art of "nude" children

[Reaper man]

Is it art, or is it child pornography? You decide.

These photos are pieces of art that my girlfriend showed one of my friends because she wanted to draw portraits of his two kids. he declined the offer and when I asked him about it, I got this. If you read the conversation, he goes on and on how her artwork is pornographic kiddie porn. I think he's fucking retarded for thinking that, but I dunno, I'm willing to humor the fact that I'm wrong here. What do you guys think?
​

 

[InVerse]

Speaking as someone who was convicted of Possession of Child Pornography for files that I downloaded on Kazaa and who spent two years in a Sex Offender Program as a result, I can state unequivocally that those images do not constitute child pornography.

The average Abercrombie & Fitch or American Apparel advertisement depicts children wearing far less clothing than what appears in most of those images. Furthermore, there is clearly nothing even remotely sexual depicted. (I suppose if one wanted to get truly Freudian, one could fabricate some insight regarding the image of the boy holding the ice cream cone but if you think a kid eating sweets is sexual, you're so repressed than the pope would feel sorry for you.)

Furthermore, as I have stated, I am a former purveyor of child pornography and my cock didn't get the least bit erect looking at these images. Granted, I'm a heterosexual so even live action videos of little boys sucking cock does very little for me but if you were to replace the boys in those images with girls, my opinion would stand firm (unlike my cock.) And having once masturbated to a Sailor Moon hentai video done in a style that could only be described as animated oil painting, I can attest that it's the content, not the artistic style, which is failing to draw a reaction.

As I have also stated, I spent two years in a sex offender program. The program dealt comprehensively with the consequences a victim suffers after experiencing molestation and/or rape. There are two general paths on which someone may embark upon after experiencing childhood sexual trauma. They tend to either become extremely promiscuous or extremely repressed. Stories of parents who end up repeating the cycle and molesting their own children after having been molested as kids are commonplace but this is only one of the possible reactions to childhood abuse. Another less common but still often seen result is that a parent because extremely overprotective of their children to the point where they become obsessed with the fact that someone is going to target them. Based on the limited information provided, I would venture to guess that your friend was molested as a child and is now following the later path. (This is probably preferred. The results tend to be less messy, with the child hating the overbearing parent but being less likely to suffer adverse reactions that color their interactions with all other people.)

 

[The 9th Sage]

Yeah, those don't seem pornographic to me. The pictures certainly don't seem sexual or meant to be taken that way.

 

[jdev]

I would say that pornography is inherently subjective and is why such definitions should not be held in law. Last summer there was a case of a couple parents who got charged with child pornography charges when they developed baby pictures which included bathtime pics. Which means that baby pictures from when I was a baby are also probably porn. There's also tons of teenagers being charged with trafficking child porn, like they were running some huge underground sex slavery ring, when all they actually did was send a dirty picture over their phone or the internet. And these aren't flukes: this is how child porn laws SHOULD be interpreted.

Also, in some jurisdictions, drawn art where a character/person is depicted as being underage or believed to be underage (in addition to live action porn where the same applies), that is also considered child porn.

Beyond that, the whole idea of pornography reeks of thought crime and first amendment violations.

 

[The 9th Sage]

Seriously? I'd say who's mom DOESN'T have pictures like that somewhere? Also, just like you I find the thing with the teenagers kind of insane. I mean yeah, they're being irresponsible I guess, but it's kind of insane how they could show such a picture (of themselves) to someone their own age and get some kind of child porn charge for it.

 

[InVerse]

Just about every law related to child pornography/child molestation is retarded. Several of them even put children in more danger rather than protect them.

Of course, being "charged" with child pornography and being "convicted" of it are two completely different things. I've heard of photo processing centers turning people in for naked pictures of their children, I've ever heard of the police arresting the parents but I've never heard of anyone actually being found guilty.

I used to work at the 1-Hour Photo in a K-mart. I can remember at least two instances of a parent asking if bath photos would be an issue. My standard response was "Are you having sex with them in the bathtub?" which tended to confuse them as to whether they should be shocked or relieved that their innocent pictures would be fine.

Incidentally, that store's policy regarding legal pornography was "It's up to the individual developing the pictures if they want to print them or not." which generally meant "The ugly fat guy who kept bringing in pictures of himself was out of luck but in most other cases there was no problem." I was particularly amused by the Indian couple who brought in a roll of film in which all but 2 of the pictures were of a family Christmas gathering. The other two, in the middle of the roll, surrounded by the family pictures, were of them having sex (self-taken.) I couldn't help but wonder if they simply skipped a couple of pictures in the roll and then rewound to them or if they actually snuck off to have sex in the middle of a family dinner. I almost offered to act as photographer for them if they wanted pictures that didn't suck but decided against it.

The strangest one was a guy who asked a couple of times if it was a problem if there was "weird stuff" in the photos. He refused to say what they were, only that it was definitely legal. The woman who processed the film was terrified to find out wtf they were going to be. Turns out they were Barbie dolls in various sexual poses for some college art project.

Ninety percent of this is irrelevant, of course, but I'm amusing myself.

 

[chuppachups]

Hi all, new registered member who stumbled across this topic in a search of other information,

a bit of thread necromancy happened here but i am happy for that as i found this a fascinatin read.

I am an artist (specialisin in performance with puppets and paintin) and first have to say the paintins are really good, I would be proud to have a commissioned piece by this artist in my house. they are not pornographic in the slightest. but i do feel there is an erotic element to them - if these were paintins of adults they would be erotica. the difference between a nude and erotica is that a nude is simply a study in the naked human form, erotica is when there is somethin else suggested. by coverin a nipple with a flower turns these into soemthin more pushed towards the erotic.

this does not mean it is somethin offensive though - it is art. it is designed to be engagin and thought provokin. the second image of the young boy with a burnin town behind him. the pose is that of a magazine model - what does it mean - i don't know -our society is on the cusp of apocalypse while our youth are only concerned with lookin cool? there was no title i saw to give me a hint - good art makes you think.

what offends me the most is the use of the term retard - this comes from the fact i work with people with disability. however i'm just pointin this out to show how different people can have different reactions - its a right we have. i am irish so the word has a different tone to it here.

if the paintin's made the man uncomfortable they have succeeded as an art piece in my thoughts. for this is what good art does - it confronts us to form a reaction and to consider our attiudes and beliefs.

anyways my feelin is this - these paintins are very good. they are not pornographic but they do place young people in a sexual context, the very use of the imagery of adam and eve is enough to cement that - nudity is nothin to be ashamed of - yet through knowledge adam and eve became ashamed of their nudity, as a child grows up they lose their innocence and become sexual beings. thats my reaction to these pieces.

also on lookin at the flickr stream i notice that the artist painted these when she was a teenager herself...puts a different angle on it

 

[wingless]

okay now that i have a kid of my own, i can say that i dont think that these are AT ALL pornographic in nature, but i WOULD be wary of having this person draw my kid(s) since all of the kids are drawn without clothing, or without all clothing in key areas. do i think your girlfriend's friend overreacted? yes. do i think the artist is a pedo? hell no. as inVerse said, i think she might have her own issues, which might be coming out in her work. either way, if she wants to do portraits of kids and she's showing examples to parents, i would avoid stuff like this... as a now-parent who was molested as a kid, but still actually appreciates this artwork, i would totally not have her draw a portrait of my own kid... just because the nude-ness of children sets off red flags in any wary/nervous parent's mind. sleepovers also scare the fuck out of me, and i have a girl. shit yeah i'm nervous, and hell no i wouldnt have her draw my kid after seeing those examples. each one is a red flag for any parent of young kids, regardless of the artist's intentions. sad but true. the problem is the fact that you never know who might look at your children that way... it could be anyone, no matter how unassuming. i like her art, though, and i see nothing malicious in it at all.