pure, undiluted crap, pulled fresh out of your ass and dumped into this thread without even a reference to reality as garnish. That is how I would characterize your entire argument so far.

I have asked you to post any public statements from Mr. Henson that made you think he might actually be thinking the way you say he is. You have not.

I have asked you to post links to any laws (I didn't even specify country) that say what you say they do about this kind of situation. You have not.

I have challenged you to back up your assertions about general public opinion, which you could have done with links to statistics, polls or even just articles about this kind of thing. You have not.

Rather you have refused to justify your assertions, presented your statements variously as fact and as personal opinion as suited you from time to time, twisted and misrepresented your own arguments, and used ad hominem attacks against me while accusing me of doing the same to you.

I'm done with you. You're argument is dead, your assertions are unfounded, and your position is clearly indefensible (based on the fact that you have failed to defend it). That's the end, as far as I'm concerned.

Spoken like a true censor.

He's got a point. Like it or not, how much a piece of any kind of art, visual or otherwise, is worth is ultimately determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. In the end there comes a kind of contradictory divide between the common viewer and the intellectual minority: society decides that a work is not of worth (for whatever reason it is that the society chooses these things). The intellectual minority, however, decides that it is artistically significant and demands that society acknowledge it as such. Thus, people are forced to read books like The Catcher in the Rye, which is culturally obsolete and not very good in the first place, because some group of pretentious PhD's determined it to be "of literary merit." (CitR is an example, which means if you go off on some rant about how it's not worthless I don't care and I'm going to ignore you.)

At what point does one opinion supersede the other? The pretentious PhD's have a point: they have PhD's. They are certainly more qualified to determine what is or is not artistically worthwhile. On the other hand, they are not all of society. I'm certainly not going to be told what I do or do not, should or should not like by someone completely out of touch with me and my community.

What I propose is this: the photographer of these pictures has every right to call it tasteful art, and any pretentious PhD has every right to agree. Society has every right to call it porn and try to have it removed from public galleries. An artist creates at his or her own risk; it is his or her own responsibility to either create work that is not controversial or contrary to his or her society's values, or else accept the consequences of failing to conform to societal norms. That is not to say that he can't continue to argue that it's not child porn and is tasteful art: only that he shouldn't be surprised (nor should anyone else) if people disagree.

In regards to the artists intent, I'd like to segue a bit here. He knows that this would cause a huge stink. Any publicity is good publicity, right. He has used the picture of the 13 YO naked woman to get publicity. Exploitation, pure and simple.

Someone also mentioned about how the movie "The Exorcist" was an abuse of the child due to her mental anguish from doing the film. I would be interested to see how this 13 year old will be treated at school. This picture will cause her friends and aquaintances to treat her differently.

I can't find a link yet, but on the BBC Newshour this AM there was a rather thoughtful (IMO) commentator who speculated that while having her photo taken might or might not be detrimental to the model, having every media outlet in Australia point at her photo and yell "SHAMEFUL KIDDIE PORN!" is almost certainly going to traumatize her.

Same commentator also pointed out that same photographer and other photographers had had gallery showings of unclothed teenagers in the recent past and nobody peeped. If true, it's not reasonable to assume that this photographer knew this picture would cause controversy.

Just glad this didn't happen in the US -- shows we're not the only country prone to hysterics.

I can't find a link yet, but on the BBC Newshour this AM there was a rather thoughtful (IMO) commentator who speculated that while having her photo taken might or might not be detrimental to the model, having every media outlet in Australia point at her photo and yell "SHAMEFUL KIDDIE PORN!" is almost certainly going to traumatize her.

Same commentator also pointed out that same photographer and other photographers had had gallery showings of unclothed teenagers in the recent past and nobody peeped. If true, it's not reasonable to assume that this photographer knew this picture would cause controversy.

Just glad this didn't happen in the US -- shows we're not the only country prone to hysterics.

Yeah, I also suspect that posing nude isn't likely to be a tenth as traumatic as having people around the world declaring those pictures pornographic. Because, really, the message teenage girls in modern society need is "your body is shameful, and its only use is sexual." Our society is great, huh? :(

And indeed, the articles I've been reading suggest that this photographer frequently shoots nudes, and that many of them have included teenagers without anyone throwing hissy fits. (They also suggest, sadly, that those years-old pictures are now being removed from galleries, even though no one minded them before.)

Also, if it is meant to offend, the way it is offensive, is that it could be seen as porn. Thus part of the artists intent is to produce something that could be perceived as porn, thus by the earlier definitions, making this porn.

You have not shown even a scintilla of proof for this dubious argument. Producing a piece of art that could be perceived as a banana does not make the piece of art a banana.

Opening the percipient's mind to the possibilities of perception is but one of the purposes of art.

So you want to censor my right to say I think a piece of artwork is wrong. I get to declare it all I want. You get to argue that I'm wrong. You don't get to make me not declare it. Or is censorship valid when it is shutting up close minded people?

The difference being, of course, that when my right to think a piece of artwork is legitimate is honored, it gets an exhibition. At that point, people can CHOOSE TO COME TO THE GALLERY and DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH ME, got it?

Now, when YOUR right to say it's wrong is honored and taken as the gospel you seem to wish it were, censorship occurs. Then NOBODY GETS TO SEE THE PIECES AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. When deciding between offending some people & allowing the artwork to defend itself or letting nobody see it and deciding FOR them, guess which way I'm going to lean every time -- and which way I'm going to insist that a "free" society allow the gallery to lean? You do remember freedom, right? Nowhere in the enumerated freedoms you and I enjoy is there a freedom from any potential offense to our sensibilities. Trust me, MY sensibilities are offended by stuff you might take for granted on a daily basis, and the reverse is probably true, too. Does that mean I should waste the time of the judicial system and beg them to act as arbiter because something you think has merit has none to me and in my mind should be illegal? Not no, but hell no.

At what point does one opinion supersede the other? The pretentious PhD's have a point: they have PhD's. They are certainly more qualified to determine what is or is not artistically worthwhile. On the other hand, they are not all of society. I'm certainly not going to be told what I do or do not, should or should not like by someone completely out of touch with me and my community.

Even if those who are "out of touch" ARE the community?

What I propose is this: the photographer of these pictures has every right to call it tasteful art, and any pretentious PhD has every right to agree. Society has every right to call it porn and try to have it removed from public galleries. An artist creates at his or her own risk; it is his or her own responsibility to either create work that is not controversial or contrary to his or her society's values, or else accept the consequences of failing to conform to societal norms. That is not to say that he can't continue to argue that it's not child porn and is tasteful art: only that he shouldn't be surprised (nor should anyone else) if people disagree.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Society can't convert that syllogism. They can call it porn all they want, but there is no "right" to have it removed, only the right to make the attempt through the courts, and that's a slim right as it is.

It comes down to this -- if you're no fan of the art, don't go to the gallery. Until an actual law is broken, you've only got the mob mentality to stand on, and I wouldn't be terribly proud of getting a herd of cattle to moo in unison -- it isn't hard to do.

I find it ironic that many of the people in the censorship camp are also free-market conservatives (or they vote/respect for those who are in addition to being social conservatives). Whatever happened to letting the market decide? In this case, the market of ideas. Once more -- no likey? No lookie.

I can't find a link yet, but on the BBC Newshour this AM there was a rather thoughtful (IMO) commentator who speculated that while having her photo taken might or might not be detrimental to the model, having every media outlet in Australia point at her photo and yell "SHAMEFUL KIDDIE PORN!" is almost certainly going to traumatize her.

Lewis Black said something very much like this with regard to the whole Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" Super Bowl fiasco a few years ago. "It's more damaging to a child to see adults getting so worked up and litigious about something as natural [and fleetingly semi-exposed] as a breast than it is for the child to see the breast itself."

Same commentator also pointed out that same photographer and other photographers had had gallery showings of unclothed teenagers in the recent past and nobody peeped. If true, it's not reasonable to assume that this photographer knew this picture would cause controversy.

Why am I not surprised?

Even if those who are "out of touch" ARE the community?

A select group of individuals with PhD's in artistic venues do not represent the society in which they live.

Nope. Society can't convert that syllogism. They can call it porn all they want, but there is no "right" to have it removed, only the right to make the attempt through the courts, and that's a slim right as it is.

How do you think I meant for them to have it removed? With torches and pitchforks? I'm no barbarian, I understand the need for legal channels to be observed.

It comes down to this -- if you're no fan of the art, don't go to the gallery. Until an actual law is broken, you've only got the mob mentality to stand on, and I wouldn't be terribly proud of getting a herd of cattle to moo in unison -- it isn't hard to do.

In a democratic society, law is determined by its people. Now of course this is done, as I said, through the proper legal channels, which might involve a (legally appointed) judge, a jury of peers, etc.

I find it ironic that many of the people in the censorship camp are also free-market conservatives (or they vote/respect for those who are in addition to being social conservatives). Whatever happened to letting the market decide? In this case, the market of ideas. Once more -- no likey? No lookie.

I'm a free-market conservative? Don't recall ever making that assertion.

And you'll recall I said public galleries, specifically. If the legal channels determine it to not have broken any law, there's nothing they can legally do about displaying it in a private gallery, is there?

Government is the market of ideas.

A select group of individuals with PhD's in artistic venues do not represent the society in which they live.

No. They represent part of society's pinnacle, as everyone they passed on the way to their terminal degree is just as much a part of society as you or I am.

How do you think I meant for them to have it removed? With torches and pitchforks? I'm no barbarian, I understand the need for legal channels to be observed.

The modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks: pundits and popular media. Same shit, different day.

In a democratic society, law is determined by its people. Now of course this is done, as I said, through the proper legal channels, which might involve a (legally appointed) judge, a jury of peers, etc.

Fair enough.

I'm a free-market conservative? Don't recall ever making that assertion.

That's cool, 'cause I didn't say you did. ;) I was just mentioning the irony. You read yourself into it.

And you'll recall I said public galleries, specifically. If the legal channels determine it to not have broken any law, there's nothing they can legally do about displaying it in a private gallery, is there?

Not a blessed thing. Ain't it great?

Government is the market of ideas.

In theory. Many things contribute to making that statement at least partially inaccurate -- money and lobbyists being but one set.

No. They represent part of society's pinnacle, as everyone they passed on the way to their terminal degree is just as much a part of society as you or I am.

But the more specialized they are in a field, the more they lose touch with general ideas of society. An art major has no business making decisions about the best way to encode a program (unless this art major has also spent a lot of time researching computers, but you get my point). They are part of society, but they represent a very specific part. They can't, and shouldn't, speak for everyone.

The modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks: pundits and popular media. Same shit, different day.

Fair enough. I stand by my earlier assertion of "be artistic at your own risk." In any case, my experience with the media has always been that it sides with the artist. It can actually be rather obnoxious: "How dare you question this artist! It's art! You can't challenge it! Artistic license means they can suck ass but you can't not like it!" Mind, that's a hyperbole, but I often feel like that's the message I'm getting from much of the media.

Fair enough.

The upshot would be that (hypothetically) society thinks it's kiddie porn, so they petition a judge, who is influenced by the societal norms which allowed him his position to have some sort of court case, in which a jury of the artist's peers determine the photographs to legally fall under the category of kiddie porn, and thus it is removed from all galleries as being illegal. Or the jury does not rule it kiddie porn, but does rule that they do not want the artist to be sponsored by the government so it is removed from government sponsored galleries. Or etc. and no one cares so they leave it the way it is, and several people are angry and upset and choose not to patronize the galleries in which it is displayed. The end result comes out democratically, neh?

That's cool, 'cause I didn't say you did. ;) I was just mentioning the irony. You read yourself into it.

It's NSG. It's sometimes amazing the lengths to which people will go to subtly accuse his or her opponent of something-or-other to gain the upper hand in the argument. Not that I'm accusing you of doing that. And of course that's not sarcasm. Neither is that...etc. etc.



Not a blessed thing. Ain't it great?

And thus the world turns. But anyways, that's my point: if it's not illegal, no one can do anything about it, but everyone has the right to ask if it's illegal or not, if they want.

In theory. Many things contribute to making that statement at least partially inaccurate -- money and lobbyists being but one set.

Well there is that. One could argue (and I'm not) that those things only contribute to the evolution of ideas. Natural selection at work in your thoughts.

Creepy, isn't it.




Next they'll be saying that ideas could be sentient entities......

He's got a point. Like it or not, how much a piece of any kind of art, visual or otherwise, is worth is ultimately determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. In the end there comes a kind of contradictory divide between the common viewer and the intellectual minority: society decides that a work is not of worth (for whatever reason it is that the society chooses these things). The intellectual minority, however, decides that it is artistically significant and demands that society acknowledge it as such. Thus, people are forced to read books like The Catcher in the Rye, which is culturally obsolete and not very good in the first place, because some group of pretentious PhD's determined it to be "of literary merit." (CitR is an example, which means if you go off on some rant about how it's not worthless I don't care and I'm going to ignore you.)

At what point does one opinion supersede the other? The pretentious PhD's have a point: they have PhD's. They are certainly more qualified to determine what is or is not artistically worthwhile. On the other hand, they are not all of society. I'm certainly not going to be told what I do or do not, should or should not like by someone completely out of touch with me and my community.

What I propose is this: the photographer of these pictures has every right to call it tasteful art, and any pretentious PhD has every right to agree. Society has every right to call it porn and try to have it removed from public galleries. An artist creates at his or her own risk; it is his or her own responsibility to either create work that is not controversial or contrary to his or her society's values, or else accept the consequences of failing to conform to societal norms. That is not to say that he can't continue to argue that it's not child porn and is tasteful art: only that he shouldn't be surprised (nor should anyone else) if people disagree.
No, he doesn't have a point, and frankly neither do you in this instance. Here's why:

1) We are not discussing the relative value of art. We are discussing whether these few images by this one artist are porn or not, and whether, if they are, they are criminal. So all your talk about the effect of PhD's on art opinions mean nothing. Whether the pictures are good or not is not the topic.

2) Your remarks about how people's personal opinions determine whether a thing is porn or not do not address the problem which has been the point of the argument from page one -- i.e. if a work is clearly NOT porn (the David, for example) but a few people find it sexually stimulating, does that make it porn? Fishutopia has just expanded that to include the assertion that even if the artist did not mean it to be porn, if someone else gets off on it, then the artist can be charged with having made porn (I say "charged" because in this instance the porn would be illegal). Now I say both of those notions are nonsensical because a misuse of an item doesn't suddenly become the proper use just because some idiot did it.

3) Considering that the porn allegation in this instance would be illegal porn, do you think that Mr. Henson should be charged and tried as a sex offender just because it might be possible that some sick bastard out there might decide to jack off to those photos? How about LG's hypothetical sick fuck who jacks off to the David? Should the David be taken out of public view because the existence of a few perverts suddenly transforms it into porn? Is that your argument?

My argument is that porn doesn't just happen. A person or people have to make it. If Mr. Henson did not make porn, then his photos are not porn. Public opinion may decide they don't want to see such images in public, but they still are not porn unless they were made to be so. I say they do not have the content necessary for porn, so I do not believe they were made for that purpose. And none of the counter arguments presented so far have convinced me otherwise, because they are all based solely on speculation, supposition and personal responses, rather than a critique of the works.

No, he doesn't have a point, and frankly neither do you in this instance. Here's why:

I have a point. It may not be a relevant point, or a point you agree with, but it is a point nonetheless.

1) We are not discussing the relative value of art. We are discussing whether these few images by this one artist are porn or not, and whether, if they are, they are criminal. So all your talk about the effect of PhD's on art opinions mean nothing. Whether the pictures are good or not is not the topic.

I never discussed how good (or not) the pictures are. My point was that society is the ultimate arbiter as to whether or not art is good (or not). To that end, if society determines that it's kiddie porn, I would imagine that such a decision would decrease its value significantly. The point is, you can call it tasteful art all you want, and the artist can call it tasteful art all he wants, and a group of PhD's can call it art all they want, but if enough people petition, and a judge and/or jury of his peers calls it kiddie porn, he won't be allowed to display it or sell it. So. Argue all you want that it's not porn: it really doesn't matter.

2) Your remarks about how people's personal opinions determine whether a thing is porn or not do not address the problem which has been the point of the argument from page one -- i.e. if a work is clearly NOT porn (the David, for example) but a few people find it sexually stimulating, does that make it porn?

I wasn't aware that other people determined what I can and cannot address in my own thread.

Fishutopia has just expanded that to include the assertion that even if the artist did not mean it to be porn, if someone else gets off on it, then the artist can be charged with having made porn (I say "charged" because in this instance the porn would be illegal). Now I say both of those notions are nonsensical because a misuse of an item doesn't suddenly become the proper use just because some idiot did it.

I never disagreed with this. But that's not my point. My point is that even if the artist doesn't call it porn, if enough people disagree it really doesn't matter what he calls it because he's not going to be able to sell it or display it in any galleries.

3) Considering that the porn allegation in this instance would be illegal porn, do you think that Mr. Henson should be charged and tried as a sex offender just because it might be possible that some sick bastard out there might decide to jack off to those photos? How about LG's hypothetical sick fuck who jacks off to the David? Should the David be taken out of public view because the existence of a few perverts suddenly transforms it into porn? Is that your argument?

He can be charged with whatever the courts choose to bring against him. Whether or not he is convicted is up to a jury of his peers.

So. If the citizens of Italy wanted to remove the David from public view, they could petition the Italian government to remove it, and if the government agrees, than it will be removed. Whether or not the David is obscene is completely irrelevant to that process, and it is also completely irrelevant to my point. Incidentally, Italy will never do that, as they desperately need the tourism.

My argument is that porn doesn't just happen. A person or people have to make it. If Mr. Henson did not make porn, then his photos are not porn. Public opinion may decide they don't want to see such images in public, but they still are not porn unless they were made to be so. I say they do not have the content necessary for porn, so I do not believe they were made for that purpose. And none of the counter arguments presented so far have convinced me otherwise, because they are all based solely on speculation, supposition and personal responses, rather than a critique of the works.

And my point is that I really don't care what your point is, because it's irrelevant to my point. Whether or not is actually is porn does not matter at all if society thinks it's porn and acts accordingly. To that end, it was the photographer's decision to create the art he created, and he is ultimately responsible for the consequences of creating it. Is it necessarily his fault that society (hypothetically) doesn't like his art, and thinks it's kiddie porn? No, not really. But it is his fault that he chose to enter the highly volatile and subjective career of an artist.

Now explain to us all how a "significant section of society" compared to a "smaller, intellectual elite" is not claiming that most people would agree with your views on this subject.
People who try to lie about their own arguments are so tedious because it forces me to have to read their crap over and over to expose their lies.
Well, we agree on something.
This was what you wrote that I was rebutting On what basis do you think that? You admit that many people will disagree with your interpretation
You are trying to show I contradicted myself. You are trying to show I said many will agree, but also said many will disagree. I said some may disagree. Some is not many. The bolding of the quotes clearly shows this. I did say many would agree, and I am not trying to argue I didn't say that.

I suppose, by this reasoning, that if I were to talk about my experiences with men (and you happened to be a man) that would mean I was talking about you personally, even though I've never met you.
Strawman. Also, you are assuming I'm a man.
I was talking about people in general, not you, and that can easily be proven by the fact that I didn't mention you in the remark. It's not my fault if you think everything is about you.
No, you were talking about a specific subset of people, which you obviously thought I was part of, or at least, it was very easy to think that was what you were trying to do. Keep trying to be disingenuous if you want. People can read the thread and decide if it was a dig or not.

More of what can only be called confusion, at best. Here is what you actually said:
In it, you say that a line has to be drawn for mental age, and then talk about how uncertainty on the issue of "maturity" can lead to problems.
Exactly. My example was to show what problems could occur if there was uncertainty, thus strict age based lines are what is needed. We agree. let it go.

Now prove that Henson crossed that line.
WTF? That was a side issue relating to age of consent, it had nothing to do with the pictures.

This, in and of itself, is a flawed standard, because who are you that I should believe that you know anything at all about ducks?
This was why I put my previous statement regarding this kind of response. Every discussion can degrade to "Well, what do you know?". I could do this to every point you raise as well. We choose to have a discussion with each other, we choose to accept that each other can raise general points, that an average human being would have some knowledge of. This discussion is all about opinion. I know enough to have an opinion about ducks.

So I was right. You are proposing to make the perverts of the world the arbiters of social morality. And you do wish to hold one person responsible for what goes on the mind of another person. I see. Yeah, that's fair and just -- and realistic, too. /sarcasm
No. We are discussing if a label "porn" should be attached to a certain piece of work. What is Porn is subjective. When something is subjective, then the final arbiter has to be society. If me and 10 of my friends call a Monet painting rubbish, it suddenly doesn't become rubbish. I'm not saying perverts are the final arbiter, I am saying society is.

You cannot accuse a person of a crime because of what someone else does, unrelated to them. You are trying to condemn Henson for things he has not done.
I have already explained why I think the artwork should be porn. I have an opinion that there was a wish to cause controversy. To cause controversy, he has to make sure the photo has some traits linked with porn. As he is doing that, he is making porn. Obviously a large enough selection of society think so to, as the police shut it down.

Spoken like a true censor.
Most censorship I disagree with. The only part of censorship I agree with, is protecting children from viewing or being involved in the creation of a work. This fits in to that.

I see, so when you make assertions of fact that you cannot support, you should get a bye on that because you said it in a debate and you were talking about something you had no knowledge of anyway? Yeah, I don't think so. If you have any reason to think what you do about Henson, please post links to the sources that gave you the information upon which you based your remarks.
Explain to me how your knowledge is superior. Explain to me how I should accept anything you say. Explain to me why I shouldn't use your standard on you. The police shut the show down. At this point, that mean I have the higher moral ground.

I have asked you to post any public statements from Mr. Henson that made you think he might actually be thinking the way you say he is. You have not.
I have already stated that I have reason to doubt what he will say, and my reasons for it. Show me any proof you have, that what he says is true.

I have asked you to post links to any laws (I didn't even specify country) that say what you say they do about this kind of situation. You have not.
I am not your trained dog who jumps at your beck and call. The police shut it down. It's your job to show what laws mean that the police were wrong.

I have challenged you to back up your assertions about general public opinion, which you could have done with links to statistics, polls or even just articles about this kind of thing. You have not.
As this stuff happens all the time. :rolleyes: I doubt there'll be many reports or stats on this. I can make general statement about what I think the general populaces opinion will be. Instead of saying how can I make these statements, tell me if you think my assumptions are wrong, why they are wrong?

Rather you have refused to justify your assertions, presented your statements variously as fact and as personal opinion as suited you from time to time, twisted and misrepresented your own arguments, and used ad hominem attacks against me while accusing me of doing the same to you.
I have never presented what I have said as facts. This whole discussion is about is it porn. It's purely opinion. There is little fact in this debate, that you or I have presented. The 1 big fact, the elephant in the room to say, is the police shut it down. We can agree to disagree on who attacked who first.

I'm done with you. You're argument is dead, your assertions are unfounded, and your position is clearly indefensible (based on the fact that you have failed to defend it). That's the end, as far as I'm concerned.
So I imagine you wont respond to this.

Well, isn't this just lovely.

But the more specialized they are in a field, the more they lose touch with general ideas of society. An art major has no business making decisions about the best way to encode a program (unless this art major has also spent a lot of time researching computers, but you get my point). They are part of society, but they represent a very specific part. They can't, and shouldn't, speak for everyone.

Why not? Especially why not on art?!? Does not the Art Major (or anyone else) still require trips to the supermarket, the dentist, oil changes (or subway passes, choose your commuter poison) -- in other words, isn't the Art Major a part of the rest of society as much as she is a part of the arts community? Isn't the latter community nested within the former? I honestly can't see where you get the "lose touch with general ideas of society" comes from, unless you're thinking of a specific artist with so much success and wealth (pardon me while I giggle) that they are insulated from many common realities (much in the same way that George Bush Sr. was when he was photo-opped at a supermarket and expressed complete amazement at the bar-code scanners, which had been part and parcel of shopping for at least half a decade by then).

In fact, that's part of the artist's job -- to link the nested communities together through expression. They exist by education in a specific part of society, but are still deeply connected to all of the elements of society they need to function as human beings. There's not enough distance there for you to successfully posit the idea that artists are somehow out of touch.

Politicians, however....*



*Mostly joking. Very few politicians overall are the headline-grabbing, $25k/speech-netting financial cows that are usually represented in rancor against politicians, and the vast majority of THOSE are national politicians in the US Senate/House. Most state politicians and those at most of the municipal levels are really not all that different from anyone else with any other job.

What's wrong with this? It would have prob taken quite a few paedos off the streets (and into the art galleries where they belong).
Also, they missed out there - surely it would have been better to let the thing run, photo'd everyone who went to it, and then raided their houses later.

Personally I think of this as not so much shocking as an artist trying too hard to be shocking.

What's wrong with this? It would have prob taken quite a few paedos off the streets (and into the art galleries where they belong).
Also, they missed out there - surely it would have been better to let the thing run, photo'd everyone who went to it, and then raided their houses later.

Personally I think of this as not so much shocking as an artist trying too hard to be shocking.

So like Marilyn Manson with a Nikon. Got it.

Here's an interesting point on debating technique. Look at just a few modification of your paragraph, to see why it is pointless
My argument is that porn doesn't just happen. A person or people have to make it. If Mr. Henson did make porn, then his photos are porn. Public opinion may decide they don't want to see such images in public, but they still are porn if they were made to be so. I say they do have the content necessary for porn, so I do believe they were made for that purpose. And none of the counter arguments presented so far have convinced me otherwise, because they are all based solely on speculation, supposition and personal responses, rather than a critique of the works.
Less than 10 words changed. As long as you claim I can't say it's porn, you have no power to say it isn't porn.

Here's an interesting point on debating technique. Look at just a few modification of your paragraph, to see why it is pointless

Less than 10 words changed. As long as you claim I can't say it's porn, you have no power to say it isn't porn.

That rather depends.... since 'upskirt' and 'hidden camera' etc count as porn, it can be argued that porn doesn't require (for want of a better word) a 'porn-ist', or a 'pornistic' vision.

As such, your argument falls flat, since the worlds of 'porn' and 'art' are thus made entirely dissimilar by the question of intent.

And, it has to be said, your amendment fails hard anyway, on several points. Not least being - nakedness is neither a requirement for porn, nor the definitive trigger that tips something into the 'porn' category. Also - since it is you that is claiming a work presented as 'art' is NOT art, the onus of proof is on you to prove your case.

Why not? Especially why not on art?!? Does not the Art Major (or anyone else) still require trips to the supermarket, the dentist, oil changes (or subway passes, choose your commuter poison) -- in other words, isn't the Art Major a part of the rest of society as much as she is a part of the arts community? Isn't the latter community nested within the former? I honestly can't see where you get the "lose touch with general ideas of society" comes from, unless you're thinking of a specific artist with so much success and wealth (pardon me while I giggle) that they are insulated from many common realities (much in the same way that George Bush Sr. was when he was photo-opped at a supermarket and expressed complete amazement at the bar-code scanners, which had been part and parcel of shopping for at least half a decade by then)....

Being an artist, or any kind of specialist, isn't just a set of information and studies: it is a shaping of ones ideals and perceptions of the world around him or her. What I mean to say, and what I have already said, is that an artist is part of society. They do have influence in society's perceptions of art - a very strong influence. However, art is not perceived only by its creator, and it is impossible for the artist to make every person who views the artist's work the same way he or she does. The point is, once a piece of art has left the artist's presence, its interpretation is no longer up to the artist, it is up to anyone who views it, and the artist has no say in the matter beyond what was already invested into the piece.
So. Someone who has studied art influences the society around them, but they do not represent that society accurately. That is to say, if everyone voted on a piece of art, the students of art would get to vote several times.

The fundamental point I'm trying to make is this: artists get a say. They do not, however, determine how everyone will perceive, or even how they are supposed to perceive art.

Also - since it is you that is claiming a work presented as 'art' is NOT art, the onus of proof is on you to prove your case.
In this case, there can be no proof either way. The artist says it's art, not porn. Just labelling something doesn't make it so. I have more than once given my opinion on why I think it is porn. I have also said why I doubt the veracity and honesty of Mr Henson's statement that it is art, not porn.

If it is porn or art is pure opinion, pure speculation. Saying there is an onus of proof on either party in this discussion, when proof is impossible, is not reasonable.

In this case, there can be no proof either way. The artist says it's art, not porn. Just labelling something doesn't make it so. I have more than once given my opinion on why I think it is porn. I have also said why I doubt the veracity and honesty of Mr Henson's statement that it is art, not porn.

If it is porn or art is pure opinion, pure speculation. Saying there is an onus of proof on either party in this discussion, when proof is impossible, is not reasonable.

Then it's not porn.

Simple as that. Art is just art, until you can prove otherwise. Nakedness is just nakedness, until you can prove otherwise.

It's not speculation - it's art, UNTIL it's shown to be porn. Which it won't be, because it is not a pornographic piece, it's just a nude.

If proof is impossible, as you claim, then it's just art... because it fits the requirements for art.

Then it's not porn.

Simple as that. Art is just art, until you can prove otherwise. Nakedness is just nakedness, until you can prove otherwise.

It's not speculation - it's art, UNTIL it's shown to be porn. Which it won't be, because it is not a pornographic piece, it's just a nude.

If proof is impossible, as you claim, then it's just art... because it fits the requirements for art.

I believe his point is exactly that it does not have to be shown to be porn. If one interprets it to be porn, then it is porn for that person. If it is porn for a person, anyone can describe it as being porn.

The reasoning behind this is that one does not have to show something to be art. One interprets it as art, and as such, it is. If this is true, it should be equally valid for someone to simply interpret it as being porn, thus making it so. It is intrinsic.

I believe his point is exactly that it does not have to be shown to be porn. If one interprets it to be porn, then it is porn for that person. If it is porn for a person, anyone can describe it as being porn.

The reasoning behind this is that one does not have to show something to be art. One interprets it as art, and as such, it is. If this is true, it should be equally valid for someone to simply interpret it as being porn, thus making it so. It is intrinsic.

Personally, I would disagree with your definition of art. I'd say it's more like 'Something has to be called art by the artist to be art'. Is a sunset art? Or just pretty. But the photo of a sunset IS art.

On the other hand, I don't think that person x calling a nude 'porn', makes that nude porn. I'd argue that porn MUST be explicit in some way, and MUST have sexual arousal as it's prime purpose. A nude doesn't automatically qualify for either of those - and just because someone GETS aroused by a nude, doesn't mean the PRIME purpose of that piece is being realised.

Fishy's problem is he thinks 'porn' is entirely subjective, which doesn't match any legal or linguistic defintion I know for it. And that's why art is not porn and porn is not art... except where they are.

Strawman. Also, you are assuming I'm a man.


Fish, seriously, read what you're quoting before you respond to it. You just look silly when you quote someone saying "if you happened to be a man" and complain that they're making assumptions as to your gender.

I believe his point is exactly that it does not have to be shown to be porn. If one interprets it to be porn, then it is porn for that person. If it is porn for a person, anyone can describe it as being porn.


...which puts us right back to "Michelangelo's David is porn provided someone, somewhere, wants to jack off to it." Do you really see that as a reasonable definition?

Fishy's problem is he thinks 'porn' is entirely subjective, which doesn't match any legal or linguistic defintion I know for it. And that's why art is not porn and porn is not art... except where they are.

The problem is how to classify something that is distinctly both porn and art. Pornographic art. Artistic porn? Either way. When you start introducing those into the system, the line gets blurred. Mind, I'm not saying I think the photographs in question are (or are not) porn. I'm only saying that I can understand why there is controversy.

Ultimately, as I said, I don't think it particularly matters whether or not it's porn. All that matters is whether or not other people think it's porn, as that will determine whether or not he can display (and ultimately, sell it).

...which puts us right back to "Michelangelo's David is porn provided someone, somewhere, wants to jack off to it." Do you really see that as a reasonable definition?

I never said that was my opinion. My opinion is that it really doesn't matter whether it is or not. It only matters what people think about it.

The problem is how to classify something that is distinctly both porn and art. Pornographic art. Artistic porn? Either way. When you start introducing those into the system, the line gets blurred. Mind, I'm not saying I think the photographs in question are (or are not) porn. I'm only saying that I can understand why there is controversy.

Ultimately, as I said, I don't think it particularly matters whether or not it's porn. All that matters is whether or not other people think it's porn, as that will determine whether or not he can display (and ultimately, sell it).

It really doesn't matter if there's a blurred line. The art is art, the porn is porn. Some is arty porn or porny art... but the rest of it isn't.

It really doesn't matter if there's a blurred line. The art is art, the porn is porn. Some is arty porn or porny art... but the rest of it isn't.

But what if th photos in question are arty porn or porny art?

I have a point. It may not be a relevant point, or a point you agree with, but it is a point nonetheless.
I'll call them both points when they enter a context in which they are relevant, then.

I never discussed how good (or not) the pictures are. My point was that society is the ultimate arbiter as to whether or not art is good (or not). To that end, if society determines that it's kiddie porn, I would imagine that such a decision would decrease its value significantly.
Why do you imagine that? Victorian England was the capitol of the golden age of kiddie porn, and works (books and pictures) from that era are highly prized and highly priced, though they don't get much public display. It strikes me that nobody has any information that could support such a supposition about the future of Mr. Henson's photos.

The point is, you can call it tasteful art all you want, and the artist can call it tasteful art all he wants, and a group of PhD's can call it art all they want, but if enough people petition, and a judge and/or jury of his peers calls it kiddie porn, he won't be allowed to display it or sell it. So. Argue all you want that it's not porn: it really doesn't matter.
Actually, it does matter, because it is by arguing such issues that public opinion evolves. If I disagree with the people who say Henson's photos are porn, and if I believe they deserve to be displayed in galleries, I will not get my way by keeping my mouth shut. I might not get it by speaking, either, but the result of speaking is uncertain, while the result of not speaking is guaranteed.

I wasn't aware that other people determined what I can and cannot address in my own thread.
I didn't say anything about what you could or couldn't address. I said your statement made in response to me, did not address the point I was arguing.

I never disagreed with this. But that's not my point. My point is that even if the artist doesn't call it porn, if enough people disagree it really doesn't matter what he calls it because he's not going to be able to sell it or display it in any galleries.
Are you sure of that? Maplethorpe's sex photos (which, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, are arguably clear pornography) still get displayed and are bought and sold often, for very high prices, through very reputable galleries. They are also held in the collections of major museums.

He can be charged with whatever the courts choose to bring against him. Whether or not he is convicted is up to a jury of his peers.
You're dodging the question. I asked you for your opinion. Do you think he should be charged with a sex crime because someone else responded to his work in a certain way, even if he did not intend it that way?

So. If the citizens of Italy wanted to remove the David from public view, they could petition the Italian government to remove it, and if the government agrees, than it will be removed. Whether or not the David is obscene is completely irrelevant to that process, and it is also completely irrelevant to my point. Incidentally, Italy will never do that, as they desperately need the tourism.
More dodging. Again, I asked you for YOUR opinion about the issue, not some shell game with technicalities. Do you or do you not think that someone using the David for sex makes the David a work of porn?

And my point is that I really don't care what your point is, because it's irrelevant to my point. Whether or not is actually is porn does not matter at all if society thinks it's porn and acts accordingly. To that end, it was the photographer's decision to create the art he created, and he is ultimately responsible for the consequences of creating it. Is it necessarily his fault that society (hypothetically) doesn't like his art, and thinks it's kiddie porn? No, not really. But it is his fault that he chose to enter the highly volatile and subjective career of an artist.
I see, so that's your point, is it? I respected you more when I thought you didn't have one at all. Let's boil it down to it's essence: Your argument seems to be that if you decide your neighbor, the midwife, is a witch, she can and should get burned if all the other neighbors feel like lighting a match, and it's her fault anyway for being a midwife.

Well, we agree on something.
This was what you wrote that I was rebutting
You are trying to show I contradicted myself. You are trying to show I said many will agree, but also said many will disagree. I said some may disagree. Some is not many. The bolding of the quotes clearly shows this. I did say many would agree, and I am not trying to argue I didn't say that.
What this clearly shows is that you can't keep track of your own arguments.

Strawman. Also, you are assuming I'm a man.
This:
Fish, seriously, read what you're quoting before you respond to it. You just look silly when you quote someone saying "if you happened to be a man" and complain that they're making assumptions as to your gender.

No, you were talking about a specific subset of people, which you obviously thought I was part of, or at least, it was very easy to think that was what you were trying to do. Keep trying to be disingenuous if you want. People can read the thread and decide if it was a dig or not.
Yes, they certainly can.

Exactly. My example was to show what problems could occur if there was uncertainty, thus strict age based lines are what is needed. We agree. let it go.


WTF? That was a side issue relating to age of consent, it had nothing to do with the pictures.
We don't agree on anything.


This was why I put my previous statement regarding this kind of response. Every discussion can degrade to "Well, what do you know?". I could do this to every point you raise as well. We choose to have a discussion with each other, we choose to accept that each other can raise general points, that an average human being would have some knowledge of. This discussion is all about opinion. I know enough to have an opinion about ducks.
Prove it. Post links to your duck sources. When you say you "know" something, that suggests you have access to facts, and facts are not opinions. They are facts. We cite them to support and/or demonstrate the reasonableness of our opinions. If you base your opinion on a particular thing or condition or circumstance, but you cannot show that the said thing, condition or circumstance actually exists, that seriously damages the value of your opinion.

No. We are discussing if a label "porn" should be attached to a certain piece of work. What is Porn is subjective. When something is subjective, then the final arbiter has to be society. If me and 10 of my friends call a Monet painting rubbish, it suddenly doesn't become rubbish. I'm not saying perverts are the final arbiter, I am saying society is.
And I'm disagreeing with that.

I have already explained why I think the artwork should be porn. I have an opinion that there was a wish to cause controversy. To cause controversy, he has to make sure the photo has some traits linked with porn. As he is doing that, he is making porn.
1) You have already admitted that you have no reason to think he made the pictures to cause controversy, so why are you still bringing up this irrelevant point?

2) It has already been argued by me and others that your criteria for what constitutes "some traits linked to porn" are too broad and vague to be useful. Nakedness doesn't make it porn anymore than being printed on film makes it porn, even though actual porn may also have both those features.

Obviously a large enough selection of society think so to, as the police shut it down.
Oh, really? Another assertion of fact? You have proof that the police shut it down due to majority public opinion? Was there a ballot referendum about it in Australia? Are you sure that shutting it down was not just a procedural step initiated by a court order pending investigation?

Most censorship I disagree with.
But you agree with the censorship you like.

The only part of censorship I agree with, is protecting children from viewing or being involved in the creation of a work. This fits in to that.
"The creation of a work"? Any work? Of any kind? Yeah, I was right about your criteria being vague and over-broad.

Explain to me how your knowledge is superior. Explain to me how I should accept anything you say. Explain to me why I shouldn't use your standard on you. The police shut the show down. At this point, that mean I have the higher moral ground.
I gave real world factual examples that anyone can google to check if I'm right about what I'm saying. What have you given, besides complaints about being called to back up your arguments?

And like I said, in advance of a court's verdict, the shutting down of the show means nothing. Plenty of art shows are shut down and then reopened later. So no, that doesn't mean you have "the higher moral ground."

Also, I enjoy the way, having lost the ground of logic and fact, you now appeal to morals. Adorable. I wonder what you'll resort to next.

I have already stated that I have reason to doubt what he will say, and my reasons for it. Show me any proof you have, that what he says is true.
I see, so you don't hold to the proposition that a person is innocent until proven guilty, eh? You accused him of dishonesty. As his accuser, the burden of proof is on you.

I am not your trained dog who jumps at your beck and call. The police shut it down. It's your job to show what laws mean that the police were wrong.
No, it isn't. Down. Heel.

As this stuff happens all the time. :rolleyes: I doubt there'll be many reports or stats on this. I can make general statement about what I think the general populaces opinion will be. Instead of saying how can I make these statements, tell me if you think my assumptions are wrong, why they are wrong?
I already have, several times over.

I have never presented what I have said as facts.
Yes, you have. You have asserted as facts statements about Mr. Henson's motivations and behavior and about what other people's opinions are.

This whole discussion is about is it porn. It's purely opinion.
No, it isn't, as has already been widely discussed here.

There is little fact in this debate, that you or I have presented.
There would be more fact if you would look at what I posted and if you would find the sources to back up your assertions.

The 1 big fact, the elephant in the room to say, is the police shut it down.
Which means nothing until a court issues a final decision.

We can agree to disagree on who attacked who first.
There was only one shooter.

So I imagine you wont respond to this.
Wrong again.

I'll call them both points when they enter a context in which they are relevant, then.

You don't actually get to decide the definition of "point." They are points, relevant or not.

Why do you imagine that? Victorian England was the capitol of the golden age of kiddie porn, and works (books and pictures) from that era are highly prized and highly priced, though they don't get much public display. It strikes me that nobody has any information that could support such a supposition about the future of Mr. Henson's photos.

That is a different context, and I'm fairly certain you're aware of that. Victorian art is valued primarily for its rarity. Victorian style art is probably valued as a substitute for actual Victorian art.

In any case, our society accepts them. There is probably a reason for this, and I couldn't tell you that reason, but there it is: Victorian art is socially acceptable.

As for public display, you are patently wrong. Victorian style art is used as wall paper, backgrounds for commercials, sets for contemporary movies, and studied by any number of people from grade school to university classes. If nothing else, you can Google "Victorian art" and see any number of pieces. How is that not public display?

And it may be that some time from now the photos in question will be in high demand. But that is only speculation and has no bearing on how they will be received presently.


Actually, it does matter, because it is by arguing such issues that public opinion evolves. If I disagree with the people who say Henson's photos are porn, and if I believe they deserve to be displayed in galleries, I will not get my way by keeping my mouth shut. I might not get it by speaking, either, but the result of speaking is uncertain, while the result of not speaking is guaranteed.

Fair enough.

The larger point, though, was that one individual's opinion does not make it art, or porn: you opinion only matters insomuch that it influences others'.

I didn't say anything about what you could or couldn't address. I said your statement made in response to me, did not address the point I was arguing.

You'll notice my point was that your point is irrelevant. So no, I did not directly address your point. Because it's irrelevant.

Are you sure of that? Maplethorpe's sex photos (which, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, are arguably clear pornography) still get displayed and are bought and sold often, for very high prices, through very reputable galleries. They are also held in the collections of major museums.

Those are not kiddie porn. Which is the context we're talking about, and you know that. This specific case involves a minor, so if these photos are deemed to be porn, it means they cannot be legally displayed.

Maplethorpe's photos are a different matter, as it did not involve a minor.

And I imagine there was an amount of controversy involving them as well. I don't know, though. Just a guess.

You're dodging the question. I asked you for your opinion. Do you think he should be charged with a sex crime because someone else responded to his work in a certain way, even if he did not intend it that way?

Specifically, you asked whether or not my argument was that he should be arrested if an individual uses the photographs as porn. The answer is no, that is not what I'm arguing. Once again: it doesn't matter whether or not I think he should be. What matters is whether or not he will be.

As to whether or not I do think he should, I don't particularly have an opinion, as I don't particularly think it matters.

More dodging. Again, I asked you for YOUR opinion about the issue, not some shell game with technicalities. Do you or do you not think that someone using the David for sex makes the David a work of porn?

I wasn't dodging. I didn't think it relevant so I chose to address the more relevant issue at hand.

I still don't think my opinion is relevant, so I will continue to instead address the relevant issue at hand.

I see, so that's your point, is it? I respected you more when I thought you didn't have one at all.

Why, exactly, do I care if you respect me or not?

Let's boil it down to it's essence: Your argument seems to be that if you decide your neighbor, the midwife, is a witch, she can and should get burned if all the other neighbors feel like lighting a match, and it's her fault anyway for being a midwife.

That's not the essence at all. Please stop deliberately misunderstanding my point.

I never said he should, only that he could. It is not his fault, but it is his responsibility to understand the risks involved in his career.

Your analogy would be more appropriate if the midwife was aware of the witch-burning tendencies of her neighbors and then made a conscious decision to act decidedly like a witch in front of them. Should they have burned her? No. Is it her fault? No. Should she have been more careful? Yes. Would I still argue in her defense? Yes.

But what if th photos in question are arty porn or porny art?

Then let's see that demonstrated. You'd have to show that there was the prime purpose of sexual arousal, and that the material was explicit.

It should be fairly easy, if the 'art' in question is 'porn'.

Then let's see that demonstrated. You'd have to show that there was the prime purpose of sexual arousal, and that the material was explicit.

It should be fairly easy, if the 'art' in question is 'porn'.

I didn't say they were. I said what if they were.

You don't actually get to decide the definition of "point." They are points, relevant or not.

But I do get to decide what I choose to show respect to, and how much respect.

That is a different context, and I'm fairly certain you're aware of that. Victorian art is valued primarily for its rarity. Victorian style art is probably valued as a substitute for actual Victorian art.
No, actually, Victorian PORN (not art) is in printed/published form and is widely available, as copies of the originals, which themselves were published in copies, as books and prints and photographs.

Victorian ART is even less rare. Galleries, museums and private collections are full of it, full of works by hundreds of artists.

In any case, our society accepts them. There is probably a reason for this, and I couldn't tell you that reason, but there it is: Victorian art is socially acceptable.
Again, wrong. Victorian child porn is PORN, not ART. I said nothing at all about art, I was clearly talking about porn. Victorian child porn is typically less graphic than illegal modern such stuff, but it is NOT really socially acceptable. It is just available and freely bought and sold -- in private transactions and in either private or academic collections. But it is almost never publicly displayed because it is child porn.

As for public display, you are patently wrong. Victorian style art is used as wall paper, backgrounds for commercials, sets for contemporary movies, and studied by any number of people from grade school to university classes. If nothing else, you can Google "Victorian art" and see any number of pieces. How is that not public display?
Do you know the difference between the words "art" and "pornography"? Kindly show me where I talked about Victorian art, as opposed to porn. You can't, because I said "porn," not "art."

And it may be that some time from now the photos in question will be in high demand. But that is only speculation and has no bearing on how they will be received presently.
And everything you said on this matter is speculation, as well. You're the one predicting the future. I am pointing to past examples of similar situations as an arguably more rational basis on which to try to predict the future, or else as a reason not to try to predict the future.

Fair enough.

The larger point, though, was that one individual's opinion does not make it art, or porn: you opinion only matters insomuch that it influences others'.

And that goes right back to my argument against letting a minority of people who might find any non-porn work to be sexually stimulating be the ones who determine that it is, indeed, porn. Fish's argument is that, if a work could be found sexually stimulating by someone, then it is porn and always was. He doesn't say "if everyone finds it so," only if someone does. So how few someone's does it take to make the David be porn?

You'll notice my point was that your point is irrelevant. So no, I did not directly address your point. Because it's irrelevant.
Then why did you respond to it at all, since it was relevant to what Fishutopia was saying, even if it wasn't relevant to what you were saying (which I dispute, btw, but whatever; if you feel like dropping the argument, don't let me stop you)?

Those are not kiddie porn. Which is the context we're talking about, and you know that. This specific case involves a minor, so if these photos are deemed to be porn, it means they cannot be legally displayed.
You are putting the cart before the horse. In order for them to be illegal child porn, they must first be shown to be porn at all. Because of that, a broader conversation about porn in general is appropriate. Also, the law restricts public display of porn precisely because children might see it, and that does affect displays of Maplethorpe's pictures.

Maplethorpe's photos are a different matter, as it did not involve a minor.

And I imagine there was an amount of controversy involving them as well. I don't know, though. Just a guess.
Why guess, when you have the internet at your fingertips? If you did a quick google (as you suggested I do, above), you would know for a fact that there was a HUGE dust-up about Maplethorpe in the 1980s, I think it was, starting with a retrospective at, I think it was the Institute of Contemporary Art in Chicago (I may not be remembering the museum's name perfectly). Exhibitions at major museums and galleries were shut down right and left. It launched a national debate on censorship in the US. Congress and the courts got involved. Eventually, the courts ruled more or less in favor of the exhibitors, and the original museum exhibiton was reopened with new signage and some more partition walls. It even toured internationally. The controversial works were published as books and prints and subsequent sales put millions of dollars into the Maplethorpe estate.

Yay, censorship, eh?


Specifically, you asked whether or not my argument was that he should be arrested if an individual uses the photographs as porn. The answer is no, that is not what I'm arguing. Once again: it doesn't matter whether or not I think he should be. What matters is whether or not he will be.

As to whether or not I do think he should, I don't particularly have an opinion, as I don't particularly think it matters.
The bolded part matters to him, of course. However, I think it does not matter so much in the more theoretical debate we are having here. In this context, I think your opinion matters more.

I wasn't dodging. I didn't think it relevant so I chose to address the more relevant issue at hand.

I still don't think my opinion is relevant, so I will continue to instead address the relevant issue at hand.
And I will still continue to be uninterested. You and I have different ideas of what this conversation is about.

Why, exactly, do I care if you respect me or not?
I don't know. Do you? I had been assuming that you didn't.

That's not the essence at all. Please stop deliberately misunderstanding my point.
If I'm misunderstanding you, perhaps you should try clarifying your argument.

I never said he should, only that he could. It is not his fault, but it is his responsibility to understand the risks involved in his career.
Who says he doesn't?

Your analogy would be more appropriate if the midwife was aware of the witch-burning tendencies of her neighbors and then made a conscious decision to act decidedly like a witch in front of them. Should they have burned her? No. Is it her fault? No. Should she have been more careful? Yes. Would I still argue in her defense? Yes.
The relative awareness of the midwife of how bigoted her neighbors are only matters if you are going to make it her fault for not being in conformity with their prejudices. You can't have it both ways. You say it's not her fault, but she should have been more careful so as to avoid controversy. Doesn't being more careful to avoid controversy imply that she carries some responsibility to act in a way that won't offend her neighbors? And if she carries that responsibility, how is it not her fault if she fails to fulfill it?

I didn't say they were. I said what if they were.

Then they would be botha rt and porn. But we have yet to see such an assertion being actually supported by the evidence.

What we SEEM to have, is an instant over-reaction. Knee-jerk censorship as a quick salve to the risk of offending someone.

What this clearly shows is that you can't keep track of your own arguments.This would be easy to prove, if it were true. Quote me where I said many people will disagree, and then also said many people will agree, in context. You wont be able to. I have kept track of my arguments, especially when you have tried to misrepresent them.
We don't agree on anything.But yet, in this thread we have both said age of consent is, and needs to be set at an arbitrary point. If we disagree on one thing, it doesn't mean we have to disagree on all points. These 2 things show that you are purely focused on "winning" the debate at all costs, rather than debating the points raised.
Prove it.{More stuff about prove it} Opinion is unprovable. As it is subjective. I can not say your Opinion that it is not porn is wrong. As you can't say my opinion is wrong. Either of us can say, in our opinion the other person opinion is flawed, or it's a minority opinion.
But, here's some sources to show some other peoples opinions on this.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Reviews/Bill-Henson/2005/04/26/1114462034805.html
This shows he has a history of "sexually charged" artwork.
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/-bill-hensson.html
A quote from this "Why are erotic photos of naked 13 year old bodies a crime?" Even a pro-Henson article is referring to the artwork as being erotic. Erotic and naked is definately fulfilling more of the traits that make something porn. It may be arty porn, or porny art, but it's looking like porn.
And I'm disagreeing with that.
If society isn't the final arbiter, who should be? Considering that you have likened the court system to the modern day equivalent of an angry mob, and used a witch hunt analogy elsewhere, I think I get an insight of what you think of the populace and it's uneducated opinion.
1) You have already admitted that you have no reason to think he made the pictures to cause controversy, so why are you still bringing up this irrelevant point? I did? Please quote me where I said this. I'm amazed by the amount of times you know what I have said better than I do. I guess that's how you know 100% sure that Henson wasn't making porn, or even arty porn, but just art, due to this incredible knowledge of other peoples thoughts. Sometimes when they didn't even realise themselves they thought that.
"The creation of a work"? Any work? Of any kind? Yeah, I was right about your criteria being vague and over-broad.I'll give you that point. I should have written the creation or viewing of a work that could be physically, mentally or emotionally harmful to the child.
I gave real world factual examples that anyone can google to check if I'm right about what I'm saying. What have you given, besides complaints about being called to back up your arguments?This is not proof. "A guy did this piece of work. It might be porn but this person said it wasn't", How hard is it to accept opinions can't be proven.
Also, I enjoy the way, having lost the ground of logic and fact, you now appeal to morals. Adorable. I wonder what you'll resort to next.
I like how you claim a victory you haven't earned. You are the one who has kept not using logic, and trying to suggest you can have hard facts in an argument on who's opinion is right.

You ask me to prove that Henson's intent was to cause controversy. I, like any human, can make judgements on someones motives. Any basic psych course will tell you that what someone says is there motivation is not necessarily true.
Mao called his genocide of Chinese Intellectuals the great leap forward. By your standard, Mao called it that, he's the only one who can know, so it must be true.
To reiterate what another poster said. It's pretty much accepted Mapplethorpe art had a porn aspect, he didn't use underage models though, so it is not relevant to this debate

But I do get to decide what I choose to show respect to, and how much respect.

My point remains that my points are points, whether you respect them or not.


No, actually, Victorian PORN (not art) is in printed/published form and is widely available, as copies of the originals, which themselves were published in copies, as books and prints and photographs.

I misunderstood what you were arguing. I thought you meant to say artistic porn, or pornographic art.

Which, by the way, I'm sure it was. You call it porn, sure, but it was still painted by an artist.

So, is it porn? Or is it art?

Again, wrong. Victorian child porn is PORN, not ART. I said nothing at all about art, I was clearly talking about porn. Victorian child porn is typically less graphic than illegal modern such stuff, but it is NOT really socially acceptable. It is just available and freely bought and sold -- in private transactions and in either private or academic collections. But it is almost never publicly displayed because it is child porn.

A) I'm not entirely sure contemporary laws apply to paintings or photographs made before the laws were enacted.
B) What's your point? This is not Victorian England.
C) My point still stands: it is valued for its rarity, not necessarily for its artistic merit.
D) It may be valued for its artistic merit, as pictures were significantly harder to come by in that day, since most had to be hand-painted. To that end, all porn from that day could arguable be called art, and therefore worthy of collecting, with a few exceptions of very fragile (and thus, rare) photographs.
E) What's your point? I have no idea what you're trying to prove by bringing this up.

Do you know the difference between the words "art" and "pornography"? Kindly show me where I talked about Victorian art, as opposed to porn. You can't, because I said "porn," not "art."

A misunderstanding. I apologize.

To be fair you said "works", rather than "art" or "porn" specifically. I thought you meant to imply that many artistic works from that era contained nude children.

And everything you said on this matter is speculation, as well.

Well, yes. That's what I said.

You're the one predicting the future. I am pointing to past examples of similar situations as an arguably more rational basis on which to try to predict the future, or else as a reason not to try to predict the future.

How a society from a hundred years ago with distinctly different values reacted to what you called specifically child pornography has no relevance to how contemporary society will react to photographs that not specifically, but possibly misconstrued as child pornography.

Likewise, our contemporary reaction to what happened a hundred years ago and the products from that time have no relevance to contemporary reaction to a work done presently.

And that goes right back to my argument against letting a minority of people who might find any non-porn work to be sexually stimulating be the ones who determine that it is, indeed, porn. Fish's argument is that, if a work could be found sexually stimulating by someone, then it is porn and always was. He doesn't say "if everyone finds it so," only if someone does. So how few someone's does it take to make the David be porn?

Why are you arguing with me about this? I never once said I agreed with Fish. I specifically do not agree with Fish. I have never once made the assertion that if enough people believe something to be porn it becomes porn.

Then why did you respond to it at all, since it was relevant to what Fishutopia was saying, even if it wasn't relevant to what you were saying (which I dispute, btw, but whatever; if you feel like dropping the argument, don't let me stop you)?

You asserted that the thread was discussing one thing. I disagreed and pointed out that the discussion of this thread is not what you supposed, and furthermore that the discussion of this thread is whatever I choose it to be, as it is my thread.

You are putting the cart before the horse. In order for them to be illegal child porn, they must first be shown to be porn at all.

I have never once said anything that indicates that I disagree with this statement.

Because of that, a broader conversation about porn in general is appropriate.

I disagree. Defining porn to the limited audience of this thread does not affect (or negligibly affects) the rest of the world's perception of the photographs in question. IE: If they think it's porn, and act accordingly, it does not matter whether or not it is porn, as he will have already been penalized as if it were porn.

Also, the law restricts public display of porn precisely because children might see it, and that does affect displays of Maplethorpe's pictures.

But not in nearly the same way as a definition of porn of the photographs in question would affect Henson's ability to display and sell his work. Maplethorpe's pictures can still be privately displayed and purchased, and it's possible they may even be publicly displayed in appropriate forums. However, if Henson's photographs are determined to be porn, they may not be purchased or displayed publicly or privately.

Why guess, when you have the internet at your fingertips?

Because I'm lazy and I don't care enough.

If you did a quick google (as you suggested I do, above), you would know for a fact that there was a HUGE dust-up about Maplethorpe in the 1980s, I think it was, starting with a retrospective at, I think it was the Institute of Contemporary Art in Chicago (I may not be remembering the museum's name perfectly). Exhibitions at major museums and galleries were shut down right and left. It launched a national debate on censorship in the US. Congress and the courts got involved. Eventually, the courts ruled more or less in favor of the exhibitors, and the original museum exhibiton was reopened with new signage and some more partition walls. It even toured internationally. The controversial works were published as books and prints and subsequent sales put millions of dollars into the Maplethorpe estate.

There was a controversy with Maplethorpe's work, just like there is a controversy with the Henson photographs. My point is that there is a blatant historical precedent that Henson should have, and probably is, aware of, so it should be no surprise at all that Henson's works have raised controversy.

What's your point?

And the controversy gave Maplethorpe enough publicity to make millions, which is rather supportive of Fish's argument: Henson is making controversy on purpose. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree), mind.

Yay, censorship, eh?

I'm not sure censorship is the relevant issue. The illegality of child pornography is not censorship so much as discouraging behavior that is potentially devastating to a child's psyche.

If Henson made child porn, it is a patently illegal act. If he didn't, he gets free publicity.

The bolded part matters to him, of course. However, I think it does not matter so much in the more theoretical debate we are having here. In this context, I think your opinion matters more.

Why does my opinion on the subject matter? It certainly won't affect what you, or anyone else on NSG, decide.

I'm not trying to share my opinion, nor do I particularly want to. I was making a point that is completely separate from what anyone's opinion is.

And I will still continue to be uninterested. You and I have different ideas of what this conversation is about.

Since it's my thread, I would imagine that my conversation is the one that matters.

I don't know. Do you? I had been assuming that you didn't.

Then what was the point of telling me, if you already knew I didn't care?

It wouldn't be an attempt to assert intellectual superiority over me by implying that your respect is something I should be coveting as a supposed intellectual inferior, would it?

If I'm misunderstanding you, perhaps you should try clarifying your argument.

I've already restated my argument several times in multiple ways. I'm not sure how it could me more clear, short of hiring the guy from Thank You for Smoking to do it for me.

Who says he doesn't?

Certainly not me. I only said that he should. I never stated whether I believed he did or did not.

I believe it is Fish who is asserting that he is in fact very aware and is using it to his distinct advantage in a morally questionable way.

The relative awareness of the midwife of how bigoted her neighbors are only matters if you are going to make it her fault for not being in conformity with their prejudices. You can't have it both ways. You say it's not her fault, but she should have been more careful so as to avoid controversy. Doesn't being more careful to avoid controversy imply that she carries some responsibility to act in a way that won't offend her neighbors? And if she carries that responsibility, how is it not her fault if she fails to fulfill it?

It is her responsibility to understand the social norms if she wishes to be accepted into them. Likewise it is the responsibility of an artist to understand social norms if he or she wishes to avoid the kind of controversy Henson is involved in which could possibly be detrimental to his career.

They are not, however, responsible for creating the social norms to which they conform. Where is the contradiction?

A quote from this "Why are erotic photos of naked 13 year old bodies a crime?" Even a pro-Henson article is referring to the artwork as being erotic. Erotic and naked is definately fulfilling more of the traits that make something porn.

Not at all. 'Erotic' doesn't necessarily equate to explicit, or even to making sexual arousal the prime purpose. 'Erotic' describes the nature of the pictures, to one/some observer(s).

The pieces seem to be mainly studies in light and shade - shadowy figures partially lit against black backgrounds? Almost like Caravaggio, actually. You can argue that the work is ABOUT sexuality. You can argue that the artist deliberately discusses things of the flesh - the 'erotic'. But the work isn't explicit. If anything - the work is a dialogue about the conflicts this between-generations-age faces... almost sexual, almost children. The prime purpose seems to be awareness, not arousal. It's almost the exact opposite of porn.

<snip>

When I saw that you had posted I was worried you had already replied to my last post and I was about to be pissed that you'd done it so quickly.

When I saw that you had posted I was worried you had already replied to my last post and I was about to be pissed that you'd done it so quickly.

No. I was just responding to Fishy, again. :) Sorry to disappoint. (Not disappointed, maybe)... :)

This would be easy to prove, if it were true. Quote me where I said many people will disagree, and then also said many people will agree, in context. You wont be able to. I have kept track of my arguments, especially when you have tried to misrepresent them.
Sigh. Are you one of those people who thinks that if they deny something was said, the person who said it will believe you? I already explained why I used the word "many," not two pages ago. I will not explain it again.

But yet, in this thread we have both said age of consent is, and needs to be set at an arbitrary point. If we disagree on one thing, it doesn't mean we have to disagree on all points. These 2 things show that you are purely focused on "winning" the debate at all costs, rather than debating the points raised.
Once again, we disagree. I never said that age of consent is set at an "arbitrary" point. I said it is set at a clear and non-subjective point. It is not arbitrary. In fact, in an earlier post, I mentioned the rationale behind it. I do not expect to "win" anything against you, because you are just not responsive to what is actually posted. I am just not going to let you say things that are not true. We do not agree on the side topic of age of consent laws. We don't agree on the facts of the laws, and we don't agree on how they would work in the kind of situation under discussion.

Opinion is unprovable. As it is subjective. I can not say your Opinion that it is not porn is wrong. As you can't say my opinion is wrong. Either of us can say, in our opinion the other person opinion is flawed, or it's a minority opinion.
But, here's some sources to show some other peoples opinions on this.
At least you looked something up. Little steps, I guess.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Reviews/Bill-Henson/2005/04/26/1114462034805.html
This shows he has a history of "sexually charged" artwork.
"Sexually charged" =/= porn.
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/-bill-hensson.html
A quote from this "Why are erotic photos of naked 13 year old bodies a crime?" Even a pro-Henson article is referring to the artwork as being erotic. Erotic and naked is definately fulfilling more of the traits that make something porn. It may be arty porn, or porny art, but it's looking like porn.
Nice cherrypicking. Let's take a look at the context:
from the article:
Hetty Johnston, founder and executive director of Bravehearts, a child sexual assault action group, says she knows what 's going on. She has called for Bill Henson and the Roslyn Oxley 9 gallery to be prosecuted over the images. This is her argument:

It's child exploitation, it's criminal activity and it should be prosecuted, both the photographer Bill Henson ... but also the gallery because these are clearly images that are sexually exploiting young children They are clearly illegal child pornography images, it's not about art at all, it's a crime and I hope they are prosecuted.

Why is it child exploitation? Not art? The photos of naked kids are being shown in an art gallery not in an adult shop or on a porn site. Why are erotic photos of naked 13 year old bodies a crime? Prosecuted for an image of a young topless girl expressing her sexuality as well as the awkwardness and the “letting go of childhood. These girls and boys are becoming sexual beings in a dark world. So what makes these images illegal child pornography?
The article is actually quite a good starter for a debate about censorship of the arts in general.

If society isn't the final arbiter, who should be?
I've already answered this, more than once.
Considering that you have likened the court system to the modern day equivalent of an angry mob, and used a witch hunt analogy elsewhere, I think I get an insight of what you think of the populace and it's uneducated opinion.
When did I do any such thing?

I did? Please quote me where I said this.
Here you go:
<snip>

It's going to court. If his intent was to cause controversy, do you think he's going to tell the truth now? I have no way of knowing his intent was to cause controversy, but you have no way of knowing that he wasn't intending to make porn either.

<snip>
emphasis added.

To which I replied:
<snip>

'Nuff said. Thank you for admitting on this one point that you don't know what you are talking about.

<snip>

I'm amazed by the amount of times you know what I have said better than I do.
Yeah, it is pretty amazing.

I guess that's how you know 100% sure that Henson wasn't making porn, or even arty porn, but just art, due to this incredible knowledge of other peoples thoughts. Sometimes when they didn't even realise themselves they thought that.
When did I say it 100% wasn't porn? All I have said is that, in my opinion, it is not porn, and that the arguments and criteria of people who say otherwise are not sufficient to change my mind. I then have gone on to critique those arguments. As to Mr. Henson's actual work, I will hold my personal opinion and wait to see what the courts say.

I'll give you that point. I should have written the creation or viewing of a work that could be physically, mentally or emotionally harmful to the child.
Thank you.

This is not proof. "A guy did this piece of work. It might be porn but this person said it wasn't", How hard is it to accept opinions can't be proven.
It's very hard to accept when they are what is being used to accuse a man of a serious crime.

I like how you claim a victory you haven't earned. You are the one who has kept not using logic, and trying to suggest you can have hard facts in an argument on who's opinion is right.
Sez you. I'll leave that to other readers to decide.

Oh, and if opinion can't be proven, how can you know that one is right and another wrong?

You ask me to prove that Henson's intent was to cause controversy. I, like any human, can make judgements on someones motives. Any basic psych course will tell you that what someone says is there motivation is not necessarily true.
Mao called his genocide of Chinese Intellectuals the great leap forward. By your standard, Mao called it that, he's the only one who can know, so it must be true.
In other words, you'll just stick with the story you made up.
To reiterate what another poster said. It's pretty much accepted Mapplethorpe art had a porn aspect, he didn't use underage models though, so it is not relevant to this debate
Once again, that was me. You really do need to start paying attention to the thread.

And it is relevant because, as I told RhynoD, before you can charge illegal porn, you must first prove porn, so a more general discussion of porn is appropriate.

My point remains that my points are points, whether you respect them or not.


The hard slogging labor of reading the story of this thread back to Fishutopia is making me tired. I'll address your long post over the weekend.

Not at all. 'Erotic' doesn't necessarily equate to explicit, or even to making sexual arousal the prime purpose. 'Erotic' describes the nature of the pictures, to one/some observer(s).

The pieces seem to be mainly studies in light and shade - shadowy figures partially lit against black backgrounds? Almost like Caravaggio, actually. You can argue that the work is ABOUT sexuality. You can argue that the artist deliberately discusses things of the flesh - the 'erotic'. But the work isn't explicit. If anything - the work is a dialogue about the conflicts this between-generations-age faces... almost sexual, almost children. The prime purpose seems to be awareness, not arousal. It's almost the exact opposite of porn.
In fact, the more I look at the pictures in one of Fish's links, the more I do think of it as the opposite of porn. The still passivity of the figures. The obscure lighting. The totally still emptiness of their hands, not even resting on anything. My belief becomes stronger and stronger that these pictures are not erotica. Makes me wonder what kind of pervs are running Australia these days.

Sigh. Are you one of those people who thinks that if they deny something was said, the person who said it will believe you? No. As everything "said" is in a written form, it is easy to prove. I notice the lack of a quote, thus you can't prove it, but wont admit your error, instead you'll say you can't be bothered and then give some more misrepresentation.
Fish's argument is that, if a work could be found sexually stimulating by someone, then it is porn and always was. He doesn't say "if everyone finds it so," only if someone does. So how few someone's does it take to make the David be porn?No, my argument is not that. Porn is a highly subjective thing, that if it is ever critical if something is, or isn't porn, it is decided by courts, who get their lead from their perceived opinion of the opinion that a large section of society would have."Sexually charged" =/= porn.Exactly the response I expected. Tell me what you think is needed to be assessed as porn. If society isn't the final arbiter, who should be?I've already answered this, more than once.I've already answered this, more than once.
I can't see where. Please humour me, and repeat the answer then. Here you go:I have no way of knowing his intent was to cause controversy, but you have no way of knowing that he wasn't intending to make porn either. In context, I was using it to show that both parties, you and I, are just saying opinions.

It's very hard to accept when they are what is being used to accuse a man of a serious crime.The thing is, what is wrong or right in any society is actually a matter of opinion, that then gets codified in to laws. The opinions that are laws, while formally decided upon by politicians and the judicial system, is generally very subject to the court of public opinion.Oh, and if opinion can't be proven, how can you know that one is right and another wrong?
No-one can know. You and I both think our opinion is superior. Your opinion, and mine, are both irrelevant, unless, by incredible chance, we are called up to be on the jury. If everyone accepted that, this board would be very silent though.In other words, you'll just stick with the story you made up. Just like you are sticking to yours. I can't see the relevance.Once again, that was me. You really do need to start paying attention to the thread. The post is there. With regards to what i was saying, who posted it wasn't critical. I'm sure if it matters to someone they'll remember, or check it up anyway. I have reread parts of this thread often enough, that I chose not to do it again. A sign of a weak debate is picking at tiny points like that, which do nothing to advance the debate.
And it is relevant because, as I told RhynoD, before you can charge illegal porn, you must first prove porn, so a more general discussion of porn is appropriate.
Because porn is subjective, the proof the court will use, will be the court of public opinion. As posted earlier, the same claim can be made. Henson is saying it is not porn. It does has some of the traits of porn. Nudity and eroticism. Before you go off on a tangent and again try to suggest I've said something I haven't, I am not saying all nudes are porn. I also known that porn can exist where people are wearing a significant degree of clothing.

Am I the only one who thinks that simply calling something art is completely meaningless!? I could dance around naked throwing shit up in the air and call it art, and there would be absolutely no meaningful reason why you could say that it isn't art. I could easily make up some vague explanation tenuously linking it to some boring sociological concept and people would immediately accept it, and even if I didn't give an explanation for it others would, like the very fact of it being completely inartistic is artistic in itself, and challenging are "preconceptions of what art is".

Am I the only one who thinks that simply calling something art is completely meaningless!? I could dance around naked throwing shit up in the air and call it art, and there would be absolutely no meaningful reason why you could say that it isn't art. I could easily make up some vague explanation tenuously linking it to some boring sociological concept and people would immediately accept it, and even if I didn't give an explanation for it others would, like the very fact of it being completely inartistic is artistic in itself, and challenging are "preconceptions of what art is".

I agree with almost everything you say, except the conclusion you apparently draw from it.

Art is about perception. When I present to you my perception, it's art. We might not agree over whether it is any GOOD, but it would be art. So - my front room is just my front room, but when I bring you in through the door and say this piece is called "A Living Space", my front room is suddenly art.

I don't see that as meaningless, or a weakness. To me, it's a strength.

But, art is also about participation, and my 'art' would need you to participate to be complete. That's where you get to make your value judgement about whether my front room satisfies what YOU need in art.

Art is about perception. When I present to you my perception, it's art. We might not agree over whether it is any GOOD, but it would be art. So - my front room is just my front room, but when I bring you in through the door and say this piece is called "A Living Space", my front room is suddenly art.

I don't see that as meaningless, or a weakness. To me, it's a strength.


Yes but it may not actually be your perception at all. I might say that me dancing around naked throwing shit in the air is my perception on the nature of society in the modern consumerist west, and that would be enough to be called art, even if I didn't mean it and it wasn't my perception at all.


But, art is also about participation, and my 'art' would need you to participate to be complete. That's where you get to make your value judgement about whether my front room satisfies what YOU need in art.

It doesn't matter if it's art you like or don't like, as long as it's art there is nothing wrong with it. Seeing the problem?

In fact, the more I look at the pictures in one of Fish's links, the more I do think of it as the opposite of porn. The still passivity of the figures. The obscure lighting. The totally still emptiness of their hands, not even resting on anything. My belief becomes stronger and stronger that these pictures are not erotica. Makes me wonder what kind of pervs are running Australia these days.

This is actually what reminds me of Caravaggio - the frozen passions (Henson toys with eros, Caravaggio always seems to me to be dealing with violence) of action suspended, or avoided? The same type of lighting to stretch the reality, to force the perspective into relation with the subject. The same type of darkness, so nothing else matters. The lack of explicitness - what is 'of the flesh' is hidden in Henson's work, just as it was in Caravaggio's. There might be sexuality, but there's no sex.

Yes but it may not actually be your perception at all. I might say that me dancing around naked throwing shit in the air is my perception on the nature of society in the modern consumerist west, and that would be enough to be called art, even if I didn't mean it and it wasn't my perception at all.


This is true. Just as Britney can pump out 'product' that resembles actual music, and a lot of people will choose it INSTEAD of music, so someone can make all the motions required of art, and be just as false.

And I guess that's where the participation comes in. If I make a shallow attempt to look like art, and you embrace it as art... it IS a comment on something.. maybe on western tastes, consumerism... the perpetual accepting nature of humanity... your tastes in particular?

Even 'anti-art', then... can be art.


It doesn't matter if it's art you like or don't like, as long as it's art there is nothing wrong with it. Seeing the problem?

Errr... no. Reword it?

This is true. Just as Britney can pump out 'product' that resembles actual music, and a lot of people will choose it INSTEAD of music, so someone can make all the motions required of art, and be just as false.


But what Britney pumps out IS music, even if it's rubbish music. And anything I do IS art as long as I say it is, which makes the word art effectively useless for political purposes.


And I guess that's where the participation comes in. If I make a shallow attempt to look like art, and you embrace it as art... it IS a comment on something.. maybe on western tastes, consumerism... the perpetual accepting nature of humanity... your tastes in particular?

Even 'anti-art', then... can be art.


Exactly, so anything I do is art. And there will always be someone who calls whatever you do art as long as you say it is also, I mean didn't the Tate spend millions on literally just a bag of shit?


Errr... no. Reword it?

Basically, just because someone calls something art doesn't mean the government should allow it. Either pictures of naked Children should be allowed or they shouldn't be, whether or not one calls it art or not.

But what Britney pumps out IS music, even if it's rubbish music. And anything I do IS art as long as I say it is, which makes the word art effectively useless for political purposes.


The same is basically true of music. Throbbing Gristle would still be available as music media, despite their avowed intention to make 'anti-music'.

And, perhaps yes, the word might be useless for political purposes. But that's kind of like bitching about oranges being a crappy building material.

It's intent that makes art. Even if - as we've explored here - the intent is to subvert art.


Exactly, so anything I do is art. And there will always be someone who calls whatever you do art as long as you say it is also, I mean didn't the Tate spend millions on literally just a bag of shit?


Did they?

Point is - yes, if you present something as art, maybe you'll get lucky and someone will jump at it. The fact that there are millions of not-fantastically-wealthy artists out there, suggests you might be stretching it a bit, though.


Basically, just because someone calls something art doesn't mean the government should allow it. Either pictures of naked Children should be allowed or they shouldn't be, whether or not one calls it art or not.

Pictures of naked children are allowed... art or not. What is not allowed is child pornography.

The lack of explicitness - what is 'of the flesh' is hidden in Henson's work, just as it was in Caravaggio's. There might be sexuality, but there's no sex.
But porn doesn't need sex. Unlike a lot of this debate, this is easy to show. it's a well known definition. Soft porn doesn't involve sex, hard porn does.
Soft porn does tend to involve, a naked or semi-naked subject (normally 1 person, but sometimes more than one), and the use of the words erotic, or sexually charged would not be out of place describing porn, even arty porn, or porny art.

But porn doesn't need sex. Unlike a lot of this debate, this is easy to show. it's a well known definition. Soft porn doesn't involve sex, hard porn does.
Soft porn does tend to involve, a naked or semi-naked subject (normally 1 person, but sometimes more than one), and the use of the words erotic, or sexually charged would not be out of place describing porn, even arty porn, or porny art.

I was going to just nip in and promise to respond to your last post to me in full detail later when I have time (my weekend got busier than expected), but when I opened the thread to the last page, the first thing I saw was this, and I just had to do this: :headbang:

OF COURSE PORN NEEDS SEX!!! THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT PORN!! And yes, even soft core porn has sex -- it just doesn't show penetration and cum. I mean, hell and damnation, if porn doesn't need sex, then every movie with a kissing or bedroom scene, or even just some goodlooking actors that the audience might fantasize about, is porn, even the ones with a PG13 rating.

I swear to every god imaginable, if you don't even know what porn is, what the fuck have you been on about all this time? Ye gods, your ignorance is insufferable!

I need a break from you. I'll be back later, when I've found a way to stare into the formless abyss that is your "argument" without despairing.

I am utterly appalled that the title of this news story.

Bill Henson is an acclaimed photographer. He often uses nudes in his work, but it is never in a sexual context.

The parents of the child and teenager both consented, and - to my knowledge - were present at the shoot. The photographs were tasteful and the poses were subdued and in no way sexual, and I feel the low-key lighting drew attention away from their body parts.

They certainly aren't "revolting", as the PM commented. Personally, I think that if I'm not trying to run the country, he should keep the hell out of art. And they certainly weren't "without artistic merit". Here is a link to the rest of the collection:

http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/

Unfortunately, for some reason, his collections from earlier years have been removed from the site.

A pedophile will always sexualise children, and the young people shown in the photographs are no more likely to be sexualised than those in a K-Mart catalogue. The police should be out there catching the real criminals - real pedophiles and sex offenders.

II swear to every god imaginable, if you don't even know what porn is, what the fuck have you been on about all this time? Ye gods, your ignorance is insufferable!

I need a break from you. I'll be back later, when I've found a way to stare into the formless abyss that is your "argument" without despairing.

This is the same problem I have with him.

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence that the kids were "forced" to pose for these photos, that their parents didn't consent, or that the photographs were in any way pornographic?

No.

Pornography =/= Art.

If some sick fuck masturbates in front of the statue of David, does that make it pornography?


QFT.

Okay, some basic research on Google has revealed that Fox News is, predictably, kinda full of crap. The exhibit was not of "naked kids," but rather featured a few photographs of one nude 13-year-old girl. I found one of the photos being criticized, and I have to say that it looks like a rather nice and tasteful nude. It does not at all look like it is intended to be sexual. Whether or not non-sexualized nudes of consenting teenage models are okay is an issue worth debating, but it would be very much inaccurate to conflate them with pornography. The intent of the photographer, at least in the one photo I found, is clearly not titillation; the girl in the picture looks sweet, wistful, innocent, and rather beautiful, and quite definitely not sultry or sexy.

Agreed.

Found his work by searching google images. The model is sexualized only if you consider all nudity sexual. If she were 18 or older it would be considered rather a tasteful nude. So the question becomes, can one do a tasteful nude of someone under the age of 18?

I think a tasteful nude of someone under the age of 18 by a professional artist is acceptable, if it has no sexual intent.

I saw the paintings. Anyone can find them by a quick google search. The ones of particular concern were of a topless 13 year old. I found them honestly quite sublime, beautiful and classy, not in the least bit sexual or sultry. She looked wistful, lonely, but positive... a very well taken artwork. Not porn. It was in fact very un-sexual. Almost the opposite.


Agreed.

Indeed. A naked child - in context - can be argued to be nothing more than art featuring a naked child.
*snip*

Exactly.

This thread is worthless without pics.

Google, honey.

because there pictures are up and the all of Australia knows who they are the shame. and besides i would do well with a house full of teenage girls.

Uh, what?

1. Commas and capitals are your friend. Half the time, I can't even understand what you're trying to say because you don't use punctuation.
2. Don't bring "all of Australia" into this.

But this is a very dangerous road to travel. As is the artist saying "it's not porn, therefore it isn't". I have not done any research in to child porn, and have no wish to do so. I imagine though, that a significant amount of child porn images are no more hard core then the ones in this show. Every child porn site that is "soft porn" changes it's name from "Johns kiddy whack off site", to John art show, and it's O.K. He's saying it's not porn.

Oh, okay, so you're making claims about stuff you admit to not having researched? That's... interesting.



Most photo's that involve naked children are capturing a moment. Birth, children playing in the bath, etc. They are also not designed for mass consumption, just for a few friends. Even then, if it is put in a gallery, it is different, as the scene in the photo is captured, not created.

It is both captured and created. Photography isn't exactly click + print.


It has a naked 13 year old. I can't see what artistic merit having a 13 year old photographed in the nude. You obviously think there is.

There is artistic merit. The photograph is beautiful. It's meaningful. It's creative... just like ALL of Bill Henson's work.

I would not consider most of the famous nudes soft porn. There's a huge difference between a sculpture, a painting and a photo.

Not really, no.

You also have not discussed my comment about the artist's intent. I think he did this to bring attention to the gallery. That is exploitation. The exploitation to get publicity aspect, then brings some serious questions about is it porn, due to his intent not being that pure.

He's shown his work many times in the gallery, and Oxley gets enough attention as it is. His work has featured young people photographed nude before, and it has had no attention. Some idiot called the cops about it - that's all.

This debate has got out of hand. The amount of attacks on the poster, not the post is ridiculous.

Yeah, right.

So, lets look at some examples already suggested.
On Jim's gay porn site he puts up a picture of the statue of David. He gets a barrage of mail from his paying customer saying "It's a male, but WTF, I pay good money, give me porn"
Next day on his sister porn site he puts up the furry pencil cases. Another barrage of mail. "If you imagine real hard it looks like a vagina, but I pay you so I can get hard without imagining real hard".
He then posts the "art" pictures in his Jim's kiddie porn site. He doesn't get a barrage of e-mails. He get's a few "Not bad. It's a bit artistic and she's a bit old, get one of her younger sister".

What kind of fantasy land are you living in?

The artist saying it isn't porn isn't enough. The final arbiter is society. If you like it or not. A paedophile says "It's an act of love" doesn't make it so. Society says there's no love in that act. If society is a bunch of phillistines who are too dumb to appreciate high art, bad luck.

I don't think majority of society seem to think it's pornography: the media is just telling them that it is.

You assume he did it purely to make art. Unless you can read his mind, just because he said that's what he did it for, doesn't make it true

My personal opinion is an artist is generally a good judge of how people will react. He knew people would react poorly to this and consider it porn. He knew there would be controversy about this. To get the controversy, he has to make it close enough to porn, that in effect, he is deliberately creating porn.

You have to be kidding me.

He didn't know people would react that way. His work was almost identical to previous work. It has similar themes, similar locations, similar lighting and so forth. And why is an artist a good judge of how people will react? Superhumans, much? I don't think he was trying to create controversy, and he wasn't deliberately trying to create porn. His work is slightly confrontational - as a lot of great artwork tends to be.

What I propose is this: the photographer of these pictures has every right to call it tasteful art, and any pretentious PhD has every right to agree. Society has every right to call it porn and try to have it removed from public galleries. An artist creates at his or her own risk; it is his or her own responsibility to either create work that is not controversial or contrary to his or her society's values, or else accept the consequences of failing to conform to societal norms. That is not to say that he can't continue to argue that it's not child porn and is tasteful art: only that he shouldn't be surprised (nor should anyone else) if people disagree.

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. That's not what we're arguing here. Just because they have the right to call it porn doesn't make them right.

And indeed, the articles I've been reading suggest that this photographer frequently shoots nudes, and that many of them have included teenagers without anyone throwing hissy fits. (They also suggest, sadly, that those years-old pictures are now being removed from galleries, even though no one minded them before.)

*nods*

I believe his point is exactly that it does not have to be shown to be porn. If one interprets it to be porn, then it is porn for that person. If it is porn for a person, anyone can describe it as being porn.

The reasoning behind this is that one does not have to show something to be art. One interprets it as art, and as such, it is. If this is true, it should be equally valid for someone to simply interpret it as being porn, thus making it so. It is intrinsic.

Your post is porn.

In fact, the more I look at the pictures in one of Fish's links, the more I do think of it as the opposite of porn. The still passivity of the figures. The obscure lighting. The totally still emptiness of their hands, not even resting on anything. My belief becomes stronger and stronger that these pictures are not erotica. Makes me wonder what kind of pervs are running Australia these days.

... I almost said "Agreed" to this comment, but then you had to mess it up.

It's not that perverts are running the country - it's that there is a handful (or five...) of close-minded, Christian, uncultured conservatives that leap at the chance to say something's "porn"

Am I the only one who thinks that simply calling something art is completely meaningless!? I could dance around naked throwing shit up in the air and call it art, and there would be absolutely no meaningful reason why you could say that it isn't art. I could easily make up some vague explanation tenuously linking it to some boring sociological concept and people would immediately accept it, and even if I didn't give an explanation for it others would, like the very fact of it being completely inartistic is artistic in itself, and challenging are "preconceptions of what art is".

The thing is, Bill Henson is an acclaimed artist. One would assume an acclaimed artist creates something that would fall under the catagory of "art".

But porn doesn't need sex. Unlike a lot of this debate, this is easy to show. it's a well known definition. Soft porn doesn't involve sex, hard porn does.
Soft porn does tend to involve, a naked or semi-naked subject (normally 1 person, but sometimes more than one), and the use of the words erotic, or sexually charged would not be out of place describing porn, even arty porn, or porny art.

Porny art? Porny art?





I am sending a telepathic message to all of the art world to not let you within 10 metres of art at all times.

There is artistic merit.
Based on what? Define the artistic merit present.

Unfortunatly in todays society Art is nolonger judged by the intent of the artist but on weather or not it offends people. If it is decided that all depictions of naked children is "Kiddie porn" then we must now remove all images of Baby Cupid as he is a naked kid with a weapon, and all pictures of cherib angels as the little devine symbols in CLASIC ART are, once again, naked kids. I'm afraid I must encourage people to think, now I know it hurts working this muscle after being spoon fed mass produced thoughts by the media, but like the horrid tasting medications prescribed to us its good for you.

The thing is, Bill Henson is an acclaimed artist. One would assume an acclaimed artist creates something that would fall under the catagory of "art".


I didn't say it wasn't art. I'm saying that calling something art does not change anything in a political sense.

Well I suppose your correct just because some one is an artist does not mean everything they make is art however my previous statement still stands.:cool:

Unfortunatly in todays society Art is nolonger judged by the intent of the artist but on weather or not it offends people. If it is decided that all depictions of naked children is "Kiddie porn" then we must now remove all images of Baby Cupid as he is a naked kid with a weapon, and all pictures of cherib angels as the little devine symbols in CLASIC ART are, once again, naked kids. I'm afraid I must encourage people to think, now I know it hurts working this muscle after being spoon fed mass produced thoughts by the media, but like the horrid tasting medications prescribed to us its good for you.

You know, if you think your post holds merit you really shouldn't dress it up so much. Talk about taking purple prose to it's literal extreme...

It seems none of you have yet understood:

Who can define what is classed as "Art"?
a)Me
b)You
c)Chuck Norris
d)A Politician
e)A fellow artist
f)The "artist" Himself
g)An Upset Parent
h)ANYBODY

Here's a hint: the answer is NOT one of the above. Even Art can be unintentionally created, so the artist himself cannot judge his works for merits and demerits. Artistic VALUE can be assessed to some extent, but nothing can be effectively classed or de-classed as "Art" by one specific person or indeed a group of people.

Have a look at the below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

The thing about the world we live is that-- gosh-darn it-- it isn't as simple as it seems. Nothing is particularly concrete, and the idea of putting categorical imperatives in place where arts are concerned is a particularly risky one. It is up to the individual to make up his/her mind, and up to them to go and see the exhibition or not. The parties involved registered no complaints, and nothing depicted in the photographs was illegal. People are just incredibly squeamish about this kind of thing, and that is a sad sign of the age we live in. We consider a cherub peeing into a fountain an antique, but there have been times when people would de-penis statues in the hope of making them more "acceptable". Only now, though, has the whole "Paedo" thing crept in, and it's making the situation much worse for artist on the whole. And people who dislike angry PTA mobs.

OF COURSE PORN NEEDS SEX!!! THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT PORN!! And yes, even soft core porn has sex -- it just doesn't show penetration and cum. Did you read what Grave_n_idle posted?
The lack of explicitness....... There might be sexuality, but there's no sex.
Go for a pathetic semantic "definition of sex" argument if you wish. It just shows that you are once again trying to win, by not debating any point. I don't have your ability to read other posters minds, but Grave_n_Idle put in a Specific reference to explicitness. It seems that he meant penetrative sex. If that poster didn't, apologies, but it is a reasonable assessment of the post.

Now, another attempt to address the issue, rather than the poor debating style. Large parts of this discussion has focused on "Is it porn or art?" It can potentially be both.

In regards to the censorship issue, I think censorship should have a small amount of criteria. Them being, any work that requires an illegal act to occur for it's creation, should be censored. Any work that a significant amount of parents would not want their parents to see, should be adults only. Obviously both of these are up for interpretation.

Just to make this perfectly clear, someone could make the most offensive thing in the world, and I would have no problem with it being displayed just that it would need an adults only rating. If Henson had got an 18 year old model, took the shot, and then digitally altered the picture so she looked 13, I'd accept that. I have no issue with Maplethorpe as he always used adults.

The issue is the 13 year old. I think I said it many posts before. A person can't sign away their rights to protection and neither can a parent. A more extreme example than the photo.
If a 20 year old was in a loving relationship with a 13 year old, and the 13 YOs mother thought the 20 YO was a lovely boy, the relevant authorities would still get the 20 YO for statuatory rape.

That is why the motives of Henson and the photo are such a hot topic. If it is called porn, he is a paedophile for legal purposes. The mother and child's consent hold little weight.

Your post is porn.

I find it fantastic that my post was sexually stimulating. If you feel the need to masturbate while muttering it to yourself, I only ask that you send pictures.

Incidentally, you might think I'm being facetious, but this actually isn't the first time something like this has happened.

And for the record, I never said I agreed with that line of reasoning. I was merely clarifying it because I understand the point he is trying to make.



OF COURSE PORN NEEDS SEX!!! THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT PORN!! And yes, even soft core porn has sex -- it just doesn't show penetration and cum. I mean, hell and damnation, if porn doesn't need sex, then every movie with a kissing or bedroom scene, or even just some goodlooking actors that the audience might fantasize about, is porn, even the ones with a PG13 rating.

–noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. [Dictionary.com]
Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer. [Wiki]

There is a difference between "sex" and "sexuality".

There is also a significant difference in what people find sexually stimulating. The woman who married the Berlin Wall (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=557924) probably finds the wall sexually stimulating. To that end, if she went around taking pictures of it, and other walls or fences, for the specific purpose of being sexually stimulated by them, is that not porn? That is what porn is: explicitly sexually stimulating, which does not necessarily include any sexual activity.

This is art, all else is porn. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EebObs-vC0)

This is art, all else is porn. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EebObs-vC0)

I am very disappointed.






I was expecting Rick Astley.

1. Commas and capitals are your friend. Half the time, I can't even understand what you're trying to say because you don't use punctuation.
Another poster, and the classic "Your english is poor so you must be stupid and I am superior" argument comes out. At least you are consistent. For all you know greed and death's 1st language may not be english.
2. Don't bring "all of Australia" into this.
How can it not be dragged in to this? An object is labeled by what the majority of society accepts it is. Labels exist purely for communication. We can argue what the label should be, and we can disagree, but, in this case, the courts will most likely make the final decision and they will get their guide from society.
Oh, okay, so you're making claims about stuff you admit to not having researched? That's... interesting. That's the same dig Muravyets used. It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone, when you are guilty of the same lack of research. I assume both of you have looked at lots of child porn, and therefore can tell me the difference between Henson's photos and kiddie porn, or are you both making claims about things you haven't researched?
I don't think majority of society seem to think it's pornography: the media is just telling them that it is. I've been called on this one, so same thing. Why do you think that? If, unlike the other poster asking for proof, you understand that opinions can't be proven, then the question is withdrawn.

He didn't know people would react that way. His work was almost identical to previous work. It has similar themes, similar locations, similar lighting and so forth. I notice that you don't say similar models. I think that is quite a critical omission.

I am very disappointed.
I was expecting Rick Astley.

I'm soooo sorry. You hadn't heard?

Ray Rolling is now in style.

I'm soooo sorry. You hadn't heard?

Ray Rolling is now in style.

I want to know what happened to Tayrolling.





http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080524.gif

Another poster, and the classic "Your english is poor so you must be stupid and I am superior" argument comes out. At least you are consistent. For all you know greed and death's 1st language may not be english.

No. I literally can not understand him half of the time.

How can it not be dragged in to this? An object is labeled by what the majority of society accepts it is. Labels exist purely for communication. We can argue what the label should be, and we can disagree, but, in this case, the courts will most likely make the final decision and they will get their guide from society.

Uh, how does that have anything to do with what I said?

You can't drag an entire country into a conversation about one incident.

That's the same thing that happened in the thread about the women who were bashed for wearing short skirts in South Africa. It's not the entire country's fault.

That's the same dig Muravyets used. It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone, when you are guilty of the same lack of research. I assume both of you have looked at lots of child porn, and therefore can tell me the difference between Henson's photos and kiddie porn, or are you both making claims about things you haven't researched?

I've certainly studied Bill Henson's work much more than you have.


I've been called on this one, so same thing. Why do you think that? If, unlike the other poster asking for proof, you understand that opinions can't be proven, then the question is withdrawn.

I notice that you don't say similar models. I think that is quite a critical omission.

Actually, if you bother to read what I've contributed to the thread, I mentioned he's used young models before. I don't know if they were underage or not. According to another poster, they were.

I find it fantastic that my post was sexually stimulating. If you feel the need to masturbate while muttering it to yourself, I only ask that you send pictures.

Incidentally, you might think I'm being facetious, but this actually isn't the first time something like this has happened.

If I did find your post sexually stimulating, is it porn?

If I find my stapler sexually stimulating, is it porn?

Because, by this logic, the K-Mart catalogue and your family photo album are child porn.

And for the record, I never said I agreed with that line of reasoning. I was merely clarifying it because I understand the point he is trying to make.

Be careful, that fence you're sitting on is pretty high. You better not fall off.

& I'm pretty sure he can explain himself.

If I did find your post sexually stimulating, is it porn?

If I find my stapler sexually stimulating, is it porn?

If you call my post art, is it art? If I call my post art, is it art?

Because, by this logic, the K-Mart catalogue and your family photo album are child porn.

Yeah, those K-Mart guys are pretty fucked up.

And I'm fairly certain there are no pictures of myself naked at any age in existence.

Be careful, that fence you're sitting on is pretty high. You better not fall off.

I've got a nice view.

& I'm pretty sure he can explain himself.

So I helped anyways. Is that against the rules?

If you call my post art, is it art? If I call my post art, is it art?

I was asking you. Are you that incapable of saying what you think?


Yeah, those K-Mart guys are pretty fucked up.

And I'm fairly certain there are no pictures of myself naked at any age in existence.

Okay, so now you're saying the subject has to be naked for it to be considered porn, right?


I've got a nice view.

I can see up your skirt from here. I'm not happy about it.

What do references of pedophilia have to do with this?

Pedophiles are people who are attracted to the prepubescent.

13-year-olds are by definition not prepubescent.

The Melbourne Age today published an opinion piece from Germaine Greer (one of our city's lost daughters) on the subject.



Through a lens darkly
Germaine Greer
June 2, 2008

Once again it is clear there is no hard and fast distinction between art and pornography.

WHEN the forces of public order march into art galleries and walk off with exhibits deemed to be offensive, two things are certain: one, that images which the vast majority would never have seen or wanted to see will be made famous and will be looked up on the internet by slavering hordes, and, two, a great deal of nonsense will be talked by a great many people. When the police removed half the images from Bill Henson's show at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, the usual babel broke out. Some averred that the images were art and therefore not pornography, and that their confiscation was a kind of sacrilege. Others insisted that their suppression was censorship and not to be countenanced in a society that respects intellectual freedom. Still others called the work exploitative and concerned themselves with whether or not the juvenile subjects were capable of consent. John McDonald declared there was nothing sexual about Henson's photographs; you might as well say there is nothing sexual about teenagers. In Florida last year teenagers who made videos of their own sexual activity were charged "with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child". Confused? You bet.

There is no hard and fast distinction between art and pornography. Very little pornography is art, but a good deal of art is pornographic. Some of Titian's most lyrical paintings are portraits of the great Venetian courtesans, which functioned as advertisements for their services and are therefore pornography in its strictest sense. Something similar holds true for Caravaggio, whose low-life boys would sell you anything including themselves and their sisters. Rodin's flagrantly obscene drawings are the most moving artworks he ever made. Dozens of Picasso engravings exalt the sex act in the most explicit terms. Practically everything Norman Lindsay drew, apart from his illustrations to The Magic Pudding and his war posters, was an incitement to lecherous revelry.

Henson's pictures have nothing to do with prostitutes or sex acts; if they are offensive it is solely because the naked people who posed for them were under-age at the time. Their nudity is taken by the police to imply "a sexual context". It doesn't, of course, and any action brought against Henson or the gallery will fail, after vast amounts of time, energy and money have been deployed.

Anyone who believes that the great artists of the past waited for their models to reach puberty before daring to portray them naked is a blind fool. Renaissance paintings are festooned with the naked bodies of babies displayed in the most fetching of poses; small naked boys sit splay-legged on the steps of temples and astride beams and boughs. The public that saw them included pederasts and pedophiles, but nobody deemed that a reason for not showing them. The Christ Child sat astride his mother's knee displaying his perfect genitals. Though dirty old priests might have taken guilty pleasure from contemplating them, the rest of us are still allowed to see them.

More reticence is observed with female figures, mainly because female models were hard to come by, but the first genuinely female nudes were often pubescent or prepubescent. The closet Venuses of Cranach and Baldung, for example, have the undeveloped hips, small, hard, high breasts and pallid nipples of 13-year-olds. Botticelli's Venus is hardly older. Greuze's girls, with their white bosoms glimpsed through disordered clothing and tear-filled eyes, are not only very young but violated as well. Bouguereau's Cupidon (1875) and Child at Bath (1886) are far more disturbing images of vulnerable immaturity than anything created by Henson, but paint may do what photography may not. If Henson had painted his young subjects, the police would have no situation to investigate.

Any man who calls Henson's pictures "revolting" protests too much. Our culture sexualises girls from infancy; they learn to flirt and be coy; the clothing designed for them is flashy, trashy and tarty. Every little girl is Daddy's little girl and is not allowed to grow up. Kate Moss, the world's most successful model, is a 34-year-old with the body of a 14-year-old. Signs of sexual maturity, spreading hips, darkened nipples, body hair, are considered unsightly.

Mothers may look at Henson's pictures and howl with fear; the man who rejects them with exaggerated horror is denying his own complicity. If our culture were not pedophilic, if our children were not already grossly sexualised, we would not be so dismayed by Henson's unerotic images, or so frantic to persecute and punish him for making them.

In the 1990s American photographer Jock Sturges was pursued by the FBI on child pornography charges. They failed to make them stick. Sturges' photographs are now world famous and worth millions. Sturges explains that he has "always been drawn to and fascinated by physical, social and sexual change", and Henson echoes him. Even mothers who photograph their children's bodies are scapegoated. Sally Mann was accused of incestuous feelings for her prepubescent children simply because she photographed them without their clothes.

The Saatchi Gallery was threatened with prosecution for showing Tierney Gieron's photographs of her children, which were described as a "revolting exhibition of perversion under the guise of art". Meanwhile, the models on our catwalks are or pretend to be gangling adolescents. Every year fashion magazines produce a new crop of schoolgirl models, and don't scruple to show their budding breasts. It seems that only when the imagery calls itself art that child protection officers can summon the courage to protest.

The images of children stored on pedophiles' computers are not art. If you can't tell the difference, take a look at the websites featuring nude teens. Then look again at Henson's withdrawn and introspective subjects. Henson's melodramatic chiaroscuro is an earnest attempt to get the beholder to take adolescence seriously. It doesn't quite come off, but that's the risk art takes. Now that he has been dubbed a pornographer, his photographs will sell for millions. Art takes longer.

Germaine Greer is the author of The Beautiful Boy, an art history about the beauty of teenage boys.


Link (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/through-a-lens-darkly-20080601-2kgo.html?page=-1)

I like her commentary on the issue although I'm not sure that half the exhibition was taken away. I think only two pictures offended people.

I was asking you. Are you that incapable of saying what you think?

No more or less capable than you.

Okay, so now you're saying the subject has to be naked for it to be considered porn, right?

When did I say that?

I can see up your skirt from here. I'm not happy about it.

What can I say? I'm a free spirit: I like a nice breeze down there.

Miley Cyrus is a victim!!!!11!!1!1!!!1

..

Uh, I mean..

No more or less capable than you.



When did I say that?



What can I say? I'm a free spirit: I like a nice breeze down there.

You said "I'm sure I'm not naked in any of my family photos" or something along those lines.

So, if when someone calls something porn, it's therefore porn, your photo album could be porn. But you said you weren't naked. Therefore, what I can only assume, is that you think one has to be naked for it to be porn.

You said "I'm sure I'm not naked in any of my family photos" or something along those lines.

So, if when someone calls something porn, it's therefore porn, your photo album could be porn. But you said you weren't naked. Therefore, what I can only assume, is that you think one has to be naked for it to be porn.

That actually doesn't logically follow.

That actually doesn't logically follow.

No matter how I look at you, you're porn.

No matter how I look at you, you're porn.

I offer to you the same deal as I did to Amor:

Feel free to masturbate, but please provide pictures.

I offer to you the same deal as I did to Amor:
Feel free to masturbate, but please provide pictures.

You bisexual now or do you just want them for extortion purposes?
*squints*

You bisexual now or do you just want them for extortion purposes?
*squints*

Not telling.

This whole maze of "dimes y diretes" can be surmized in a simple sentence:

Unfortunately, it's all about the taste.

Clarification: When it comes to the topic of nudes in art, some simple-minded people will call it porn and some will see it as what it is, a nude.

As for photos of children, young children, naked. I want to believe that no self-respected gallery would sell those. If they do, they're not a true gallery.

And please, do be careful with what passes as "art" these days. It's pure crap. To the detriment of humanity, the times of the great masters has passed. Let us all deal with it.

Did you read what Grave_n_idle posted?

Go for a pathetic semantic "definition of sex" argument if you wish. <snip the same circular ignorant bullshit>
I refuse absolutely to discuss this further with you because you are an idiot.

You have more than amply demonstrated that you do not know the first thing about porn, and that ignorance has created the related suspicion that you don't know jack about sex, either (or else you'd know what porn is and what explicit sexual content is).

And I am sick and tired of being yelled at for "semantics" by a person who has spent pages and pages trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to redefine "porn" to include things with no sexual content in them at all.

I have also decided not to revisit your earlier post in which you asked -- again -- for me to quote you saying something in this thread. The thread isn't that long. Read it your damned self. I proved that you said what you said once already. It's not my job to keep pouring the same water into that sieve you call a mind.

Finally, not only have you not said a single factually correct thing in this entire thread, but it has been several pages since you said anything new. I have already answered all your so-called objections. I will not repeat the same points just because you want to. It's like arguing with a cat at this point. Come up with something new, if you can. I'll take bets on how wrong you'll be then, too.

<snip>

There is a difference between "sex" and "sexuality".

There is also a significant difference in what people find sexually stimulating. The woman who married the Berlin Wall (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=557924) probably finds the wall sexually stimulating. To that end, if she went around taking pictures of it, and other walls or fences, for the specific purpose of being sexually stimulated by them, is that not porn? That is what porn is: explicitly sexually stimulating, which does not necessarily include any sexual activity.
I am so tired of people who "read but with a lust to misapply."

If all things that contain "sexuality" are porn, then tell me how movies with loves scenes between good-looking actors can be shown on regular commercial television legally. Such movies contain representations of sexuality, in the actors themselves and in the scenes they act out. Many people might find images of such actors sexually stimulating, but yet those images are not called porn. How does that work in your weird little world?

The fact is that sexuality is NOT the defining feature of porn. The defining feature of porn is that it is intended specifically and exclusively for the purpose of sexually arousing and giving sexual gratification to the viewer.

So we're right back to square one: The David is an image of a beautiful, naked man, large enough that no one can miss his obvious sexuality. Is the David porn or is it not?

The Melbourne Age today published an opinion piece from Germaine Greer (one of our city's lost daughters) on the subject.



Link (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/through-a-lens-darkly-20080601-2kgo.html?page=-1)

I like her commentary on the issue although I'm not sure that half the exhibition was taken away. I think only two pictures offended people.
I am so grateful for the existence of Germaine Greer today. She pretty much encapsulates the thread's pro-Henson/anti-calling-his-pics-porn side of the argument.

Don't know if this has been posted yet or not, but here is an update on the story.

Some artist has decided IMO to get her five minutes in the sun by holding a 'protest' exhibition that will feature naked children. Of the two photos I have seen one of which is in the picture in the link. I cannot see how anyone could see this as porn at all considering the nature of the photos but anyway.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23802413-2862,00.html

Why have people stopped responding to my posts?

Why have people stopped responding to my posts?

Because you're stupid and ugly and you have poop for brains. Also, you were adopted.

I am so tired of people who "read but with a lust to misapply."

If all things that contain "sexuality" are porn, then tell me how movies with loves scenes between good-looking actors can be shown on regular commercial television legally. Such movies contain representations of sexuality, in the actors themselves and in the scenes they act out. Many people might find images of such actors sexually stimulating, but yet those images are not called porn. How does that work in your weird little world?

The fact is that sexuality is NOT the defining feature of porn. The defining feature of porn is that it is intended specifically and exclusively for the purpose of sexually arousing and giving sexual gratification to the viewer.

I have never once made the claim that sexuality is the absolute defining feature of porn. The claim I am making is that sex is not the defining feature of porn. Which is a claim you have made. Which is a claim I disagree with.

So we're right back to square one: The David is an image of a beautiful, naked man, large enough that no one can miss his obvious sexuality. Is the David porn or is it not?

They are not analogous: the David is not a sculpture of a 13-year-old girl created since modern laws concerning child pornography were enacted.

Because you're stupid and ugly and you have poop for brains. Also, you were adopted.



I have never once made the claim that sexuality is the absolute defining feature of porn. The claim I am making is that sex is not the defining feature of porn. Which is a claim you have made. Which is a claim I disagree with.
Well, you're wrong. :p

They are not analogous: the David is not a sculpture of a 13-year-old girl created since modern laws concerning child pornography were enacted.
Your insistence that the mere fact of the model's age and gender is what renders the pictures porn is just as arbitrary as saying the David is porn because his penis is really really big (compared to real ones, not proportional to the rest of him). Because you ignore the requirement for porn to contain sexual content for the purpose of sexually arousing/gratifiying the audience, you are basically saying that a picture of a 13-year-old girl = porn. And that's just bullshit, because there are millions of pictures of children of many ages with little to no clothing on that cannot by any stretch of the (sane and honest) imagination be called porn.

You know, I was bitching about the idiocy of the "the pics are porn" arguments in this thread to my sainted mother just this evening, and she made an interesting comment. When I complained about Fishutopia's "porn doesn't have to have sex in it" remark, she said:

"That's only true for perverts."

You know why? Because perverts see porn where there is none. That's what makes them perverted -- they see and feel things that normal people don't. For a normal person the David cannot possibly be porn, but to the right kind of pervert, it can be. Yet their standard is not the one the rest of society follows. To a normal person, children playing in a park is just that, nothing more or less. To a pedophile, it's a soft core sex show. But we don't prevent children from playing in the park, because we don't let perverts dictate the rules we live by. And Bill Henson's photos of those teenagers are not porn to anyone but those who look at 13-year-olds and think of sex, and no, I don't intend to accept their opinion as decisive.

EDIT: Oh, and those "modern laws concerning child pornography" you're so reliant on, still require that the pictures be proven to be porn before they can be called child porn. So we're back to that objection, which I've raised several times, but which you and Fish have consistently ignored.

Well, you're wrong. :p

About what, specifically?

Your insistence that the mere fact of the model's age and gender is what renders the pictures porn

I have never once said that I think a models age and gender is what renders these, or any pictures porn.

I pointed them out because it defines the context for the controversy surrounding the pictures in question: there is little controversy (I say little because I'm sure somewhere there is at least one person who calls it obscene porn) surrounding the David because the subject is an adult man and it was made when society had a different set of morals. There is controversy surrounding the pictures in question for the reasons I mentioned.

Nowhere have I expressed an opinion that either the David or the pictures in question are or are not porn. I have only stated the reasons that some people, which may or may not include me, think that the pictures in question could be considered porn.

is just as arbitrary as saying the David is porn because his penis is really really big (compared to real ones, not proportional to the rest of him).

I think we can all agree that the size of one's penis is less significant to a work being considered porn or not than whether or not there is a penis showing, a vagina showing, what activities the genitalia are engaged in, and what age those genitalia are. I did not say it does not matter. I only said it was less significant than other things, the point being to show how your analogy is, once again, not accurate.

Let me ask a question of you: If the David's penis was erect and moist with both female and male ejaculate (because Michaelangelo is so good that the difference is apparent in the sculpture), and David caressing his body (including his genitalia) and an orgasmic expression sculpted into his face, would you call it porn then?

Because you ignore the requirement for porn to contain sexual content for the purpose of sexually arousing/gratifiying the audience

You are now rather making a rather loose and vague argument of the semantics of "sexual content", "sex", and "sexuality".

Let me attempt to be clear, because apparently I have not been clear enough before:
1. either the male or female division of a species, esp. as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
2. the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.
3. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.
4. coitus.
5. genitalia.
–verb (used with object)
6. to ascertain the sex of, esp. of newly-hatched chicks.
—Verb phrase
7. sex up, Informal.
a. to arouse sexually: The only intent of that show was to sex up the audience.
b. to increase the appeal of; to make more interesting, attractive, or exciting: We've decided to sex up the movie with some battle scenes.
—Idiom
8. to have sex, to engage in sexual intercourse.

1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.
3. involvement in sexual activity.
4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.

sex·u·al Audio Help /ˈsɛkʃuəl or, especially Brit., ˈsɛksyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sek-shoo-uhl or, especially Brit., seks-yoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or for sex: sexual matters; sexual aids.
2. occurring between or involving the sexes: sexual relations.
3. having sexual organs or reproducing by processes involving both sexes.
1. Usually, contents.
a. something that is contained: the contents of a box.
b. the subjects or topics covered in a book or document.
c. the chapters or other formal divisions of a book or document: a table of contents.
2. something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech, writing, or any of various arts: a poetic form adequate to a poetic content.
3. significance or profundity; meaning: a clever play that lacks content.
4. substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation: publishers, record companies, and other content providers; a flashy Web site, but without much content.
5. that which may be perceived in something: the latent versus the manifest content of a dream.
6. Philosophy, Logic. the sum of the attributes or notions comprised in a given conception; the substance or matter of cognition.
7. power of containing; holding capacity: The bowl's content is three quarts.
8. volume, area, or extent; size.
9. the amount contained.
10. Linguistics. the system of meanings or semantic values specific to a language (opposed to expression).
11.
a. Mathematics. the greatest common divisor of all the coefficients of a given polynomial. Compare primitive polynomial.
b. any abstraction of the concept of length, area, or volume.

So. The relevant definitions of sex refer to either the act of sexual intercourse or genitalia, neither of which are required for porn, or else soft-core, panty-shots, kissing, erotic dancing, enticing poses, and other such things which are legally and semantically defined as being forms of pornography would not be legally and semantically defined as being forms of pornography.

The relevant definitions of sexuality refer to activities that are sexual in nature, which the relevant definitions of sexual help define as acts that are related to interactions between men and women (and men and men, and women and women), specifically those involving arousal and becoming prepared for sex. It does not indicate that it is necessary to be nude for something to contain sexuality.

Sexual content would then be topics or themes that are sexual in nature, thus making sexual content almost identical in meaning to sexuality, with subtle differences only in connotation and minor semantics.

Thus, you have completely mistaken everything I have said regarding how I define porn, and anything you have said in response to this mistaken understanding is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

you are basically saying that a picture of a 13-year-old girl = porn.

No, I am saying that a picture of a 13-year-old girl nude is sexual in nature and therefore subject to controversy. Once again, nowhere have I mentioned that they are, or are not porn.

And that's just bullshit, because there are millions of pictures of children of many ages with little to no clothing on that cannot by any stretch of the (sane and honest) imagination be called porn.

There are also a number (that I would hope is not big at all) of pictures of children of many ages with plenty of clothing on that has led to the conviction of child pornographers and rapists.

You know, I was bitching about the idiocy of the "the pics are porn" arguments in this thread to my sainted mother just this evening, and she made an interesting comment. When I complained about Fishutopia's "porn doesn't have to have sex in it" remark, she said:

"That's only true for perverts."

Once again, this is an argument over the semantics of the word "sex", or else you are denying the existence of soft-core pornography that does not contain sexual activities, but that is still pornography due to its sexual nature.

You know why? Because perverts see porn where there is none.

Yes, you are subtly implying that Fish and I (despite the fact that I have not once said that I think the pictures are porn) are perverts and pedophiles. Very clever.

That's what makes them perverted -- they see and feel things that normal people don't. For a normal person the David cannot possibly be porn, but to the right kind of pervert, it can be. Yet their standard is not the one the rest of society follows. To a normal person, children playing in a park is just that, nothing more or less. To a pedophile, it's a soft core sex show. But we don't prevent children from playing in the park, because we don't let perverts dictate the rules we live by. And Bill Henson's photos of those teenagers are not porn to anyone but those who look at 13-year-olds and think of sex, and no, I don't intend to accept their opinion as decisive.

John McDonald declared there was nothing sexual about Henson's photographs; you might as well say there is nothing sexual about teenagers. link (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/through-a-lens-darkly-20080601-2kgo.html?page=-1)
Errinundera's post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13736813&postcount=173)

So. Of course the photos contain sexuality. That is the point of the photos, which has been argued several times already: to celebrate the sexuality of young teenagers in a way that is not obscene and shows that treating it that way teaches undesirable values to them that negatively impacts their growth and development. The argument has never been whether or not the photos contain sexuality, but rather whether or not the sexuality in the photos represents pure artistic values, whether or not the sexual overtones are too strong to be publicly displayed, and whether or not the photographer, in taking the pictures, exploited a young girl (exploited because at 13 she cannot legally consent to pornography, which the photos may possibly be defined as depending on how the other issues are resolved).

EDIT: Oh, and those "modern laws concerning child pornography" you're so reliant on, still require that the pictures be proven to be porn before they can be called child porn. So we're back to that objection, which I've raised several times, but which you and Fish have consistently ignored.

I have never once suggested that I think the pictures are or are not porn. Nor have I ignored your objection, as several times I specifically addressed that objection by stating that your objection is irrelevant to the points I am making. Specifically, whether or not it actually is porn will not stop some people from calling it porn and prosecuting the photographer because of this decision. The reason for making this point, which is perhaps obvious, is that while I sympathize with Henson, I can also understand where those who call it porn come from, even if I don't agree (assuming I don't agree), and that Henson should have, and probably was, aware of how much of the public would react, and such reactions are the risks that all artists take if they choose to push the boundaries of art and what society accepts as art.

Once again, to be clear:
I have never said that I think the pictures are, or are not porn.
Sexual intercourse or visible genitalia are not necessary for porn.
Sexuality, or sexual content, which refers to topics and themes that are sexual in nature, but not necessarily nude, is necessary for porn.
Porn is not defined by nudity or a lack thereof.
Art is not defined by a lack of nudity.
The subject's age does not define the work as porn or not.
The subject's age is relevant to whether or not a work is sexual in nature, as certain ages are more sexually charged than others and carry connotations of sexuality within the context of our society.
The subject's gender does not define the work as porn or not.
The subject's gender is relevant to how sexual in nature a work is, as women, especially at certain ages, carry a heavier sexual connotation than men within the context of our society.
Whether a work is sexual in nature does not define it as porn or not, but is significant in defining it as porn or not.

Thus:
The subject of Henson's photographs is a girl at the age in which one's sexuality is just blossoming and therefore very significant as she learns about her body and a new way of interacting with others that is related to the changes she is undergoing. The girl is nude in the photograph, which carries strong sexual connotations, as the girl is of a sexually charged age, which the nudity then emphasizes. The sexuality of the photographs, then, is undeniable and most likely intentional by Henson for artistic purposes. There is an international law in effect at the time the photographs were taken that makes it illegal to produce and/or distribute photographs, videos, and (presumably) other media deemed to be child pornography. Part of how child pornography is defined is that the subject is below the age of 18. Other parts of the definition include, but are not limited to, the intention of the creator and the sexuality of the media in question. It is therefore my opinion that, regardless of whether Henson's photographs are pornographic in nature, it is not difficult to imagine how some individuals judge these pictures of a nude minor to be pornographic, or at least pornographic enough to warrant their removal from public galleries, since the photographs, if they are not outright sexual in nature, do carry a strong sexual connotation in today's "Western" society.

I am unsure how I can possibly make my opinion and subject of discussion more clear except to translate it into several other languages. Unfortunately, I do not know how to say most of it in any other language and a translation program is most likely insufficient to convey my meaning accurately, so you will have to be satisfied with reading it in English, find someone who can accurately translate it into the language of your choice, or sacrifice clarity and accuracy by using a program.

Don't know if this has been posted yet or not, but here is an update on the story.

Some artist has decided IMO to get her five minutes in the sun by holding a 'protest' exhibition that will feature naked children. Of the two photos I have seen one of which is in the picture in the link. I cannot see how anyone could see this as porn at all considering the nature of the photos but anyway.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23802413-2862,00.html

After visiting the police decided not to take any action.

Police visit video exhibition of nude boys
Lucy Battersby
June 4, 2008
UNDERCOVER detectives visited a video art exhibition at a city bar last night because it contained images of two nude boys.

The exhibition, at Loop Bar in Meyers Place, was organised by artist Victoria Larielle to demonstrate her support for photographer Bill Henson, who could face charges of publishing an indecent article after police raided an exhibition of his work in Sydney.

Larielle's video was of dozens of black-and-white images of two nude 11-year-old boys. No genitals were visible, but there were shots of the boys' chests and of them hugging at the beach. The photos were shown several years ago without public reaction.

Larielle titled her exhibition I am not a Pornographer nor a Pedophile but an Artist, and issued a statement saying "my exhibition should, if anything, shame the narrow-minded, fear-driven, sensationalist and the ignorant".

The two boys, now 17, gave Larielle permission to display the photographs again, although their parents did not want them to be identified.

A spokesman for Victoria Police confirmed two detectives were assigned to visit and watch the exhibition, but said the police never planned to intervene in the show.

About 30 people watched the show in a small room at the back of the bar. Most of the audience were from the media.

■ The National Gallery of Victoria yesterday put on display four more photographs by Bill Henson in response to a strong public interest. One of the photos, which date from 1990 to 1999, is shown on the left.

With PHILIPPA HAWKER

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/national/police-visit-video-exhibition-of-nude-boys-20080603-2lf5.html)

It might be argued that Melburnians are more liberal than Sydneysiders in their attitudes but I think it's because photos of naked 11 year old boys don't alarm people the way photos of naked 13 year old girls do. Seems to me that this double standard indicates that something weird is at work in our society.

I cannot see how anyone could see this as porn at all considering the nature of the photos but anyway.

The same kind of people who'd prosecute a 15-year-old girl for posting naked pictures of herself online, of course.

...So. Of course the photos contain sexuality. That is the point of the photos, which has been argued several times already: to celebrate the sexuality of young teenagers in a way that is not obscene and shows that treating it that way teaches undesirable values to them that negatively impacts their growth and development. The argument has never been whether or not the photos contain sexuality, but rather whether or not the sexuality in the photos represents pure artistic values, whether or not the sexual overtones are too strong to be publicly displayed, and whether or not the photographer, in taking the pictures, exploited a young girl (exploited because at 13 she cannot legally consent to pornography, which the photos may possibly be defined as depending on how the other issues are resolved)...


I disagree with you slightly. Henson's now notorious photo is about sexuality and about puberty but it doesn't "celebrate the sexuality of young teenagers". The sullen / sad face of the young woman speaks to me of anxiety rather than joy.

Using photography to raise questions about sexuality without being erotic is a difficult ask. That so many people cannot make the distinction in Henson's photo might suggest he hasn't succeeded. On the other hand, he has kick started an amazing debate here in Oz about the nature of sexuality, art, photography, consent, exploitation etc. On that level, he has succeeded wonderfully.

I disagree with you slightly. Henson's now notorious photo is about sexuality and about puberty but it doesn't "celebrate the sexuality of young teenagers". The sullen / sad face of the young woman speaks to me of anxiety rather than joy.

Fair enough. My point to Muravyets remains: there is sexuality in the photos.

Also, semantics, but I meant celebrate as in the artist is proclaiming it or praise it, if not joyfully.

Which, for the record, is probably also not the sum extent of the photographs. I do not want anyone to tell me that my point is invalid because they think I think there is nothing more to the photographs than the sexuality. That is not what I think. What I think is that it is a part, which is significant and relevant to this discussion.

Yes, yes. None of this changes the fact that Fixed news has a well deserved reputation as being an unreliable news source.

What? I thought that Tom Brokaw was not affiliated with Fox. What are you talking about?

When I complained about Fishutopia's "porn doesn't have to have sex in it" remark, she said:

"That's only true for perverts."
RhynoD has already said what needs to be said about this, but, I'll add some more. You seem to want to change the boundary lines. Playboy is obviously porn. If you asked most people if Playboy had sex, they would say no. So, is everyone who reads Playboy a pervert? Everyone who looks at soft porn on the internet a pervert? That's a large body of people you are applying that label to.

If you want to interchange sex and sexuality, to whatever makes your argument look better at the time, so be it. Semantic arguments may make you feel better, and make you think you have won, but it just makes you look like a fool who doesn't know how to conduct a debate.

I think you and I have a pretty clear opinion of what constitutes porn and what doesn't, and it agrees most of the time, even though you have continually tried to portray me as someone who thinks of every nude as porn, when I do not. There is obviously a grey area (otherwise this debate wouldn't exist). You and I disagree on this grey area.

To change tack a bit. Lets talk about the court case, if it goes that far. At the end of the day it will most likely be up to the courts to decide. This will be precedent setting. If he is found guilty, the court is pretty much saying "every naked picture of an underage person is potentially porn". Display photo at your own risk. If found not guilty then they are saying "Underage models are perfectly O.K. in the case of art".
The courts do get their lead from society and from politics. While it's not meant to happen, the prime ministers statement obviously shows what he wants, and that may influence the judge.
It will be interesting to see what the prosecution focuses on. If he focuses on protecting society, I think the case has little chance. Henson should get off, as nobody has to see the pictures. While there is the secondary argument of "If Henson pictures aren't porn , can't anyone say their non explicit kiddie porn is art", I still think it would have limited chance in court. If he focuses on the case of emotional damage to the model, that will be interesting.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
Well, you're wrong.
About what, specifically?

Everything.

Including the whole rest of the above post full of misquoted, misused, misapplied, and misunderstood snippets of info, every single one of which has already been addressed and countered by me in this thread.

And especially including any part that suggests that you think I'm going to repeat all those counterpoints that I have already made. If Fishutopia can't make me dance the same dance over and over, neither can you.

Bottom line: I already explained in detail why you're wrong about this. Just repeating it over and over isn't going to make you less wrong. And apparently, repeating the explanation to you over and over isn't going to get it through your head.

RhynoD has already said what needs to be said about this,<snip>
RhynoD is wrong, too.

And frankly, the court decision will be whatever it is and will have whatever effect it has, but if it goes against Mr. Henson, it will not end the issue. It will only open more debate. It will not make you right, all by itself, because you're wrong.

Oh, and, by the way, even if we were discussing actual porn, your arguments about it would still be bullshit.

I teach my 4 year old that just saying "I'm right, your wrong" is bad. I hope when he is an adult, he debates better than you. Actually, I'm sure when he's 8 he'll knows how to conduct a debate better than you. It wouldn't be hard.

You have not justified anything. You have continually tried to misrepresent myself and RhynoD. You saying "Now we come back to the original point, is David porn?" just recently, shows you are not bothering to read what is written.

You seem to have a pre conceived idea that the only people who could disagree with you are messed up perverts or religious nuts, and thus keep asking the same question. David isn't porn, but Henson's photos might be.

That's not just my opinion, it's not necessarily Rhynod's (I think he's more advocating that it can be porn, not that he necessarily agrees), it is the opinion of the people who matter. The Australian police.

Well, I've returned to this thread to see if it's improved at all since I abandoned it...a week ago.

Nice to see that Rhyno and Fishu are still defying reality and that Muravyets is still abetting them. I've got no right to tell anyone what to do, but you might consider agreeing to disagree. If it's been this long, nobody's going to change their mind, and it approaches argumentative onanism. Some people are always going to think art is porn, and others are always going to think that porn is art. The whole thing is one giant, subjective, ju-ju-flop mess.

The only thing that might warrant further tussling is the notion of public funding, and even that's too slippery a slope to tread on. The "who decides" argument has been a staple of aesthetics since the Greeks, and always will be.

Just a thought, carry on, best of luck.

You say this:


Nice to see that Rhyno and Fishu are still defying reality

And then you say this


The whole thing is one giant, subjective, ju-ju-flop mess.


...

Quality pretentious word, onanism. :rolleyes:

I would have let it go many posts ago. As you have identified, the argument is tending to go in circles. I am always happy to agree to disagree on a matter of opinion. I will not accept continually poor debating technique, trying to demonise the other point of view by continual misrepresentation, straw men, insults and the like.

Quality pretentious word, onanism. :rolleyes:

I would have let it go many posts ago. As you have identified, the argument is tending to go in circles. I am always happy to agree to disagree on a matter of opinion. I will not accept continually poor debating technique, trying to demonise the other point of view by continual misrepresentation, straw men, insults and the like.
*Falls about laughing some more* What a piece of work is Fishutopia.

OK, I'll do the whole world a favor and abandon this melodrama now. My argument has been presented in its entirety through the course of the thread. I stated my views about Henson's pictures, stated my critiques of some other people's arguments against Henson's pictures, and tested the soundness of my position in direct argument with opponents. I am satisfied with the result. The only reason I'm stil here is because I've been waiting to see if my opponents are finished yet. It seems they are, because it has been more than 24 hours since they came up with any new input, either in terms of attacks, defenses, or new ideas. So, it seems there is nothing more to discuss on this topic.

So, it seems there is nothing more to discuss on this topic.

Well I think I had some points that weren't addressed yet.

Well I think I had some points that weren't addressed yet.
I didn't address your points because I had nothing to say about them. If someone else comes along, maybe they'll be able to make something out of them. Good luck. 'Bye.

Everything.

Including the whole rest of the above post full of misquoted, misused, misapplied, and misunderstood snippets of info, every single one of which has already been addressed and countered by me in this thread.

And especially including any part that suggests that you think I'm going to repeat all those counterpoints that I have already made. If Fishutopia can't make me dance the same dance over and over, neither can you.

Bottom line: I already explained in detail why you're wrong about this. Just repeating it over and over isn't going to make you less wrong. And apparently, repeating the explanation to you over and over isn't going to get it through your head.

You have never once demonstrated that I am wrong as you have never once addressed any argument that I have actually made. You have only demonstrated, quite thoroughly, that arguments I have not made are wrong, which I never disagreed with, as I never actually made those arguments. In fact, there are very few times in the last thirteen pages that I have indicated that I think you are wrong: I have primarily indicated that you have missed my point entirely so whether or not you are correct in your argument is entirely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with my argument.

Furthermore, your petulant rant about repetition does not demonstrate any kind of superior intelligence or argumentative strategy. What is has demonstrated is that you are running out of irrelevant and circular arguments so you are pitching a fit and declaring that you have "won the argument" and won't be coming back. You have not won anything, you have run out of things to say.

And frankly, the court decision will be whatever it is and will have whatever effect it has, but if it goes against Mr. Henson, it will not end the issue. It will only open more debate.

That is exactly the point I have been making repeatedly for the last thirteen pages. I made that exact point using different words. The point that you have just made is the point I also made previously several times. Your point is not different significantly from my point. Our respective arguments show a striking level of similarity between them. The my posts in this thread consist of making the point you have just made.


It will not make you right, all by itself, because you're wrong.

It will, however, be a strong point in his favor.

Some people are always going to think art is porn, and others are always going to think that porn is art. The whole thing is one giant, subjective, ju-ju-flop mess.

Once again, that is exactly my point. That is actually more the point I was trying to make than Muravyet's point above (which is also a point I was trying to make).

Well I think I had some points that weren't addressed yet.

Well I did say you were ugly, poopie-headed, and adopted.

However, I will try to address the points you made at some time. Muravyets has had me distracted.

Well I did say you were ugly, poopie-headed, and adopted.

However, I will try to address the points you made at some time. Muravyets has had me distracted.

Rawr!!!

It's official - the Henson photo is suitable for children.

Henson porn prosecution unlikely
David Marr
June 6, 2008
IT'S official. The naked girl that sparked the Bill Henson fuss is not porn. The sight of her on an invitation to the photographer's Sydney exhibition a couple of weeks ago provoked shock and outrage, but the Classifications Board has now declared the picture "mild" and safe for many children.

It is believed the Director of Public Prosecutions is on the verge of advising NSW police that any prosecution of Henson would be unlikely to succeed.

The case against Henson appears close to collapse.

The Classification Board, under its new chief, former head of the ABC Donald McDonald, has now given the young girl on the invitation the rating PG.

Considered one of the most confronting in the Henson exhibition, the picture came to the board for classification when it was discovered in a blog discussing pornography and the sexualisation of children. But the classifiers found the "image of breast nudity … creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context … and is not sexualised to any degree".

While a minority of the board thought the impact of the picture was "moderate" rather than "mild", none of the classifiers thought it deserved banning or called for any restriction on its display.

The board's guidelines state: "Material classified PG may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting, and may require the guidance of parents or guardians. It is not recommended for viewing or playing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians."

This verdict is bad news for police hoping to convince the DPP, Nicholas Cowdery, QC, that Henson's photographs would provoke the "offence to reasonable persons" needed to prosecute him as a child pornographer.

Another hurdle for police is Henson's right to call expert evidence that his work has artistic merit or purpose. Legal commentators over the past fortnight have generally argued this makes his prosecution either as a pornographer or publisher of indecent articles highly unlikely.

Police seized 32 Henson photographs from Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 gallery on May 23 following uproar the previous day on talkback radio.

Since then, Henson photographs have been removed from the walls of two regional NSW galleries and impounded at the National Gallery in Canberra.

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/national/henson-porn-prosecution-unlikely-20080605-2mbs.html)

There ought to be a curfew on wowsers.

I don't really see the problem.

Getting tired of the fits of hysteria people get into over nudity.

It's official - the Henson photo is suitable for children.



Link (http://www.theage.com.au/national/henson-porn-prosecution-unlikely-20080605-2mbs.html)

There ought to be a curfew on wowsers.

Yes it seems that both him and the gallery owners will be have their charges dropped.

The Crown prosecutors said they didn't have enough evidence, I wonder, however, if they dropped it for the sake of damping down controversy under artistic pressure, or if they dropped it because under Section 91G of the NSW Crimes Act (which is what he was being charged with) includes a clause for artists to be allowed to do what Henson has done, and so has yet to break the law.

Am I the only one who thinks that simply calling something art is completely meaningless!? I could dance around naked throwing shit up in the air and call it art, and there would be absolutely no meaningful reason why you could say that it isn't art. I could easily make up some vague explanation tenuously linking it to some boring sociological concept and people would immediately accept it, and even if I didn't give an explanation for it others would, like the very fact of it being completely inartistic is artistic in itself, and challenging are "preconceptions of what art is".

Yes but it may not actually be your perception at all. I might say that me dancing around naked throwing shit in the air is my perception on the nature of society in the modern consumerist west, and that would be enough to be called art, even if I didn't mean it and it wasn't my perception at all.

It doesn't matter if it's art you like or don't like, as long as it's art there is nothing wrong with it. Seeing the problem?

Most of your other posts reiterate these points, eh?

I agree to a point: the ability to call anything at all "art" is indeed a problem. As a student of literature I see a similar problem with poetry: you can write any you want, put any set of letters, words, and punctuation in any order you want and call it poetic license.

The problem is, there has been a great deal of artistic breakthroughs that were barely within the realm of art at the time (consider: jazz music until about the bebop era was not considered a legitimate art form). To declare that something is art, while something else is not (despite the artist's claims to the contrary) is to make a set of rules by precedent, which cannot foresee changes in thinking that might produce truly great art, even if it defies the current accepted definition of art.

The compromise is this: anyone has any right to call something art. But everyone else has every right to call it absolute crap.

The biggest problem I see in artistic expression is a rising attitude, especially with the intellectually elite, to criticize people for their entirely justified opinion of someone's art as absolute crap. It seems that a lot of the intellectual elites have this notion that because something has been declared art, it can't be bad. How dare you criticize him, it's his art and he can create it however he likes, and you can't say it's bad just because you don't agree with how he made it. I disagree with this view entirely: if you can call it art, I can call it crap. Or else allow others to say it's not art. Without being able to make some kind of distinction, art forms lose all meaning: if everything is good art, why should anyone bother trying?

So, Hydesland, points addressed.

But you're still an ugly poop head.

It's official - the Henson photo is suitable for children.



Link (http://www.theage.com.au/national/henson-porn-prosecution-unlikely-20080605-2mbs.html)

There ought to be a curfew on wowsers.

Thank Gawd cooler heads prevailed.

Also:
New South Wales Police said on Friday they had been advised by the director of public prosecutions there was no reasonable prospect of a successful conviction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7439235.stm

Bump!

I guess they need to close down that child porn ring known as the National Geographic Society.

I guess they need to close down that child porn ring known as the National Geographic Society.

Oh no! Think about the pedophiles!!:eek:

Bleh.

The problem is, there has been a great deal of artistic breakthroughs that were barely within the realm of art at the time (consider: jazz music until about the bebop era was not considered a legitimate art form).

Well I'm not quite sure about the bold, it WAS seen as degenerate etc.. but U don't think 'not a legitimate art form', however I understand the point you're trying to make.


To declare that something is art, while something else is not (despite the artist's claims to the contrary) is to make a set of rules by precedent, which cannot foresee changes in thinking that might produce truly great art, even if it defies the current accepted definition of art.


Exactly, which is why I say that it being art does not add anything meaningful in political terms to the content being considered for censorship.


The biggest problem I see in artistic expression is a rising attitude, especially with the intellectually elite, to criticize people for their entirely justified opinion of someone's art as absolute crap. It seems that a lot of the intellectual elites have this notion that because something has been declared art, it can't be bad. How dare you criticize him, it's his art and he can create it however he likes, and you can't say it's bad just because you don't agree with how he made it. I disagree with this view entirely: if you can call it art, I can call it crap. Or else allow others to say it's not art. Without being able to make some kind of distinction, art forms lose all meaning: if everything is good art, why should anyone bother trying?


Well I vaguely agree with you there. However, i disagree that you can state that anything isn't art, if it was created for the intention of it being art or perhaps even if it is declared art by someone else, since that is all it takes for it to fulfil the definition of art. You can say its absolutely shitty art, but it's art none the less.


So, Hydesland, points addressed.


Well, not really. My main point which I don't think you quoted was that the issue should be whether pictures of naked children should be censored or not, regardless of whether it is art or not.


But you're still an ugly poop head.

Actually, that is a serious condition, you should probably not make fun of it, here educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_Rostral_Syndrome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

Actually, that is a serious condition, you should probably not make fun of it, here educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_Rostral_Syndrome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

You little bastard, stop trying to waste my download.

Well I'm not quite sure about the bold, it WAS seen as degenerate etc.. but U don't think 'not a legitimate art form', however I understand the point you're trying to make.

Degenerate, not legitimate...semantics. But you get my point so it's all good. The attitude probably varied anyways between the two.

Exactly, which is why I say that it being art does not add anything meaningful in political terms to the content being considered for censorship.

I agree. Calling something art does not make it immune to censorship. Now, by censorship I mean rating something PG-13 and whatnot, and deciding that a certain work is too graphic for public display. So: even if Henson's works are art (and not pornography), they can still be deemed too graphic for public display, neh? Not that they necessarily will, but they can.


Well I vaguely agree with you there. However, i disagree that you can state that anything isn't art, if it was created for the intention of it being art or perhaps even if it is declared art by someone else, since that is all it takes for it to fulfil the definition of art. You can say its absolutely shitty art, but it's art none the less.

Well yes, that's my compromise: if no one is allowed to call something not art (which is how it should be), then we should be allowed to call it crappy art. If, however, an artist decides that I am not allowed to call whatever he has created crappy, then I'm going to call it not crappy not art. But yes, I agree, no one truly has the right to call something not art.

Well, not really. My main point which I don't think you quoted was that the issue should be whether pictures of naked children should be censored or not, regardless of whether it is art or not.

Oh, must have missed that.
I think it depends on the pictures. If they are artful and not pornographic, then I think there are venues for such things. I don't particularly think the audience of that venue should be children (depending on their age and maturity and so on), though, if you want to call that censorship. I also don't think the audience should include sex offenders, but that would be difficult to enforce without running into some privacy and discrimination laws.

Actually, that is a serious condition, you should probably not make fun of it, here educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_Rostral_Syndrome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

Clever clever, hiding that link like that. I almost fell for it, except I didn't click the link and noticed where it leads while typing my post.