Controversial exhibit w/ children photos
- Thread starter Flea
- Start date
The shots at the site were cut off so I can't tell 100% that they aren't porn, but nothing looked suggestive to me.
People forget, nude does not equal porn. You're born naked. Too many people are so stuck in their 19th century hangups, and too many people, young women especially fear their own bodies.
Maybe if we celebrated how we are, rather than covered it, feared it and sheltered it, we'd have less hang ups, less problems, and less crime.
People forget, nude does not equal porn. You're born naked. Too many people are so stuck in their 19th century hangups, and too many people, young women especially fear their own bodies.
Maybe if we celebrated how we are, rather than covered it, feared it and sheltered it, we'd have less hang ups, less problems, and less crime.
It's been said... one man's art is another man's porn.
Again it all lies down with the INTENT of the photographer and what they are trying to say. If the intent is to arouse then it's likely to be construed as pornography, if it's to bring awareness or basically any other intention other than sexual arousal or stimulation then it's art or advertisement or instructional material or whatever else the photographer had in mind.
HOWEVER! Public display of nudity is not condoned by everyone and thus one has to keep within the realm of respecting the viewer. But it's a dual edged sword... the viewer if entering an enclosed place (i.e. a gallery or other type of exhibition format) then they still make a choice to view the material or not. Same as if one is going to a website where nudity is shown. Our own Bob Hubbard is known for taking nude photographs... is he wanting to sexually stimulate people when they see them or is he wanting them to appreciate the human form and/or his artist's vision?
Nudity of children is very very sticky. Is it porn to take photos of kids playing, relaxing, posing (as in a family portrait) or wandering around with adults at a nudist camp/facility? Is it art when a child is shown nude in an evocative pose, but the genitals are not seen?
At this particular exhibit the photos are in a walled off portion and (again) the patrons are making a choice to see them knowing full well what it is entailing. The photographer isn't trying to titillate but educate and promote body awareness. People are going to have to make a choice and it's going to be for themselves. How they respond to it is also their choice.
Same goes for how people choose to feel about the exhibit even if they haven't seen it.
They're not going to be able to screen anyone that goes through for appropriate or inappropriate thoughts and feelings... that'd be impossible.
It would also be illegal to do background checks on people entering the exhibit for prior sexual offenses... in fear that it may stimulate or trigger a pedo or (potential pedo) into acting out.
Like I said it's a big sticky situation, circumstances created by the photographer, the university and the people attending.
Just because it's on a college campus doesn't mean it's all good.
Again it all lies down with the INTENT of the photographer and what they are trying to say. If the intent is to arouse then it's likely to be construed as pornography, if it's to bring awareness or basically any other intention other than sexual arousal or stimulation then it's art or advertisement or instructional material or whatever else the photographer had in mind.
HOWEVER! Public display of nudity is not condoned by everyone and thus one has to keep within the realm of respecting the viewer. But it's a dual edged sword... the viewer if entering an enclosed place (i.e. a gallery or other type of exhibition format) then they still make a choice to view the material or not. Same as if one is going to a website where nudity is shown. Our own Bob Hubbard is known for taking nude photographs... is he wanting to sexually stimulate people when they see them or is he wanting them to appreciate the human form and/or his artist's vision?
Nudity of children is very very sticky. Is it porn to take photos of kids playing, relaxing, posing (as in a family portrait) or wandering around with adults at a nudist camp/facility? Is it art when a child is shown nude in an evocative pose, but the genitals are not seen?
At this particular exhibit the photos are in a walled off portion and (again) the patrons are making a choice to see them knowing full well what it is entailing. The photographer isn't trying to titillate but educate and promote body awareness. People are going to have to make a choice and it's going to be for themselves. How they respond to it is also their choice.
Same goes for how people choose to feel about the exhibit even if they haven't seen it.
They're not going to be able to screen anyone that goes through for appropriate or inappropriate thoughts and feelings... that'd be impossible.
It would also be illegal to do background checks on people entering the exhibit for prior sexual offenses... in fear that it may stimulate or trigger a pedo or (potential pedo) into acting out.
Like I said it's a big sticky situation, circumstances created by the photographer, the university and the people attending.
Just because it's on a college campus doesn't mean it's all good.
Thanks Flea, first it was the elbow song with Kermit now this, I feel like my head is going to explode trying to organize my thoughts coherently.
Im assuming everyone and their parents have consented to the photos being put on public display.
As someone who loves art, I have no issue with nudity for art sake.
As a father, I have serious issue with child nudity, exposed for all to see. The thought of some freak gazing at a picture of my daughter infuriates me.
As a libertarian, you cant charge someone for a thought crime. (Viewing the photos)
Walk through any major art gallery and there is nudity everywhere.
As Bob says, nudity does not equal porn. Agreed.
If these photoss were found on the computers of a you or I, we could be charged with child porn.
I agree with Bob, we are way too hung up on nudity here in North America, in many cultures children run around naked till theyre 5-6 or even older. We need to get over it all.
I understand the concerns, but I would not object to the show.
Im assuming everyone and their parents have consented to the photos being put on public display.
As someone who loves art, I have no issue with nudity for art sake.
As a father, I have serious issue with child nudity, exposed for all to see. The thought of some freak gazing at a picture of my daughter infuriates me.
As a libertarian, you cant charge someone for a thought crime. (Viewing the photos)
Walk through any major art gallery and there is nudity everywhere.
As Bob says, nudity does not equal porn. Agreed.
If these photoss were found on the computers of a you or I, we could be charged with child porn.
I agree with Bob, we are way too hung up on nudity here in North America, in many cultures children run around naked till theyre 5-6 or even older. We need to get over it all.
I understand the concerns, but I would not object to the show.
Appreciate the human form and/or his artist's vision. I don't shoot intentional 'spank' material.
I know you don't Bob... the question was rhetorical ... you've no need to defend yourself... :uhyeah: :asian:
Probably not... but it does have a more .... direct impact upon the psyche because as Bob pointed out we're hung up on it so much that we're affected by it negatively. I can see now, the photographer's intent was to affect us positively with these particular photos.
The photographer could've done the exact same photos with all the subjects clothed but clothing does hide the body's imperfections and overall shape. The effect of clothed models would be profoundly different and not aligned with the exhibit's intention (as I see it) to show the female form's variety; Body Awareness, Body Appreciation, you can't do that with clothes on.
They could've been all males far as I'm concerned and the affect, nude or clothed would've been the same for each.
Giving it some thought here... nude you're viewing them as human beings... clothed you're viewing them as people. Not being ashamed of who and what we all are... human beings.
This wouldn’t be MT if we didn’t veer off topic every thread.
Again, why are we so hung up on nudity, anyone’s nudity? BUT we have no problem letting everyone, including children play with, and watch extremely violent video games and movies. I think watching a movie where multiple people are hacked to death with an axe, or an eight year old plays a sniper and makes dozens of head shots to win a game are seriously more detrimental to child’s psyche, then the same children seeing a pair of breasts, (with full nipple exposure!!), or a penis in a movie.
I think we have our concerns and our fears a little bit cross wired.
Again, why are we so hung up on nudity, anyone’s nudity? BUT we have no problem letting everyone, including children play with, and watch extremely violent video games and movies. I think watching a movie where multiple people are hacked to death with an axe, or an eight year old plays a sniper and makes dozens of head shots to win a game are seriously more detrimental to child’s psyche, then the same children seeing a pair of breasts, (with full nipple exposure!!), or a penis in a movie.
I think we have our concerns and our fears a little bit cross wired.
A number of years ago I interned at a sexual abuse clinic and worked with the sex offenders and they asked the same question.
Sex and violence are not too far apart from one another in being harmful to a child's developmental processes ... but with sexual content or even nudity of an adult they don't have the mental or emotional capacity to deal with what they're seeing. They don't have the experience to understand completely with what's happening. They don't understand the why's and wherefores. They aren't processing it like an adult would. They don't understand the intent.
Violence is the same way, a child is seeing that they're shooting people in a first (or second) person shooter game and they're seeing graphic results in some cases but again they're aren't processing it mentally and emotionally like an adult would. They can very easily lose the boundry of fantasy (the game) and reality. But I think folks don't have TOO big of a hang up on violence as they do on sex.
Inherently we are violent creatures, it's in our psyche-make up. Kids generally can play a violent game (DOOM, Medal Of Honor, et al) and MOST can just go on and not be so affected by it. Remember playing army as a kid?
Sexuality on the other hand has proven to have long long range effects on children which extends into their adult lives. It also makes them easier prey for pedos who would take advantage of their naivety for their own debased purposes/pleasures. The photos in question aren't done in a sexualized manner or purpose. I'm sure that the girls were explained to as best as it could be for their (individual respective) age bracket.
Granted some of those girls could grow up to be (public) exhibitionists but by and large I wouldn't think so... because it wasn't sexual.
David43515
Master Black Belt
I think Ken hit the nail on the head with a few of his points.
If you or I had these photoes in or possesion, it might be a crime. (I don`t know the civillian legal definition of porn, but according to military law these would be child porn even though the girls are alone and not performing any sexual act.)
I`m probably the most religiously conservative person on this site from what I`ve seen. But I have no problems with this. It`s not sexual. It`s not in the open where people who don`t want to see it are going to accidentaly stumble upon it. And it`s done to promote good body images, a problem that SO MANY women seem to have serious issues with. I think it`s a great idea and I wouldn`t be shy about taking my mom, my wife, or take my daughters to see it.(That`s my criteria for whether I should go someplace, "would I be embarassed if ________ was here with me?")
If you or I had these photoes in or possesion, it might be a crime. (I don`t know the civillian legal definition of porn, but according to military law these would be child porn even though the girls are alone and not performing any sexual act.)
I`m probably the most religiously conservative person on this site from what I`ve seen. But I have no problems with this. It`s not sexual. It`s not in the open where people who don`t want to see it are going to accidentaly stumble upon it. And it`s done to promote good body images, a problem that SO MANY women seem to have serious issues with. I think it`s a great idea and I wouldn`t be shy about taking my mom, my wife, or take my daughters to see it.(That`s my criteria for whether I should go someplace, "would I be embarassed if ________ was here with me?")
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Flea, you must forgive me as I haven't looked at the link, but a few of the posts here have gotten my thoughts going...
Carol. No, the issues facing women are by no means so unimportant that the only way to get any attention to them is to bare a little flesh. Absolutely not. However, if the issues in question are to do with percived body image issues, based on airbrushed photos, perfect make-up, figure enhancing clothing and the like, then such a method (showing the truth, both perfect and imperfect in women of all ages, backgrounds, forms, and shapes) can be seen as appropriate. And, honestly, although men and boys do also suffer from such body image issues, women and girls tend to be far more affected by this, so I can understand his choices from this standpoint.
That said, and bearing in mind I haven't looked at them at this point, if any photo is sexualised, that is completely out of place.
Ken. Some very good points, my friend. I, too, have been struggling with the haunting strains of Kermit as I attempt to lay myself down...
When it comes to the porn/art debate, well, that is always going to be a tough one. I don't think it's actually so much the intent of the photographer in all cases (as Bob said, he doesn't intentionally shoot spank material....), but in the interpretation of the viewer. And that is often outside of the control of the artist themselves.
I tend to go back to an old Bill Hicks routine, where he discusses this very debate. He cites a situation where the question arose, and it really came down to "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it..." And that could apply equally to either, really. So the big issue with pornography was simple. No-one knew what it was. No-one could truly define it. It ended up with the Supreme Court, who had to make a ruling. In the end, the definition they came up with was "having no artistic merit, and causing sexual thought."
"Hmm," says Bill. "Having no artistic merit.... causing sexual thougt.... hmmm.... well, you know.... that sounds like pretty much every ad I have ever seen!"
In the end, what causes sexual thought is very simple. Without using Bills' crude (and very funny) phrasing, it's just this: being human. By design of nature we are sexual creatures, if we weren't, then there wouldn't be any of us here.
And that brings me to....
Sex and Violence. This was Ken, MA Caver, and David43515. The idea here is that trauma occurs when a child is exposed to sexual material or adult nudity, as they cannot comprehend it, and are to a degree saved from trauma when exposed to violence as they cannot comprehend it. I'm going to disagree with a few basic ideas here.
To begin with, some personal beliefs. The hang ups that are currently pervading places such as the US come from artificial places, such as current interpretations of religious texts (typically designed to control), and personal belief systems of various ruling peoples at certain times. For example, Queen Victoria was not really good for the sexual psychology of the English people. She believed that sex was something that was not pleasurable, and served only to grant children. Some of her sage advice was to tell women that they should "lie back, and think of (the service they were doing for) England" during love-making. She enacted laws against male homosexuality, but interestingly not against female homosexuality... she couldn't for the life of her think of what on earth two women would do together! Dress was made as non-sexual as possible, and it got to the point where to see the naked leg of a table or piano was considered risque, which is why tableclothes got so long....
Personally, I think that the issue of children being traumatised is less about them not understanding what they see, but more that the adults place a stigma on such things. This leads to confusion and associated guilt and shame, as the child is taught that such things are not something to be discussed (the hiding of the act gives it a taboo status, which is actually more likely to lead to things such as paedaphilia and immature sexual behaviours, by which I mean behaviours not stemming from a healthy mature self image).
So if a child is raised in a situation where sexuality is viewed as natural and healthy, things such as a naked adult body would not be as issue at all. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that children be shown serious hardcore German adult entertainment, but giving them the unconscious message that sexuality is something to be ashamed of is more dangerous to their psyche.
So in conclusion.... This is one of those "viewer's discression" situations. It's not porn, that much is clear from the intent and display. Some members of society may take them as images that can be sexualised in their own minds, but that is far from the control of the artist. It is the same as Bill's routine, he ends up claiming public transport as pornographic as he experiences sexual thoughts as a result of the way the train is rocking....
Carol. No, the issues facing women are by no means so unimportant that the only way to get any attention to them is to bare a little flesh. Absolutely not. However, if the issues in question are to do with percived body image issues, based on airbrushed photos, perfect make-up, figure enhancing clothing and the like, then such a method (showing the truth, both perfect and imperfect in women of all ages, backgrounds, forms, and shapes) can be seen as appropriate. And, honestly, although men and boys do also suffer from such body image issues, women and girls tend to be far more affected by this, so I can understand his choices from this standpoint.
That said, and bearing in mind I haven't looked at them at this point, if any photo is sexualised, that is completely out of place.
Ken. Some very good points, my friend. I, too, have been struggling with the haunting strains of Kermit as I attempt to lay myself down...
When it comes to the porn/art debate, well, that is always going to be a tough one. I don't think it's actually so much the intent of the photographer in all cases (as Bob said, he doesn't intentionally shoot spank material....), but in the interpretation of the viewer. And that is often outside of the control of the artist themselves.
I tend to go back to an old Bill Hicks routine, where he discusses this very debate. He cites a situation where the question arose, and it really came down to "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it..." And that could apply equally to either, really. So the big issue with pornography was simple. No-one knew what it was. No-one could truly define it. It ended up with the Supreme Court, who had to make a ruling. In the end, the definition they came up with was "having no artistic merit, and causing sexual thought."
"Hmm," says Bill. "Having no artistic merit.... causing sexual thougt.... hmmm.... well, you know.... that sounds like pretty much every ad I have ever seen!"
In the end, what causes sexual thought is very simple. Without using Bills' crude (and very funny) phrasing, it's just this: being human. By design of nature we are sexual creatures, if we weren't, then there wouldn't be any of us here.
And that brings me to....
Sex and Violence. This was Ken, MA Caver, and David43515. The idea here is that trauma occurs when a child is exposed to sexual material or adult nudity, as they cannot comprehend it, and are to a degree saved from trauma when exposed to violence as they cannot comprehend it. I'm going to disagree with a few basic ideas here.
To begin with, some personal beliefs. The hang ups that are currently pervading places such as the US come from artificial places, such as current interpretations of religious texts (typically designed to control), and personal belief systems of various ruling peoples at certain times. For example, Queen Victoria was not really good for the sexual psychology of the English people. She believed that sex was something that was not pleasurable, and served only to grant children. Some of her sage advice was to tell women that they should "lie back, and think of (the service they were doing for) England" during love-making. She enacted laws against male homosexuality, but interestingly not against female homosexuality... she couldn't for the life of her think of what on earth two women would do together! Dress was made as non-sexual as possible, and it got to the point where to see the naked leg of a table or piano was considered risque, which is why tableclothes got so long....
Personally, I think that the issue of children being traumatised is less about them not understanding what they see, but more that the adults place a stigma on such things. This leads to confusion and associated guilt and shame, as the child is taught that such things are not something to be discussed (the hiding of the act gives it a taboo status, which is actually more likely to lead to things such as paedaphilia and immature sexual behaviours, by which I mean behaviours not stemming from a healthy mature self image).
So if a child is raised in a situation where sexuality is viewed as natural and healthy, things such as a naked adult body would not be as issue at all. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that children be shown serious hardcore German adult entertainment, but giving them the unconscious message that sexuality is something to be ashamed of is more dangerous to their psyche.
So in conclusion.... This is one of those "viewer's discression" situations. It's not porn, that much is clear from the intent and display. Some members of society may take them as images that can be sexualised in their own minds, but that is far from the control of the artist. It is the same as Bill's routine, he ends up claiming public transport as pornographic as he experiences sexual thoughts as a result of the way the train is rocking....
Ok, so how about in other countries where nudity and porn doesn't have the same taboo as it does here? How about England and Europe? What do you guys think?
