# Artists (inc. Photographers) told: prove it's not porn



## Miaow (Jan 9, 2010)

Hmm - Interesting - I know in the past there has been quite a bit of discussion on the artistic merits of pics with kids in them so thought this would interest people 


*Artists told: prove it's not porn 				*


----------



## manicmike (Jan 9, 2010)

In general, nudity in art isn't a bad thing IMO. But when kid's are involved I fail to see an artistic aspect behind it in any regards.


----------



## Miaow (Jan 9, 2010)

manicmike said:


> In general, nudity in art isn't a bad thing IMO. But when kid's are involved I fail to see an artistic aspect behind it in any regards.



I agree myself on that though sometimes there are very innocent shots - I do think it comes into it how the shot is actually done and how people might perceive it - Bill Henson that was mentioned I didn't like those ones at all


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 10, 2010)

From the linked article:


> Its report, delivered to the Government on Friday, recommends art not be a consideration when reviewing images thought to be pornographic.


Well then, there's the Talmudic argument right there... "Thought to be pornographic.." By whom? 

Not to pimp my own thread, or restart a conversation I found pretty tiring to begin with, but all it takes is one reactionary to smear someone, and the conversation goes off from there. Boys with Lucha Masks

I can assure you that I had no pornographic intention when I took these images, yet some guy insisted on smearing me with the threat of some agency, possibly damaging my reputation for the rest of my life, only to be "right" in an argument. 



			
				manicmike said:
			
		

> In general, nudity in art isn't a bad thing IMO. But when kid's are involved I fail to see an artistic aspect behind it in any regards.


Well, there is no arguing with this... It is a statement of opinion, which to him is fact. But it is a Belief Statement, one that canNOT be argued with - it is impermissible to argue with opinion when discussing art... Yet that is goal in defining something for a community. As such, the biggest bully wins. 

That is neither me trying to take a stance for nude photography, nor to impugn manicmike, I'm just making an intellectual argument...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 10, 2010)

Porn?

Anne Geddes...


----------



## Craig G (Jan 10, 2010)

Here's my thoughts

Ages 0 months to 6 months are ok but no lower frontal areas
Ages 1 year to 18 years are off limits
Ages over 18 your good to go


----------



## patrickt (Jan 10, 2010)

It's a sticky area. With the exception of sex acts, I tend the think the government should tend to their own knitting. On the other hand, I went to an exhibit and all but one of the photographs were penis'. As you walked in the door you saw a 16x20" print of an erect penis ejaculating. I asked the photographer which room of the house you would hang that photograph and got a frown for a response. The one non-penis picture was a picture of six young boys with Downs Syndrom wearing speedos. After a quick survery I left.

There was another exhibit by a Swiss photographer which was all 13-14 year old girls dressed and posed like adults. I found the exhibit tacky and uninteresting but I'm sure Roman Polanski owns a few of her prints.

But, I don't think such photos or their exhibition should be illegal. I just won't buy them.


----------



## astrostu (Jan 10, 2010)

Glad that's just for Australia.  Not that I do under-18 nudes, not planning on it, but I'm more of a fan of the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality, and "it's porn unless you can prove otherwise" kinda flies in the face of that.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 10, 2010)

> The working party has recommended the law be changed so jury members, prosecutors and court staff are able to view only a sample of images during the trial process.


WTF?

They want to put people on trial, and then not let the jury see what they are on trial for??


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 10, 2010)

All I can say is that I'm glad it is not Australia I am leaving the US for.

Now, to be totally honest, children nudity is not the reason I am leaving but it is a part of it. A good friend got in trouble for a bath time photo of her kid (she may have been the original US artist for that :lmao but, as it was a totally innocent shot that most of us have done of our kids, it was a life changing experience. It sure was for her.

A big chunk of my work has been called political porn by some (yes I use sex in my political work) and I just stopped showing in this country. The point being, for those that can't figure it out, that politics is way dirtier than sex. Now I'm just too tired of dealing with our skewed sex obsessed/close minded/don't rock the boat society and I'm going where I am appreciated.

Until things change that is. In another 5-10 years I'll probably move to Antartica where the Penguins are much more reasonable.


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2010)

astrostu said:


> Glad that's just for Australia. Not that I do under-18 nudes, not planning on it, but I'm more of a fan of the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality, and "it's porn unless you can prove otherwise" kinda flies in the face of that.


 
+1, agreed!

skieur


----------



## usayit (Jan 10, 2010)

Iron Flatline said:


> Porn?
> 
> Anne Geddes...



I can't help but think the one on the left needs a bathroom break.  cute..


----------

