The week in review: momentous change read more
Election blog: Spin and reality read more
Blog: Where to for Pakistan? read more
Super Bowl blog: Patriots v Giants read more
Road to Beijing: Is that an elephant or a Tibetan antelope in the room? read more
Who do you think will make the best President of the United States?
"My fear is that McCain drops dead and Sarah Palin becomes leader of the, so called, free world. ..."
Who do you think will make the best President of the United States?
"I don't like McCain/Palin AT ALL but I think it is dangerous for people to get too hopeful about ..."
Is Sarah Palin qualified to be Vice President?
"NO!!"
ROW OVER NUDE CHILD PHOTO
Monday, 7 July, 2008VIDEO: Row over nude photo
RELATED CONTENT
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Nude child photos: art or exploitation? The furore over children as art has flared again after a photo of a nude six-year-old girl appeared on an art magazine cover. What do you think?
COMMENTS
First [1][2][3] LastIt's a child. That's not a debate-that's sick.
I rather thought that Morris Iemma and Kevin Rudd howling and berating these young girls was a form of (a) sexism and (b) child abuse in it self, uhh. Worse, it will make all girls grow up in Australia with a sense of shame and guilt that they need not have.
Psch - what a stupid and wasteful debate. We see women from teen ages upwards naked in adult magazines, and we see babies and young infants naked all the time. What is it about the few years in between those two categories which is so controversial in art? (I'm not asking sarcastically, I'm asking because I'm honestly curious).
I believe that there should now be a law to ban the use of naked children to be used as publicity stunts for obscure artists and publications. Enforced with jail sentences.
I actually don't think the argument should be 'art or exploitation'. My understanding is that the artists of this sort of material are not pornogrpahers or pedophiles, however technology has opened a whole new moral debate. What might have been seen only in an art gallery in it's intended context is now splashed all over the web and runs the risk of being used in a pornographic context. As technology has altered our society, perhaps we also need to alter our thinking to ensure that the children remain protected. To me, it's sad but true: Art? Yes, but 20 years ago. Now it's too easy for the images of the child to be exploited, so if I had to make a decision I would have to side on the argument that suggests the images are inapproriate.
I think the problem is there is always someone try to impose their personal or religious value to others. Doesn't matter what's your view on the photo, if you enjoy it, Great; if you don't like it, close your eyes and find something you like... please don't judge others...
Nudity is not obscene. Any suggestion that we legislate otherwise is obscene.
Art cannot be right or wrong, whatever the format. Art is subjective. My cant we say that it is Art and also exploitation, who says art has to be morally correct.
What a twisted society that sees nudity as indecent. We should investigate the roots of the seemingly widespread fear of nudity rather then being disgusted by the beauty of the human body, no matter what age. The automatic connection of a nude picture with sexual intend is a social decease that needs healing.
If that’s art then someone needs to jail the 'Art' community for their views. A photo of a child’s innocence is beautiful enough without having to represent a kid without clothes. Artists need to be more inventive rather than having to resort to this sort of obvious symbolism. There are laws to protect children under 18 from stupid mistakes…unfortunately in this case it is the parents filling their childs head with “artzy fartzy” nonsense rather than the harsh reality the society contains element of the Dennis Ferguson types and everything in-between. I bet the Nelsons wouldn’t invite Mr Ferguson around for tea and biscuits.