Art or pornography?

In Australia there have recently been a couple of cases resulting in debate over photography featuring naked children. Is this art or child pornography?

Should artistic expression have limitations?
Is it art, or is it child pornography when images of a naked 13 year old (full frontal) are displayed in an art gallery? Is it child pornography if a naked 6 year old is photographed sitting on a rock and used as a magazine cover?

Are the child pornography laws doing enough or are they useless?

My views (just to get things kicked off, and hopefully get a discussion happening):
Most parents have photos of their kids in the bath playing or whatever that they pull out on the 21st birthday to make their kid blush. I do not consider this child pornography as it is not staged, not a shared image, and usually you don't see anything anyway because the kids are covered in bubbles.

Some people argued if naked children should not be classified as art then the Sistene Chapel needs to be whitewashed. Not the case. The old works by the masters like Caravaggio, Michelangelo etc were at a time when everyone did have sex with children. This art is also painted and not photographic, and times have changed. Just like people used to previously sell their children into slavery and we don't do that anymore.

The six year old in the photograph is now 11 an says the photo is her favourite photo because her mother took it. I still think, the mother is an artist, it is inappropriate to use a child as the subject. Posing, facing expression etc is not that of a child in her photographs. It is inappropriate.

The law on child pornography seems pretty straightforward- except with artists. I do not see why you should be able to take a photo of a naked child, call it art and that is ok, yet if someone else took that photo they would be charged.

I have seen some pretty disgusting things (most involving bodily fluids) that have been called art. Not my cup of tea, but no one has been exploited or hurt, and no laws have been broken. A child cannot legally consent and cannot understand the full implications of nude photography. A parents place is to be the moral compass and say what is and is not appropriate, and I cannot see how anyone would be happy with naked photos of their child all around an art gallery with complete strangers looking at the images.

It seems odd that after Australia wouldn't permit Fallout 3 to be released as is because you can use morphine to keep you going and yet artists taking posed photos of nude children are given a free pass. I would prefer my kids to be playing a violent game than to be looking at photos of naked children, or worse having naked pictures of them taken.

I am not a prude, I just think the law is there for the protection of children and parents should not be allowing their children to be posed in provocative positions and photographed.

Whether the intent of the photographer is art or beauty is irrelevant to me, my main concern on this issue is the welfare of the child, the natural emotional development of the child and the exploitation of the child. It is at the point where you cannot take photos of your kids at the beach or at a McDonald's party, I don't see why this freedom of speech/art should be an exception to the law.

Although this is a serious topic, I hope it will result in thought provoking discussions and unique points of view from all over the world with the diversity of people that come to this site.

I disagree. Of course I can understand your concerns, but I think the freedom of art is simply more important than your or my definition of what is art and what not. At all times art has been transgressive and provoquative - You're saying that this and that is "inappropriate", but that's what critics always say if they don't like what they see. When Lewis published The Monk at the end of the 18th century conservative critics cried out that such a book is simply inappropriate. After all, how could you present rape, murder, matricide, sorrocide and blasphemy in such an overly overt way? Today the novel is considered to be one of the most important works of Gothic fiction.

Even art has its limits, they are just not as narrow as the limits you and I encounter in everyday life. Art often is and in fact should be transgressive because it is a good way to make people think. It's not the act of photographing a naked child or the picture itself that transforms a piece of art into child pornography, it is the perverted mind of the observer. I really think people who like child pornography can get pictures way easier from the internet - they don't have to go to an art exhibition.

I said it elsewhere, but it bears saying again: I believe that anything and everything should be permitted in art. Limits should be set only if creating the art hurts someone.

Using children as subjects in art, whether clothed or nude, is problematic because of the concerns you cite -- they're not able to give informed consent.

However, I think that it would be far more damaging to proscribe the portrayal of children in art than to permit it. Therefore, I believe that the bar should be set rather high -- we should only proscribe when we're talking about unambiguous, clear exploitation, not borderline cases that may or may not make someone uncomfortable.

IOW: I would not proscribe the likes of Sally Mann, Stanley Kubrick, Vladimir Nabokov, or even David Hamilton.

Pictures of nude children as such are not pornographic. It becomes pornography when the intent is exploitative. Intent is impossible to judge objectively; you'll always find someone who's ready to claim that any image is exploitative in intent, and we'll always have difficult borderline cases to consider. However, if the artist and the model are both OK with it, even if the model is a child, and if the child has not been coerced or manipulated into it the way pedophiles coerce or manipulate children into sex, I do not see any reason to proscribe it.

So, Ions, you would let your kids be photographed nude and then their pictures be put in an art gallery ?


I have to go now, but I'll share my opinion later ...

Thank you for getting the thread off and running. I can see where you are coming from that freedom of speech should not be confined and creativity stunted because of a small amount of the population who are not looking for art, but for child pornography; and I agree the images would be easier to obtain from the internet than going to an art gallery or buying an artists book or prints to take the images home, but the law is explicit in it's intent. You could not abuse someone in the street, or in a gallery, no matter how artful your tongue, how skilled your fists or how innovative your intent, and call it art. It may show fear, vulnerability, pain and misery of the victim and arrogance, violence and lust for power of the perpetrator, but it is still illegal.

A novel is words, concepts, ideas. I still consider it different from a photograph.
Where are art's limits? There was also public outrage recently with an artist who's exhibit was a stray dog taken off the street, chained in a gallery and left to die. How is that not just cruelty to animals? This man's work was going to be redone in galleries all over the world until the outrage had multiple galleries cancel his exhibit from their display.

I think art should make you think, it can be scary, disturbing, beautiful and perplexing, but it should not break the law. Cruelty to animal is against the law and owning child pornography is against the law.

I think the law is more important than freedom of speech- hence anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation in most countries- freedom of speech is important, but is it to be valued above everything else in the name of art?

I have seen many images of naked adults that are beautiful. The lines, lighting and the images in general are exceptionally moving and beautiful, but these are adults, who legally can decide what they want to do. A child cannot.

The old saying "I can't describe pornography, but I know it when I see it" is very true. Anne Geddes has used naked children, but her pictures are beautiful. Bill Henson has used children, and the angles, poses, facial expressions are very provocative, and I think inappropriate for a child.

Sorry, this was in reponse to Ionstormsucks post. The others posts were not there when I started my rant. Sorry.

For me it's simple ...
Children can't give their consent => Not art ! => Bad child pornography.
Adults give their consent => Art if done properly.

Children don't need to be coerced, you can just convince them that what they're doing is right. In the same way you can convince a child to believe in God, in other people being inferior to his/her race, in an idea, in an identity...

So children posing naked is porn and should be illegal, since they can't give their consent.

Here is a link to some of the images that started the Australian debate. The images have been censored.
http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,23607,5031912-5010140-1,00.html

Pladio said:

So, Ions, you would let your kids be photographed nude and then their pictures be put in an art gallery ?

Click to expand...

What I would do is of no concern for the debate to be honest. It's as if you asked me "would you go to such an art exhibition?". Art is something very subjective. What you might consider total crap, I might consider art and vice versa. But to give you a definite answer - no, I'd probably not do it. But that has nothing with fear that these pictures could be attractive to perverts or anything. It has to do with the fact that this particular kind of art simply doesn't interest me. I'd probably never go to an exhibition that shows naked children, not because I think that it's pornography, but because it does not interest me. But that's my very subjective understanding of art... someone else might think differently. I also wouldn't go to an exhibition that shows just pictures of naked men or women, it's boring. But that's just me - others might think that the human body is so beautiful that it is a piece of art itself or something like that.

Kayla said:

A novel is words, concepts, ideas. I still consider it different from a photograph.
Where are art's limits? There was also public outrage recently with an artist who's exhibit was a stray dog taken off the street, chained in a gallery and left to die. How is that not just cruelty to animals? This man's work was going to be redone in galleries all over the world until the outrage had multiple galleries cancel his exhibit from their display.

Click to expand...

Art has its limits... that's exactly why you're not allowed to hurt animals in the production of a movie for example - probably everyone has seen that disclaimer at the end of a movie. I'm not sure how that particular artist you're talking about could get away with letting a dog starve, but I can tell you that in Germany he would would be in deep trouble.

Kayla said:

I have seen many images of naked adults that are beautiful. The lines, lighting and the images in general are exceptionally moving and beautiful, but these are adults, who legally can decide what they want to do. A child cannot.

Click to expand...

There are a lot things that children cannot decide about. For example what religion they want to belong to. Still there is no law that says that you cannot take your children to church or send them to religious education until they can decide if they want that or not. Usually the parents have to decide and I think it's the same here.

Kayla said:

The old saying "I can't descrie pornography, but I know it when I see it" is very true. Anne Geddes has used naked children, but her pictures are beautiful. Bill Henson has used children, and the angles, poses, facial expressions are very provocative, and I think inappropriate for a child.

Click to expand...

Well, you have one big advantage over me - I haven't seen the photographes... you have. But unless these photographes are of an explicit pornographic nature I cannot see what should be wrong with them. After all exhibiting a picture of a naked child is NOT the same as hurting the child. Even if these pictures show children with provoquative poses or with facial expressions that might be inappropriate it can still be art. Art doesn't have to be naturalistic. There is nothing like "inappropriate" in art. In border cases, in which it is not quite clear if this is against the law or not, I'd always decide in favour of art. Whose gonna decide what is appropriate and what not? You know, I'm living in Germany... and there was once a period when the German government decided what is art and what not, and it was one of the darkest times in world history.

EDIT: I see you gave a link to the pictures - thanks I'll have a look later on.

The real question is not "Porn or art?" because porn and art are not mutually exclusive. This question has been decided by a German court in the 70s when this famous Japanese arthouse movie with ca. 21 real sex scenes was shown in cinema. The prosecution worked on having it confiscated. I don´t remember all the juicy details, but after it went through the instances the final decision was that art can indeed be pornographic. Germany is a conservative country. You can imagine this verdict was quite a shocker.

The crucial point is:
Has the child´s dignity been harmed? If yes, confiscate. If no everything is fine.
How to define "harmed dignity" is a very complex topic which very much depends on cultural background. In country A a certain pose may be perfectly okay while it may be considered unacceptable in country B.

Imo this has nothing to do with art: Pure pornography and so it falls under those rules not to the dubious area of art. When it comes to child pornography the rules are quite clear in most countries, so this 'exhibition' should indeed be forbidden.
It's a similar thing with those penis artists. Those things are legal above the age of 18. It doesn't attract me one bit and I don't call that 'art'.

I know that I will get a response from most of you that I don't get to choose what's art and what's not, but this is how I feel about it. -> I don't consider the work of a ceiling with hundreds of green beetles pinned against it as art, neither do I consider a building with ham all over it too.

@Ionstormsucks. I completely agree that people have different tastes and just because some people are not interested doesn't mean it's not art. The urine Jesus or orgy bed I don't want to see, that does not mean they are not art, it just means I am not interested in that particular art exhibition.

@Gorath. I know I worded the question poorly, but the main argument was whether the pictures of these children are art (whether there is artistic merit) or whether it should be classified as child pornography (and therefore illegal). If the pictures had been an adult subject I would not have an issue. I think the lighting is beautiful, however, as the subject is a child, and the look on the childs face and the posing makes me think this has crossed the line from free speech in art to something that should not be displayed and something that is illegal. I feel this child had been exploited, and while someone can decide later in their life they want to change religion, the images of these naked children will always be on display and will always be on the internet.
Just because I wouldn't do something doesn't mean it should be banned. I am a bit self conscious of my body so I wouldn't sunbake at a nudie beach, I completely understand other people going for that allover tan though. It is not illegal on designated beaches, however, walk down the street and it is. Again, children are not allowed on the nudie beaches.

I think these photographs are artistic, and I do not think it was the artists intent to make pornography, but the subject itself and lack of covering is inappropriate.

Well, there is difference between art and art, take this artist who recenlty put a pic of her naked daughter on arts monthly as an example:

I think you people have to look in a broader range. Will this picture make pedofiles excited? yes! could this picture cause them to commit horrible crimes? yes!

Does this daughter understand what her mother is using her for? No!

Is she old enough to approve the nude pics of her being spread all over the country and understand what kind of fame it gives her? No!

Does the risk and threat against her daughter increase a lot? Yes


Should this be allowed ? No. If it is art as a painting with the imagination of the artist, and not a real person, should it be allowed? possible, depending on what it depictured.

That six year old girl is now 11. The image on the cover concerned me, but not as much as some of the other photos the mother has taken of her daughter.

I think everyone at some stage thinks "that's not art" about something. I think the closest I have come to thinking that is just gross and there is no art in it was the woman that got drunk, had an orgy during that time of the month and then put the bed as it was the morning after on display as art. I think art should be something not everyone can do. I could not get the fantastic photographs artists take, I could not paint the beautiful images of the great painters, I tried to do a sculpture once (a piranha) and it failed dismally, I cannot play an instrument, I could not write a poem or story that could make people laugh, cry and relate to the characters. I appreciate art but sadly have little if any artistic ability of my own, but I could (if I wanted to) leave my own bodily fluids on a bed. I know it is art, but I can't understand why. I sort of equate that to doing a poo and saying the skid mark looks like Jesus.

Porn can be art, but child pornography is illegal in most European countries.
The problem is that the children cannot give their consent and that it will stay with them forever. It can become a traumatizing experience and it is too easy to convince children that this kind of thing is good.

That's the distinction I make. Adults can legally consent and are emotionally and mentally developed.

GothicGothicness said:

I think you people have to look in a broader range. Will this picture make pedofiles excited? yes! could this picture cause them to commit horrible crimes? yes!

Click to expand...

I think you have to be careful there. There are very few cases in with art or whatever you may call it has anyone caused to commit a crime. Not everyone that likes normal pornography is a rapist and not everyone who likes child pornography will inevitably abuse children. We should not blame any kind of art for people's actions. A picture of a naked woman does not say "rape me!" just as the picture of a naked child doesn't say "abuse me!". Men rape women and children because they have a low self control and not because a picture made them do it.

Some people will make the connection, same as there have been shootings where people have blamed video games. Most people can play first person shooters and adrenaline etc spikes during the game, some people cannot disconnect when the game is disconnected. Anything can set some people off, whether it be a game, movie, song... some people are disturbed and the smallest or most insignificant thing can have a strong effect on someone else. It is an offence to own the pictures, you do not need to rape a child, having pictures in your possession is enough in most countries. The reasoning for this is children need to be protected and it should not get to the stage of rape before action can be taken. Similar to the anti-stalking legislation in a lot of countries. I can stand outside someone's house, sit in my car, wait for them at work. Individual incidences are seen as a pattern of threatening behaviour. If you walked outside your house and I was standing there you may not be alarmed (or maybe you would) but the constant appearance is seen as a threat. It does not need to get to the stage of physical violence before the law can intervene and protect the innocent.

As long as there are criminals out there willingly collecting pictures of naked children, I strongly disagree with this being "art".

In other, for example more "primitive" cultures, so to say, I'd say, the sight of naked children is rather normal, but in *our* culture - which hasdeveloped in certain ways - the sight of naked children has become rather "un-normal", imho.

Just because everyone wears clothes to cover *everything* there is.

Kayla said:

Some people will make the connection, same as there have been shootings where people have blamed video games. Most people can play first person shooters and adrenaline etc spikes during the game, some people cannot disconnect when the game is disconnected. Anything can set some people off, whether it be a game, movie, song... some people are disturbed and the smallest or most insignificant thing can have a strong effect on someone else.

Click to expand...

If you push this line of argumentation to its logical conclusion you'll have to forbid basically everything, games, movies, books, comics, normal pornography, everything. Because all of that COULD set someone off. I do not agree with that. As I said before, whenever something bad happens it's a convenient way for politicians and the public as well to blame art. Someone puts on a mask, takes a knife and stabs a few people at Halloween - he must have seen the movie and that was what made him do it. Of course that's rubbish, but taking the movie from the market will give the public the feeling that something is done. More likely is of course that the guy would have snapped sooner or later anyway...

Kayla said:

It is an offence to own the pictures, you do not need to rape a child, having pictures in your possession is enough in most countries. The reasoning for this is children need to be protected and it should not get to the stage of rape before action can be taken.

Click to expand...

But that's the difference. If someone shows the pictures of naked children in an art exhibition the people who go there to look at them do not own the pictures. In Germany you're not allowed to own things showing a swastika... for obvious reasons. Still it's allowed to show a "Hakenkreuz" in movies, etc. Very often there is only a thin line between art and transgression in real life. What's allowed in art is not necessarily allowed in real life.

Kayla said:

Similar to the anti-stalking legislation in a lot of countries. I can stand outside someone's house, sit in my car, wait for them at work. Individual incidences are seen as a pattern of threatening behaviour. If you walked outside your house and I was standing there you may not be alarmed (or maybe you would) but the constant appearance is seen as a threat. It does not need to get to the stage of physical violence before the law can intervene and protect the innocent.

Click to expand...

I think such a comparison is a bit off really. If someone is stalking another person then it is quite obvious that something isn't exactely right with him or her. Although a stalker might in fact never physically hurt someone he'll still hurt your right on privacy and will put psychological pressure on you becasue it's not exactly a nice feeling if you know someone is following you around. The intention is simply different from that of an artist.
We should be fairly clear - whatever we do, whatever we prohibit, we'll never be able to completely protect anyone, including our children. The best protection for our children is to tell them that there IS in fact danger out there and to teach them how to behave in case they should encounter such a danger.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

In other, for example more "primitive" cultures, so to say, I'd say, the sight of naked children is rather normal, but in *our* culture - which hasdeveloped in certain ways - the sight of naked children has become rather "un-normal", imho.

Click to expand...

But that's exactly it - art doesn't have to show the normal. There is a long tradition in art to show the not so normal side of things. Art doesn't have to keep to what's morally acceptable, it just has to keep to what's legally acceptable in terms of producing art.