It really bothers me that people equate nudity to sexuality. And the transient nature of the human body during adolescence is one of fascination and ambiguity - we've all been there. It didn't make much sense to us at the time - maybe by looking back, we can unlock the mysteries of our own adolescence.
And again, I say, it's not *always* about sex. The thing about art is that it often reflects the beholder. If you're disgusted by a naked 12-year old, then the question should be "Why exactly? And what does that say about you?"
To me, its not porn if it wasn't made with the intent of being used/marketed for "adult" purposes. If the child and the child's guardians are comfortable with the photographs, and they do not threaten/appear to threaten the child's wellbeing, what is the problem? I haven't seen the pictures, but if they don't appear sexual in nature then I don't get what the issue is.
Our family photo album has a picture of my brother, then 5-6yo, running through a sprinkler on the lawn, starkers. There are also pictures of my brother and I in the bath as children, without bubbles, zomg. Am I running the risk of being charged with possessing child pornography (of myself???) because I am currently the holder of the family album?!
I find it perplexing that the parents or guardians would be comfortable with the idea of thousands of strangers looking at photographs of their naked child.
I think the issue is not the photographs themselves, but the age of the subjects. If they were eighteen and of an age where they themselves could give consent to their images being used, knowing all of the ramifications thereof, then nobody would have said anything at all.
I'm not sorry about what has happened, for the simple reason that I remember being twelve, and some things you do or say at that age come back to haunt you and utterly mortify you for years afterwards.
But the fact of the matter is that the parents did give their consent and still support Hensen's work. It was a private exhibition where the work was not for public sale, so the range of those people who were likely to see the artwork in the first place was severely limited. And why is it that we have become such a puritant society that naked means sexual
( ... )
Frankly, although I don't think that Anne Geddes' work is kiddieporn, I have to agree with your mother on that one. A society that thinks babies in flowerpots or dressed as bumblebees is cute is fundamentally screwed up
( ... )
Comments 6
It really bothers me that people equate nudity to sexuality. And the transient nature of the human body during adolescence is one of fascination and ambiguity - we've all been there. It didn't make much sense to us at the time - maybe by looking back, we can unlock the mysteries of our own adolescence.
And again, I say, it's not *always* about sex. The thing about art is that it often reflects the beholder. If you're disgusted by a naked 12-year old, then the question should be "Why exactly? And what does that say about you?"
Reply
Our family photo album has a picture of my brother, then 5-6yo, running through a sprinkler on the lawn, starkers. There are also pictures of my brother and I in the bath as children, without bubbles, zomg. Am I running the risk of being charged with possessing child pornography (of myself???) because I am currently the holder of the family album?!
Reply
I think the issue is not the photographs themselves, but the age of the subjects. If they were eighteen and of an age where they themselves could give consent to their images being used, knowing all of the ramifications thereof, then nobody would have said anything at all.
I'm not sorry about what has happened, for the simple reason that I remember being twelve, and some things you do or say at that age come back to haunt you and utterly mortify you for years afterwards.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment