Photos of a nude 6 year old Art or Perversion ?

Question

Photos of a nude 6 year old Art or Perversion ?

Answer 1

It depends on the context and the intent.



If there's a sexual intent to the photo, then it's perverse.



If there's a sexual response to the photo, then it's the viewer who is a pervert.

Answer 2

It really depends....



I know some 6 year olds that run around naked, so if it was a picture of one of them just acting like a kid, it's not wrong



but if the picture is in a sexual manner.....then it is wrong

Answer 3

That 6 year old child is now 11 years old as the photos were taken in 2003. I am undecided. Would there be an outcry if the child was painted or sketched? Would the masters of old be vilified as paedophiles for their images of nude children? Why is nude photography of children automatically associated with pornography whilst nude adults taken under the same circumstances are studies of art and form? Is it right or indeed necessary? Photography is a legitimate art form and the nude as a artistic form is also legitimate, however, I do not believe that young children need to be publically scruitinised. The model must be able to choose to be photographed as an act of free will.

Answer 4

It depends on the purpose. I do not think that it is necessarily perversion, and I think that people who do think that it is necessarily perversion are somewhat sexually odd themselves.

Answer 5

PERVERSION



that is wrong because it is hurting the child

Answer 6

I only believe in age of consent laws and such in so far as direct sexual intention is involved. Apart from that, if the child did it of their own volition and the parents weren't averse to it then as long as it wasn't sexually interested- nudity is fine.



Its odd certainly, and we could do without it, but its not something we can say is outright wrong.

As for whether its art- I'm with Kant on this one,

the question is;

If you like it as art then is your liking disinterested? Can you consider it without indignation or paedophilic urges (the two are sometimes inexplicably connected! Like how homophobes get excited by homosexual material!)? If not, then in your eyes it'd not be art- but you'd need to defend your stance reasonably.

In this case the stance can't be defended in such a manner- so it would be art.

Answer 7

depends on the art work. If it is a artwork that was done in the middle ages with a mother and child then probably Art.



If done today it is probably a perversion.

Answer 8

This isn't really a "Religion and Spirituality" question but:



My personal belief is the art brings aspects of society to light in an entirely new way. It's not a new phenomenon that children have been photographed nude; Nirvana had an album cover which showed a baby boy with his genitals in full view yet nobody called it pornography. We have been sexualising our youth for many years now, sex sells and sex ads are everywhere. The average age for the loss of virginity is now 10.5 years, so obviously our youth are being affected and becoming more and more sexualised. The question is why are we hiding symptoms and calling nude child art pornography but say nothing on having graphic (either textual or visual) billboards in our capital cities? If we are serious about so called "protection", then we have to start by removing the sexualised imagery that children are subjected to everyday, not just attacking people who are bold enough to bring nude photo's of children into the art world.

Even if we were to discuss nude photos of children as opposed to child pornography then we need to ask ourselves at what point did a child’s body become offensive? Is a child in a bath offensive? Am I doing something wrong when I see my daughter naked whilst changing her nappy? Nudity for art is not sexualised and from all accounts it appears that the concern is only with the sexualization of children caused by a nude image of them because of (certain) peoples inability to not see children as more than sex objects (this includes many in the general population who are not aroused by naked children but still sexualise nude imagery)

Answer 9

I was watching this today on the news and personally i cant make up my mind!!! I think that in this dat and age with so many perverse people around you just cant be putting photos of young kids naked on the covers of Art mags....but it was the mother of the child that took the photos, and the child was interviewed today and has no problem with it!! Its a very difficult thing to judge!! why is nudity always looked down apon so much...we were born with out clothes and its very natural!! In the art world this would be nothing more than another picture, but unfortunatly society is gross!!

Answer 10

Usually wrong, but it depends on the context

Answer 11

as an artist, i have drawn and painted nude women because they make interesting subjects. The pictures of the young girl however, had absolutely no artistic merit. Many of the people, including the photographer who started all this a few weeks ago, try to gain notoriety by shocking the public in some way.



Remember piss christ? remember emmins unmade bed with used condoms? remember that flyblown carcass of a cow (I can't remember the'artist' of that one. They were all simply trying to get attention.



It's best if we just ignore them and let them slip quietly into the obscurity they so richly deserve.



and no, photographs of naked, underaged children are not appropriate

Answer 12

There is a clear distinction between art and pornography. It also has to do with the intent of the person making the picture or work of art. In this instance the intent is to make a work of art, the photograph was taken by the mother of the child. The little girl (who is now 11) has strong views and believes this to be a beautiful picture, and believes she has the right to consent to her picture being used in this way. Her father is an art critic and presumably this child is growing up in an environment where there is a genuine understanding of real art. If we were to ban all artworks containing pictures of naked children or people we would be heading back to the dark ages. It would be different if the picture were being used without the child's consent. I think we are heading into dangerous territory here. When we start thinking about banning works of art, or banning books we are on a slippery slide downwards. People who are pedophiles will find material wherever they look. People who want to take pictures of their own children on a beach or at a sports event should be able to do so, but we are now living in a Nanny State where a self righteous minority want to dictate to the rest of us how we live our lives. This is a work of art, not a work of pornography. If you don't like nudity, don't go to art galleries. Real perversion is when we are bombarding children with images of slutty behaviour in the name of fashion, using 11 year olds as models for cosmetics aimed at 30+ year old women, and teaching children that they must all be a perfect size 10 and conform to stereotypical notions of beauty, or teaching them that they should value good looks above anything else.

Answer 13

I read an article today - http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23980464-2,00.html - where it had quotes from the girl who is now 11. She says things like how it is one of her favourite photos taken of her.



What I think is that we should allow non-pornographic naked pictures to be taken of children for art or memory (parents taking pics), but they should not be published to the world until the child reaches the age of 16 and can properly consent. Also, the child should agree at the time if it can! The girl wasn't abused and that's the main thing.



The reason why we don't allow child pornography is because it is the result of child abuse. We don't encourage the sexualisation of children because that leaves them at higher risk for abuse, as well as taking away their innocence.



I think whether it should be judged pornographic or not is by the intent. Is the intent to arouse? Is it to sexualise the child? If not, then it's not porn. Sure, some people may be aroused by nude art, but that is their problem.



Personally I think that it's better for a paedo to get his jollies from something that doesn't actually hurt the child! It leaves a sickening feeling to think of someone getting off on such a thing though.

Answer 14

Good Grief, FTR she was 11, the photographer was her mother & she (child not mother) spoke to the media this morning. The photo that everyone's screamind abou (the front page) is her personal favourate & was on display in an Art Gallery for several months without any concerns.



Problem is that the Wowsers out there freak at the concept of Photographing kids OR the notion of nudity. When both are combined (& regardless of any Artistic merit) they will scream blue murder.



OTOH for the more reasonable folks out there - it's all down style & context & unfortunately "Context" can change in a blink of an eye.





.

Answer 15

I think that people are getting confusing how the photos may be perceived, and the actual intent behind them. I don't think they are meant in a perverse way.

But I only would have no problem with the images if the children in them were grown up, and able to consent to them as adults.

Answer 16

It's art

Answer 17

If these sorts of pictures are aloud around and considered 'art', whats stopping pedophiles from having kiddy porn and using the excuse of it being art. Its the same thing, i love art but this is just exploitation. Let children be children, this girl didnt know what she was doing and what sort of parent lets their child do this knowing pedophiles will be flocking to the pictures. It's sickening and i dont understand how anybody can justify it. Perversion.

Answer 18

Perverts of the art world will tell you that it is Art and the child in question was not exploited.



they have just wheeled the child out and she tried very hard to recite the rubbish her parents have obviously fed her.



Pictures of naked children is never art. the magazine that published them should have its government funding withdrawn as it used a child to make a cheap political statement.



If we allow these photos to become acceptable there is a real chance pedophiles with images on their computers could use the excuse they are "art " lovers.



There is NO room for photos of naked children in the art world unless we only have artists so totally bereft of talent, imagination or skill that they need cheap sensationalism to become "relevant".



Just because the artist that got away with his photos recently beat the law ...does not mean he will not escape justice.

Answer 19

I've seen it described as a "photo", but it looks more like a painting. It's said to be the artist's own daughter.



I think it's wrong. I can't imagine depicting my own daughter in this way.

Answer 20

NUDE IS ART IF IT WAS 26.

BUT 6 YEAR OLD, NUDE FOR ART...IS HORRENDOUS... CRAZY.. THE GOD MUST BE CRAZY (for letting such perversion to take place in the name of art)



YEAH--SAME GOES HERE ISA T:

HARAM...GARAM...BATU KARANG

Answer 21

It has been different things down through the ages note Michael Angelos David..

Today there are so many perverts out there we have to be careful not to show private parts of children I think....

Answer 22

It could be art if it was a painting or sculpture in a museum or even just a photo there. . .but on the cover of that magazine? Thats just wrong I'm sorry but very preverted. Imagine when that little girl grows up and friends at her school find that picture? or just her well being in general?

Answer 23

Depends on the representation....context.......artist statement......... there was a picture that had jesus nailed on the cross and it was placed in liquid (the title had "piss" in it I think, and the implication was the plastic crusifix emerged in piss)..... of course this caused uproar, but I read the meaning behind it was to show the reality of how much jesus was humiliated and suffered........

Answer 24

Wrong, because they do not understand the implications of such a 'practice'.



I just read the article, and despite it's lack of pornography, it is still an image that a 6 year old child cannot make an informed decision on.



I am an artist. Illustrator, Graphic Designer, and a photographer. I defend artistic expression with an iron hand and words, but this is not art. It is exploitation for media attention.

Answer 25

Yes I heard about this and its disgusting



This just should not happen in Australia or anywhere for that matter what is wrong with the artists?



HARAM HARAM HARAM

thats what I think of it!

Answer 26

It is not a religious issue. It is viewed as wrong by society. I personally think its wrong not because the bible says so, but because a 6 year old should be playing hide and seek and should not be introduced to the perverted and sexual world we live in.

Answer 27

I don't think it's "art". Anyone can take a photo, I think the art world are once again trying to prove that they know better.

It's disgusting, this kid is now 11 years old, I wonder what her class mates are saying to her.

There are unfortunately a lot of weird and disgusting people in the world who will find this picture erotic.

It should be illegal to show naked images of children.

Answer 28

So very wrong to use her daughter to make a political point like this ...how will that little girl face kids at school now and later

link for non Aussies



http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/07/05/nudity-children-australia.html?ref=rss

Answer 29

depends on the context.



if this is what you were refering to, i don't think this is art



Olympia Nelson @ 6

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r268865_1127540.jpg

Answer 30

If someone is publishing them, this is not art in any way or form.

This is an invasion of privacy, and the person who published this should spend his life duct-taped to a wall.

Answer 31

A disgusting perversion, and violation of the rights of a child. No matter who you are or where you live.

Answer 32

Preversion .



People who have actually understood the teachings of GOD - They won't tell you or show yuou anything except God's Holy Name or GOD's Personal Form .



Few people have misinterpreted God's Teachings.

Answer 33

Perversion.

Answer 34

I think it's wrong.

Answer 35

Has she any clothes on?



Yes - > Art

No -> 20 years hard labor being stuck by Mr T everyday.



Hope that answers your stupid question.

Answer 36

wrong



edit:



honestly, who is giving the thumbs down? A child molester?

Answer 37

it was truly unnecessary.

Answer 38

There is nothing wrong with it. Its the persons right to express themselves

Answer 39

wrong wrong wrong i think it is disgusting

Answer 40

wrong.