Art or Paedophilia?

[Slytovhand]

Boozy made a comment to a post about 'art', and so I decided to post up this (which I should have done weeks ago...)

Art of Porn?

Basically, an 'artist' has been arrested for child pornography, for photographing a 13 year old girl in the nude. There was going to be an exhibition about it, but the police got a complaint, moved in, removed the shots, and has now decided to arrest.


My thoughts are, as usual, divergent.

A)... yep... it sucks that society has come to this (like the post about the Pakistani woman...)

B) there are laws in place for the protection of innocent children... just using the term 'I'm an artist' doesn't in any way exempt you from those laws.



Slyt

[the_std]

I am an artist as well and I do believe that anything, absolutely anything at all, can be art. I believe what this man has done is art.

However, that doesn't make it exempt from the law. If the law says he's a paedophile for what he's done, then he is. But it's still art.

[Slytovhand]

I am an artist as well and I do believe that anything, absolutely anything at all, can be art. I believe what this man has done is art.

Just to be pedantic... say... killing someone and using their organs in a montage?

(Probably yes... but also on the same understanding that you also included as well.....yes??)

[crazylegs]

Personally I wouldn't be able to fully offer an opinion until I see the images, however until his trial and the decision is made then I don't think I'll look to hard to find them.

However

I will say this

IF the child was not at risk and

IF the child was not being photgraphed in a sexual manner (either provocative or overtly sexual way) and

IF the parents were fully aware of the images being taken

Then IN PRINCIPLE I can see why it would be art rather than porngraphy.

[aniwahya]

I say it depends on the pictures, and the editor.

I have seen a few of these art books, some were fine, even incredibly well done.
Others were porn (some depicting kids) with a glossy cover and an art deco flair. A lot of that can be in the editing, I think. Having an editor who wants to sell books, well what is going to get more free publicity (and more sales) than a good ole controversy.

In trying to make a decision if I was involved in deciding the case, I would take into consideration the parents involvement and knowledge. It wouldn't sway me too far one way or another however. Some parents would sell their kids for the price of a cheap high.

This is a tough issue to decide where I stand. >< I believe in artist integrity (I write, which is a challenge with my deficient spelling and grammar) but I am not going to write erotic-fiction, or pr0n, and try and sell it as a table piece written to promote intelligent dialogue.

I will say this though, damn good choice of a debate topic.

[the_std]

Just to be pedantic... say... killing someone and using their organs in a montage?

Yep. Like I said, it can be both art and illegal. Doesn't make it any less artistic. Just means he'll be punished for making it.

And I just want to say: erotic art is equally valid as non-erotic art, in my opinion. Say it was a photograph of a nude woman spreading her legs. If it was made with artistic intent, then it is art. Just because it's addressing our base and primal needs doesn't make it any less artistic. As an artist (photographer at heart, with some painter thrown in), I couldn't give a flying fuck if someone looked at one of my photographs and said that I wasn't making art, I was making porn. Who are they to judge?

I don't think the artist's work should be debated as to whether it's art or not. Debate all you want about the legality of it, if he did it with paedophilic intent, sure. But that doesn't reduce it's artistic quality. Only the artist knows if it was created as art or not.

[AFPheonix]

I'm more concerned about whoever saw those particular pictures as sexual and called in a complaint. The galleries I've seen of them were not at all sexual. Seeing a naked child or photographing them does not equal pedophilia in my opinion.

Being able to appreciate the beauty of the human form in all it's versions is not a bad thing.

[powerboy]

I cannot really offer an opinion until I see the pics.

If the law says he's a pedophile for what he's done, then he is. But it's still art.

What about the parents who are spanking their child, because of (s)he was acting up. Some complains to the police about the parents abusing the child. And the parents ofcourse would get the child taken away and appear in court. Most likely ending up with a sentence. They would be forever branded Child abusers. Now my question is, are they a child abuser?

My point is, since we do not know all sides of it, then why judge. You know the saying, don't judge a book by its cover.

[Slytovhand]

Obviously, unless there is a court hearing, and the photos are considered legal, we're not going to see them... (as well as... taking photos of art - particularly other photos, doesn't help out the artist...)

But...here is a link with video of a news report with some of the photos, and I think the original link I posted also gave an indication... with censor block. And here is another more obvious one...(which I think has been cropped at the bottom... I saw another version of it...)

For the record, I did read in one of the reports that the parents were fully aware and gave their consent.

Part of this debate can also be part of the Women going topless debate... where does the line go? In our society, girls are often topless up until age (?) 3 or 4 maybe, then aren't 'allowed' to expose their breasts until 'legal'... to be safe, let's say 18.


STD...

Say it was a photograph of a nude woman spreading her legs.

And if the 'nude woman' was only 13? or 9? or.... pick another number that is less than 18....


Let the debate rage on


Slyt

[the_std]

Slyt, even if she were five, I would still consider it art. As long as the photographer wasn't doing it to make porn. Art still continues, even if what the photographer did was illegal. Say the photographer forced the five-year old to do it and sexually assaulted her afterwards. Lots of people will then see the photos as an act of paedophilia, and that's their opinion. But only the artist knows whether they were taken with artistic intent or solely as porn.

Illegality doesn't negate art.

[AFPheonix]

Does merely seeing a sex organ automatically make it porn? Then jaybus, I've got a whole bunch of text books that need to have warning slapped on them. Oh god, think of the children! Someone slap some pants on Michelangelo's David!

Or is seeing a penis that much less damaging than a vagina? Or that much more arousing?

[Slytovhand]

Does merely seeing a sex organ automatically make it porn? Then jaybus, I've got a whole bunch of text books that need to have warning slapped on them. Oh god, think of the children! Someone slap some pants on Michelangelo's David!

Or is seeing a penis that much less damaging than a vagina? Or that much more arousing?

Well... according to the law...yes. (well.. it would seem that way... other than some examples... speaking of which, I am reminded of the Simpson's episode about that).

STD.. this whole discussion raises the question... is there anything that can't objectively be described as 'art' then?

And, what therefore, is the line between 'art' and 'pornography'? Since intent can only be in 1 person's mind, 'should' there be a difference when we get to that potentially grey area?

I mean.. the whole reason that this is even being discussed here, is because some people said "No - this is bad and evil and disgusting", while others decry "No - it's art, it's being censored, let art be free".

Slyt

[the_std]

Intent for art may only be in the creator's mind, but other people can interpret it as porn if they want. I wish they wouldn't, but they can. I'm only posting my views on the subject. My views would be impossible to be made into law because, in my mind, art is an impossible thing to measure. It's entirely subjective, one hundred percent.

That's all I'm saying.

[Rapscallion]

I'm with the_std on this. Art depends on both the artist and the audience. A paedophile will find all sorts of things arousing, from what I understand of the condition - photos of children in magazines and catalogues etc for example. It's an unhealthy fixation, and paedophiles will do what they can to find images that arouse them.

Is it art? I suspect it's definitely intended as such. I don't know that art really is bringing the thought of the audience onto the sexualisation of children. For my money, art is staying within the lines with your crayons and making a pretty picture.

Is it fucking stupid to take naked pictures of children and put them on display, and then not expect police to take an interest? Yes, yes it is.

Rapscallion

[aniwahya]

Illegality may not change art, but does art not need to conform to legality? Is there something about art that raises it above legal conformity?

That being said is perhaps the problem here not the art, but rather where the art is being marketed? Perhaps the artist in question could find a better way of going around it? Perhaps they could use young-looking models or actors? Software to digitally reduce the appearance of someone's age? Did the artist in question break a law to make their art, when breaking a law was not necessary? If so, then by all means prosecute them. There are a lot of laws I don't agree with, however as an adult I accept that if I break those laws that I will be prosecuted.

Is the offensiveness of the work based on the use of children, or the depiction of children?