Art vs. Pornography

by Aztec 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Aztec

  I have framed some odd things in my career. I didn't mind framing a Penthouse spread. I did mind framing a "slave bat". I actually cried when confronted with that atrocity. I won't even talk about that....

  I have received some interesting photos as of late. They are pictures, ahem, photograhs of children. These are children who have been brought up in Nudist Camps. They have a whole nother perspective than you or I. They are nude. At what point does childish innocence become pornography?. They are portrayed as young humans. The human body is a work of art and it should be portrayed that way. None of these pictures are sexually provocative!

  What say you?

  ~Aztec
• 

  Elsewhere

  None of these pictures are sexually provocative

  You've answered it yourself.

  As a supreme court justice once said regarding pornography and how to define it: "I know it when I see it."
• 

  Aztec

  Weeeeeeeellll

  Thank you Elsewhere!

  ~Aztec
• 

  teejay

  IMO, taking pictures of children (minors) is, at the very least, exploitative. They are too young to give proper consideration to the implications of having their bodies exposed to who knows who. The end product may not necessarily be "pornographic," but it is improper and the people taking the photos and offering them for public viewing are morally wrong for doing so.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Yet another exploited baby. When will the insanity stop???
• 

  rocketman
• 

  Xena

  You have a way of making me think teejay...I am not sure that is a good thing

  When I first read this thread I was of the mind that if it was not sexually provocative, a natural photograph like a parent might take of their child, then it would be considered art.

  Then when I read teejays comments it got me to thinking about when I was a child and my parents would draw out "THOSE" pictures of me to the amusement and edification of family, friends and neighbors. What would it be like if that picture were hanging on walls who knows where to be encountered at any given time? I mean as teejay said at least adults give their informed consent.....

  Of course I suppose the picture itself would still be considered art...but art at what price?
• 

  teejay

  Elsewhere,
  
  I wasn't talking about babies. I was specific as to their age by saying "children (minors)" which includes children older than the one you posted. Perhaps Aztec needs to clarify what she means by "children."
  
  p.s. Do you have kids?
  
  p.s.s. You are welcome to your opinion and, while I may disagree with it, I wouldn't call it "insanity." FWIW.
• 

  iiz2cool

  As you said, they're not sexually provocative, so they're not pornographic in nature. As minors, it would be up to the parents or legal guardians to decide in the child's behalf whether or not these are to be displayed, and in what manner. My question is, will these be hung in a public gallery, a family home, or will they be reproduced and sold. If they are to be reproduced and sold, the child should be properly renumerated, and the money put in trust.

  Walter
  Ontario District Overbeer
• 

  teejay

  You have a way of making me think teejay...
  
  Uh... Zee? You have long had a way of making me think....
  
  ;)