When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

[Ian]

There is a news story attracting a fair amount of attention concerning the work of photographer Nan Goldin, or one picture in particular. The story is carried by the BBC and they ask what is the difference between art and porn.

It seems rather strange that a picture owned by Elton John, which has apaprently been publicly exhibited several times since 2002, has only now been identified as an item of alleged child pornography.

At the same time, here in the UK, children are now more prone to allergies than ever before, probably because kids are kept cleaner and away from infections that fine tune their immune systems.

The link between the two is - are we over-protecting our children in this modern age? If so, who is to blame?

Ian

[paul.r.w]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

Yes, I saw that story as well. I'm not sure who's worse sometimes, the perverts or the "protectors". I was stopped once taking pictures of my granddaughter in a swimming pool. I've got loads of pictures of my kids in various stages of undress and nude and there's not one sexual connotation in any of them.

[Ian]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

Yes, I saw that story as well. I'm not sure who's worse sometimes, the perverts or the "protectors". I was stopped once taking pictures of my granddaughter in a swimming pool. I've got loads of pictures of my kids in various stages of undress and nude and there's not one sexual connotation in any of them.

Indeed - digital is a double-edged sword; you can show any accuser immediately that your shots are perfectly above board, but at the same time it makes photographs easier to take and distribute covertly by bad people

I have never been asked, but I don't think I'd object if a respectable looking stranger wanted to take a picture of my daughters if we were on holiday or generally going about our business in public.

The history of photography is well served by great pictures of children doing all sorts of things - which children do. I wonder if people in the future will have any idea what children in our era were really like because of the public taboos that we have to endure these days.

Ian

[perrycornish]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

On balance I sometimes ( with obvious exceptions) think that the 'pornographic interpretation is more about the mindset ( interpretation?) of the critic!

[lourensb]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

This is a very good Question, Because I for one, are always the one my Sister ask to Photograph Her Kids... as they Grow... Certain sets of intervals..

The one is 4 and the one, is one. I have taken a Lot of Photos of these 2. But the only People who have access to this, Is Myself, and My Sister had them Printed.

I Think it Becomes Porn if you have the Kids do Expicit thinghs... Like you see in Porn Mags ... and so on..

I Dont know. Buts thats my Take ?

I for one, Don't Photograph their Privates, (Two Daugters though) I have them Covering with stuff like a Mosqito (Spelling) Net.. Or things like that...

A Child playing Naturaly on the floor, or the Bed.. or Whatever... With No Closes, or maybe just a Nappy or so...

This is my Though on this.

[Tom]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

On balance I sometimes ( with obvious exceptions) think that the 'pornographic interpretation is more about the mindset ( interpretation?) of the critic!

Very well said.

[Gina]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

As this topic is fairly brittle - imagine getting this off the ground.

Gina

[paul.r.w]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

I saw that in the paper, I'm thinking of visiting. Only for artistic reasons of course!

[Gina]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

Yeah yeah ! or is it RESEARCH? Paul

[paul.r.w]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

Artistic research...of course, what else?

Anyway, there's enough porn on the web if I wanted to look at smut!

[Ian]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

Artistic research...of course, what else?

Anyway, there's enough porn on the web if I wanted to look at smut!

It's all relative; what used to shock the majority a few decades ago doesn't bat an eyelid today. It goes in cycles too. The weird thing about today, which has been reflected on earlier here, is that we have both a very liberal attitude to things like clothing and personal freedom but we are probably more conservative now about other things, like our attitude to protecting our children. It's quite confusing!

Ian

[Gina]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

It's all relative; what used to shock the majority a few decades ago doesn't bat an eyelid today. It goes in cycles too. The weird thing about today, which has been reflected on earlier here, is that we have both a very liberal attitude to things like clothing and personal freedom but we are probably more conservative now about other things, like our attitude to protecting our children. It's quite confusing!

Ian

I agree with you about our attitude toward protecting our children and even harder, our grandchildren. I believe primarily that it is a fundamental part of every parents' responsibility to raise our children the right way. There is not enough communication word to mouth these days. Ironic isn't it that our technical achievements today, compared to 40 years ago is incredible but we actually don't communicate within the family on a day-to-day basis as much as 40 years ago. I learned right from wrong from the people I trusted - Mum and Dad of course, grandparents and teachers. Those of us that don't have such trust in our formative years are IMHO more at risk of developing mental health disorders. It's our responsibility to watch over our children. You say that it goes in cycles - it does - but each time it cycles, the death rate rises with other nasties like gun crime.

The curse of the internet is paedophilia and has given all the undesireables to the surface. Why aren't WE doing more to stop it? Can it be stopped? I doubt it. We have to protect our children without wrapping them in cotton wool. I'd like to do a POLL to see what members think the right age (approx) they think a child should be allowed unsupervised but with parental controls in place?

I know I can't save the world but I can guide my loved ones in the right direction and that's not always easy. Enough of my ramblings ...

Gina

[cowcrzy06]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

Hello All,

I Think America is the worst about this stuff. Wal-Mart which is America's largest chain store will not even develop photos of a child in a bathtub. America is supposed to be all about freedom of expression and so on. Yet our government is making new laws daily to take those freedoms away.Social groups also contribute to this. I have three children who you all have seen in my photos from time to time. I would get very upset if someone tried to tell me I was being pornographic by taking his picture while he was in the bath tub. That is sick and makes me wonder what THAT person was thinking when they saw my son's or daughter's picture. On the other side of the proverbial road there ARE sick people out there who do get kicks from those types of pictures. It is THEY who spoil it for the rest of us. >

[paul.r.w]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

That's the point, there's always some twisted mind that will get their "kicks" from something that we do innocently. That shouldn't stop us doing it or having our memories. And yes I do have pictures of my kids in the tub, all of them together, that must make me a raving pervert!

[Ian]

Re: When is a picture no longer art but child pornography?

I agree with you about our attitude toward protecting our children and even harder, our grandchildren. I believe primarily that it is a fundamental part of every parents' responsibility to raise our children the right way. There is not enough communication word to mouth these days. Ironic isn't it that our technical achievements today, compared to 40 years ago is incredible but we actually don't communicate within the family on a day-to-day basis as much as 40 years ago. I learned right from wrong from the people I trusted - Mum and Dad of course, grandparents and teachers. Those of us that don't have such trust in our formative years are IMHO more at risk of developing mental health disorders. It's our responsibility to watch over our children. You say that it goes in cycles - it does - but each time it cycles, the death rate rises with other nasties like gun crime.

The curse of the internet is paedophilia and has given all the undesireables to the surface. Why aren't WE doing more to stop it? Can it be stopped? I doubt it. We have to protect our children without wrapping them in cotton wool. I'd like to do a POLL to see what members think the right age (approx) they think a child should be allowed unsupervised but with parental controls in place?

I know I can't save the world but I can guide my loved ones in the right direction and that's not always easy. Enough of my ramblings ...

Gina

Our eldest, Elizabeth, is 11 and we are now occasionally letting her out to the corner shop - a ten minute walk.

I was already taking the bus to school and back by myself at that age - a 20 minute ride.

Ian