When does art become pornography…

[The Weird One]

in answer to the original question: When the images are taken with the intent of causing arousal.

[deliaselene]

"you can't control the way individuals respond to the work." [/i]

"The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks..."

[spurgistan]

How has nobody quoted Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart yet? You're all fired. Although I guess the foreigners have a bit of an excuse.

In the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, on whether a $2500 fine against an Ohio theater for showing an "obscene" French movie, Les Amants, Stewart sided with the majority who decided the fine violated the first amendment and famously added,

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

QED.

edited for italicization, cuz I'm bored. holla.

[Snorri1234]

How are they indistinguishable? Is this then also pornography?



After all, it depicts a naked girl who's still a minor and definitely didn't agree to be photographed at the time. I don't see the logic behind the argument, images are distinguishable from each other, we often treat images we perceive to be mostly identical as representations of a single entity (a "meta-image", so to speak), no matter how many instantiations of them there are and however these instantiations may differ (size, tone, even media). Why then lump all sorts of images together that we perceive to be representations of different "meta-images"?

You've been reported and I'm sure wicked will ban you any second now.

[bedub1]

in answer to the original question: When the images are taken with the intent of causing arousal.

The pose, the atmosphere etc...

But I know it when I see it

I agree...unfortunately some people think simply being naked is bad. They also try to decide what you can and can't do in the bedroom.... What if people of the Muslim faith were in charge of deciding what is porn? They are entitled to their faith and beliefs, but don't go imposing them on me.

[PLAYER57832]

Child Pornography is more than just pornoraphy and that is the problem in and of itself. Child molestation and exploitation is a major world wide problem and sometimes people feel the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thus any pictures of naked underage people is now the great social taboo. All those innocent photos of your babies ... that's enough to get you the scarlet letter, perpetial registration in the canon of child abusers and mollesters and millions of angry parents kicking you out of every neighorbood you move into because the law requires everyone to be notified that a vile sinner like you has moved in and no one wants a villan like you around their children.

You are absolutely correct.

I almost had this happen to me when I took some photos of my neices and my son rolling, playing. Well, one was potty training at the time. It was not until I actually got the photos back that I saw one of the girls was not wearing panties. Thankfully, it wasn't. We destroyed the picture and life goes on.

I also have a pretty normal 7 year old who decided to "experiment" with the digital camera. I innocently passed it around at his birthday party before checking all the photos. My stepson (thankfully) found them, they were deleted and my son was "informed" that he had best not do this again. But, what is scary is how easy it would have been for those photos to end up on the internet. We don't let our son have access to the net without us being there, but a lot of parents do.

The scariest part is that right now internet falls into a loophole of protection so that someone can post pretty much whatever they want and you can't get it removed. Worse, as mentioned, with editing, you can past the most innocent of pictures into something else entirely ... and the average person would not know it wasn't real.

Basically, I would consider any shot of toddlers, up through "potty training" ages, innocent. But, I know some who ... use them for other reasons.

I would pretty much consider most shots of a pubescent age through teen age to be questionable, but I know there are some times when nudity is warranted.

An example is the movie Little miss sunshine. I heard and interview with some stars, discussing the girl in the movie. She was carefully monitored not only by her parents, but psycologists to make sure nothing crossed over what she could handle. Obviously, there was nothing "real" going on, but careful filming gives a different impression.

Or, take shots of people in areas without the same nudity taboos as we have. (National Geographic)

I think the bottom line is that most people know what offends them and what doesn't. Most people also know what is harmful to their kids. Those who don't ... well there pretty much ARE laws to protect them already.

[Fircoal]

It's born when it makes me hard.

That's a disturbing fetish right there...

What, a porn fetish?

Re-read what Fir wrote. Closely.

[The Weird One]

It's born when it makes me hard.

That's a disturbing fetish right there...

What, a porn fetish?

Re-read what Fir wrote. Closely.

So tempting to sig that...

[muy_thaiguy]

Then do it.

[The Weird One]

Then do it.

too much stuff in my sig already.

[muy_thaiguy]

Then do it.

too much stuff in my sig already.

Change the font size, yeesh.

[fwblb]

Police raided a exhibition by prominent photographer and leading contemporary Australian artist Bill Henson, and are investigating whether he breached child pornography laws; after police received complaints about images of a naked 14-year-old girl.

He has defended his work as seeking to explore "something which is absolutely inviolate and unknowable….but…you can't control the way individuals respond to the work."

Child safety campaigners have responded with anger, describing the images as "revolting" and "of no artistic value" …"kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected" and his use of pre-teen nudity has been written off as little more than a fetish for child porn. "He has a tendency to depict children naked and that is porn," was claimed by the child protection group Bravehearts.

Whilst members of the Creative Stream of the Australia, expressed their dismay at the police raid on Bill Henson's exhibition and the allegations that he is a child pornographer, "The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and which includes painters such as Caravaggio and Michelangelo"

Pornography is meant to arouse. its not pretty, it not a top notch artistic photo or movie. My parents have a good number of naked pics of me as a kid. they are most definitely not pornography. I also have a picture of my older son when he was potty training, it was Easter, he found his basket, and was eating his chocolate, but...there it is was - on my developed film - uh oh! I have the picture, i just don't put it in the album. save it for embarrassment down the road. mean mommy.

However, i did not see these pictures. If these are beautiful photos capturing innocence of children in a tasteful way, i guess its okay. I also find the thought of them being innocently shared on the internet and the pedophiles getting a hold of those quite disturbing. I probably would NOT let my kids do this. But I wouldn't say the guy has done anything wrong. This does not sound like porn to me

[fireedud]

It's born when it makes me hard.

sigged

[muy_thaiguy]

It's born when it makes me hard.

sigged

Yes! Sig of the year (so far).