A couple of weeks back we had the media beat-up over the Bill Henson photographs in a Sydney art gallery which were removed by the police, condemned by the Prime Minister as pornographic and subsequently had to be returned to the gallery following a legal decision in their favour.

Now a similar thing is happening. The media and again the prime Minister, are screaming child abuse about the cover of this months Art Monthly Australia. Apparently the child depicted is/was 6 years old at the time.

Additional facts are that it was produced in 2003 and has been shown in exhibitions throughout Australia and in New York for 5 years.

Now the press has shown it on all the evening news programs, enabling every nonce, and his dog, to know where to look to find it.

It is sad times we live in when parents are not allowed to video their own children at school sports day, or to take snaps of their kids on the beach.

I don't know if it is art or something else, but to me it is just a nice picture to look at and then move on.

Over to you........

BTW it is by Polixeni Papapetrou (2003) and is called "Olympia as Lewis Carroll's Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs" !

As a photo - it's technically  unimpressive - as a statement or a comment on the recent ridiculous controversy, it's amusingly cheeky. I actually saw this on the news tonight and much of the little girl's body was pixellated - how outrageous! that really was an attempt to make something out of nothing!!! We were all supposed to think it must have been  somehow tittillating or pornographic instead of a just kid in front of a backdrop with fairly flat lighting! Very Sad really.

It is a shame that people aren't able to separate nudity from sex... taking the picture above as an example, there's nothing sexual about it - it's just a young girl, nude. But, because there are people who might be 'turned on' by a nude young girl (and because the moral panic du jour is child abuse) we have the media and others condemning it as pornographic.

The quote from Kevin Rudd, "just allow kids to be kids", appears to have missed the point - kids run around naked and don't feel ashamed, they don't automatically associate nudity with sex because sex isn't something they think about yet (quite possibly don't even know about yet) it's the rest of society that interprets it sexually, not the kids involved.

It is possible that the magazine is exploiting the controversy to sell copies, but even if they are, their motives say nothing about the pictures themselves.

The most interesting thing in all these sort of cases is that those who complain so much and call things "pornographic " or "licentious" will never admit to being titllated themselves...but are quite happy to reason that others will be.hmmmmmm is what I always think!!! hmmmmmmm!

Methinks the censor doth protest too much 

You said it!

as the mother of a 3year old girl who loves to be 'naked girl', it's such a difficult line to try and walk. i have no problem with her running around naked. heck, i was topless at every summer event when i was a kid, until i started "growing" enough where it was really inappropriate. i did grow up in the early 70's so there was a lot of freedom allowed, especially at the hippie festivals my parents took us to. but, it's hard to teach her not to lift her skirt in public. basically, i've explained to her that there are some things that are allowed at home, which are not allowed in public.......such as nudity or nose picking.

then there are some friends and family who come over and are uncomfortable with 'naked girl'. it bothers me, because i want to respect others feelings, but i do not want to raise my daughter to be ashamed of her body or to think that there is anything wrong with it.

the picture above is quite innocent, i've seen "art" involving children that is way more controversial than that.

Me too bluegirl. Thats a girl sitting on a fake rock, naked. It could be (and has been) much much worse.

It's a pity I can't post any of it to show what has been so degrading in the past. Authorities everywhere tend to take notice when (if) you search for N4K3D CH1LDR3N on the internet.... See....I'm even too scared to post it here!

you should be, it's better off left alone.

yeah, actually i just re-read that, it seems like I actually have some that I want to post, but I was just pointing out how difficult it would be to search for it without being looked at funny...

that is, IF you wanted to search for it...Which I don't really, but for the purpose..... oh dear someone just take the shovel away from me before i keep digging

It is scary. I have never seen any kiddyporn, but am amazed when the noncy bastards get caught with several hundred thousand images on their comps...where on earth do they find it?

That was just a comment...I don't really want to know...

 who knows..... its ...yeah me either for the record...

see...we cant even have a discussion about it without being afraid to voice opinions...

opinions should be voiced...it's a dirty, terrible business

Well yeah, but like you and I have demonstrated, certain comments can easily be taken the wrong way

And its so sad that it IS a business....

only by the wrong-thinking people

...a HUGE business

Nudity, (in the right place) is fine, If adults want to pose naked for pictures in magazines/movies/internet fine, kids running round round naked at home or on the beach (with proper supervision) fine, but why, oh why, do people want to exhibit pictures of naked children in magazines, art galleries, or the the internet, when there is sometimes a very fine line separating art from porn.

I don't believe that any parent has the right to allow nude pictures of their small children to be exhibited/displayed for public view/voyuerisn, (call it what you like).

Parents don't really own their children, they are just looking after them and loving and protecting them during their formative years, and have no right to allow their naked photo's to become readily available to people with sick minds.

Just because some ot it is labeled as art, does not make it right, and I totally agree with prime minister Rudd's statement of ,"just allow kids to be kids".

How can displaying pictures of naked kids in public, benefit the kids?

I agree that the picture posted above is not pornographic or erotic, but it may be so to certain people with twisted minds.  I believe that this picture, (and the others that have been mentioned here), are unnecessary to either the persuit of art, or to the well being of the children concerned..

very well said, andromeda.

Thank you, bluegirl.

you're welcome.

seriously, it's a tough issue for me to express my feeling about. what should be o.k. versus the reality of the world we live in, is sometimes very hard for me to reconcile.

I saw young Olympia on a lunchtime news today. She is now a precocious young teenager. She said her mother took the picture, she is not ashamed of her body and there was no abuse to her whatsoever...her words...but, I just wonder if the mother is now making financial mileage from it. Her indignant father was also interviewed...

Yes bluegirl, and as you can imagine, things like this were not really an isue when I was a kid, as nearly everything was banned.  But I think that wherever something something like this arises, the question we must ask ourselves as parents is, "Is this in the best interests of the child". Never mind if it will benefit us, or some photographer or artist, or group, but will it  benefit the child and not cause that child any harm, or future embarassment.

Believe me I am no prude, but I am very protective of young children in general and my grand children in particular.

i hear you. it's just a shame that i have to teach my daughter at 3years old that it's inappropriate for her to be naked girl. she doesn't understand that, and i don't really want her to have to understand that, but it's just the way it is.

it was such a different world when i was growing up. going to hippie festivals and even family outdoor parties (where not everyone was a hippie), i was topless running around with all my boy cousins until i was about 8 or 9 years old. i was just being a kid.

but, sadly (in many ways..........but definitely not all ways) we are living in a different world.

Yep, you have to now be aware of weirdo's, stalkers and paedophiles etc.

I don't know that we are living in a different world at all. That would be stating that humanity has regressed, that we have become more stupid and less knowledgeable over time. I most certainly have not.

And I am sure I don't quite understand the idea of phrases like "in the best interests of the child" It pretty much sounds like "PCSpeak" waffle with no real meaning whatsoever - a drone question which could be asked of anything at anytime - Are Corn Flakes in the best interests of the child...? etc. etc, merely insert something here instead of "Corn Flakes" and it means just the same whatever - nothing really!.

Kids are kids! They run around without clothes on until a certain age/stage of development and always have. Apparently there is a very small part of society which has always been strange enough to find that exciting,  though I believe research tells us that clothes or no clothes makes little difference to them. This is sad and wrong but I don't think the incidence or proportional numbers of these sort of sad folk in our society  has actually increased. What I do know is that I have no particular knowledge of what does set this sort of person on the road to excitement and find it amazing that so many people, with so little in the way of factual research or experience, claim to have this sort of knowledge.

Either way it is a puzzle, but if we can't see an innocent picture of an innocent kid and take some joy in it the same way we would in the smile of a grandmother with a face full of character, I am very worried and would seriously have to question those who think it obscene.

And I really don't know when the taking of an innocent photograph was ever supposed to benefit the subject.It seems a somewhat specious question which serves little purpose. Sorry, but lets get real here .... it's along the lines of ..... I'm no racist but........

whoa.

-And I really don't know when the taking of an innocent photograph was ever supposed to benefit the subject.

this isn't an innocent photograph. i have tons of innocent photographs of 'naked girl', this was a photographer who is using her child for her art. i'm not judging her, i'm not saying if it's right or wrong, i am saying that it is not an innocent photograph.

 This is sad and wrong but I don't think the incidence or proportional numbers of these sort of sad folk in our society  has actually increased.

  the fact is that our population has increased dramatically and the amount of people in the world of all types changes everything. that is one of the main reasons we live in a completely different world.

-This is sad and wrong but I don't think the incidence or proportional numbers of these sort of sad folk in our society  has actually increased.

we are living in a different world, not better or worse, but very, very different. the internet, the population, how easy it is to travel, how many people have access to education (even if it's not perfect), the average life-span.......i could go on, but i won't.

this isn't an innocent photograph. i have tons of innocent photographs of 'naked girl', this was a photographer who is using her child for her art. i'm not judging her, i'm not saying if it's right or wrong, i am saying that it is not an innocent photograph.

But are you saying then that it is a pornographic photo?, because I really don't think it is nor was it intended to be. And if it is "art", it by definition it is definitely not pornographic Art is one of the most innocent of native  expressions open to humanity  ( Though  as someone who has commissioned many well known commercial and "artistic" photographers over the years, I do note again that I don't find it to be an impressive photo in a technical sense - it may have had an idea behind it, as stated, "Olympia as Lewis Carroll's Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs"  - but the photographer has a considerable amount to learn about photography) The child is a model - she could as well have been an inanimate object in the artistic sense.

i am not in any way saying it is pornographic, i'm saying that it was something used to further (or try to further) the mother's career. to me, it's the purpose that was not innocent. an innocent photo would have been a parent taking a photo of their child.

a natural photo not an orchestrated nude. (again, i don't find it pornographic)

Sorry but you seem to think that artists ( or those trying to be) make art to further their career. they don't . they make art because they are artists - the photo was not new - it was 5 years old and made for its own/art's  sake... this seems to be getting lost somewhere I think

fine. then she did it for her art. that is not innocent.............in my opinion.

it's fine if we don't agree on what is innocent, i think we are each looking at it from a different perspective.

And I am sure I don't quite understand the idea of phrases like "in the best interests of the child" It pretty much sounds like "PCSpeak" waffle with no real meaning whatsoever - a drone question which could be asked of anything at anytime

Well Mr Thinka, (who has awards etc) it about time you lived up to your name and came down out of the clouds.

thanks andro, i forgot to comment on that quote.

it's slightly ridiculous (to try and put it nicely) to compare corn flakes and exposure to kidnappers and pedophiles, when talking about the best interests of a child.

do you have any children, thinka?

If you don't know what "in the best interests of the child" means, then you are obviously not a parent, but rather some media writer who lives in a world divorced from reality.

Well Mr Thinka, (who has awards etc) it about time you lived up to your name and came down out of the clouds.

  In the interest of the continuing search for knowledge I'd be only too happy for you to explain

Sorry but the parents of the child and the child did not seem to think that at all

apparently the father did have a problem with it.

Maybe the key here is that they do "think" and  I think you'll find the father may have been indignant at the nasty suggestions people were making

All I know is that if you think there was a problem with it, you may just need to think a litlle bit about why. It certainly didn't turn me on!

i'm actually checking it out now.

I don't suffer fools gladly, and unfortunatly you appear to be in that category.

What the parents thought about it , doesn't make it either right or wrong.

All I know is that if you think there was a problem with it, you may just need to think a litlle bit about why. It certainly didn't turn me on!

that is complete and utter garbage.

Well as long as you're here to advise them I'm sure they'll e much better off

Apparently its what you thik that counts and not the parents ( or anyone else)- am I getting that right?

okay, guys......time to calm down.

thinka, you do need to realize that people with children (in general) are going to see this differently than those without.

Just pointing out that a person with children included her own child in an attempt to make something beautiful. And I think the world was better off for having someone make such an attempt.

What the parents thought about it , doesn't make it either right or wrong.

Did you miss this, Mr dramatist reporter..?

And I think the world was better off for having someone make such an attempt.

Trouble is sonny, you don't think at all before writing your drivel..  

Anyway.... Time for dinner and then I might just go off and burn down a library and a couple of art galleries to help civilisation move ahead in the manner which has made Australia a leader in world culture

Bye bye.

@bluegirl "apparently the father did have a problem with it"

wrong there...I wrote... "Her indignant father was also interviewed..."

He was indignant that the media in general and the PM in particular were criticising the picture of his daughter

i am so tired of having "discussions" with people who can't see another point of view.

and thinka, before you say that i'm not seeing yours. that is just not true. i'm not judging anyone and i'm not saying it's porn and i don't think the parent's should be arrested or penalized.

but, how can you trivialize the concept of putting a child's best interests first?

So the father is a mental cripple as well then?

heller- thanks, i realize i made a mistake, but it really doesn't affect my point.

So the father is a mental cripple as well then?

don't shoot the messenger, old boy...just reporting what was said

@bluegirl...a few people have just made mistakes

i want to make it clear that i don't find anything wrong with the picture and i don't necessarily agree that it should have been removed from a gallery. but, you can't just dismiss the feelings of parents and grandparents who are only trying to create a safe environment for their children.

Don't tell me - tell the parents and don't forget to take a couple of nice white sheets to put over your head while you torch their home with flames   aaah progress!

i think that is way out of line. you are the one who is being completely close minded.

and why are you so judgmental?

i am going to try really hard to not respond to anything else here, this is getting out of control.

He's an immature clown bluegirl, ignore him!

don't shoot the messenger, old boy...just reporting what was said

I missed any way 

look out murray...it could be the old slider  

Wasn't aimed at you heller.

We are now out of synch

it could be the old slider

OOOohhhhhhh

back in synch...

Can I now be awarded the "can of worms" prize for the most thread agro this week??

...and it's only monday...

Yeah, why not.

It was almost like old times... (pity deezee missed it)  

She was there all the time...online

just keeping her two-shoes good and clean  

i wish i had missed it.

i wish i had missed it.

You conducted yourself very well, bluegirl!

Thinka's typing speed obviously outstrips his thinking/reasoning processes.

He obviously didn't read or comprehend what we were saying, before launching into his tirade.

i know, that makes me nuts.

i don't expect anyone to have to agree with me, but i do expect them to, at least, try and understand what i'm saying.

i hate debating, i never express myself how i want and i get too frustrated when people don't understand me.

and thank you.

bluegirl

thinka

and they say a week is a long time in politics

ii was thinking about that.

spooky premonition.

quite so, old girl

again with the "old"?

you're in good company

hmmmmm................okay.

Just to clear something up  re -

She was there all the time...online

just keeping her two-shoes good and clean

I was not here. My lappie was online, I wasn't

...And I don't wear shoes

 Gotcha

tighter than a coiled spring

Yes, I take my footwear very seriously

Well... damn you all with your 89 new posts since I was here last.

There's stuff I would have commented on waaaaay up the thread, had I been here... now it feels like I missed the moment.

In general though, I still don't see why people are so worried by non-sexual images of nudity, be it involving children or not. There is a line to be drawn between artistic depiction and pornography, and I think that line is where the image is explicitly intended for sexual purposes.

Unfortunately that's a very hard line to draw - some would draw it at any picture with a person semi-unclothed, or even full clothed but "provocatively" dressed or posed. Others a more liberal about it. In any case, I don't think "someone somewhere might find it a turn-on" can be a way to demarcate between the realms of art and porn - for almost any picture there are people who could find it arousing. Like that guy who's sexually attracted to cars... Auto Trader doesn't become a porno mag because of that.

The well-being of the child in question does have to be considered... but in all honesty, what harm can come from them having a photo taken? I some how doubt paedophiles choose their victims by who they've seen nude on a magazine cover... if the little midget person is comfortable in their own skin anyway then where's the problem? The parent's wishes also come into it, I'd say more in the sense of them deciding to say no (because they don't think the kid would want to do it, and as parent's get to make that decision) than the sense of forcing the kid into it (that would be wrong, independent of the question of whether the pictures are art or porn)

Some borderline cases are hard to call, and maybe we should err on the side of caution, at the cost of not pushing the artistic envelope, but where an image is clearly non-sexual, we should let it be. Nudes are one of the oldest subjects of art, and that includes children.

It's back to the same old debate about "what constitutes art".  Personally I think this stuff is complete bollocks and shouldn't be given wall-space when there is mega-tons of other far better stuff adorning the walls of nursery schools and fridge doors.

It makes me cringe to listen to the drivel spouted by these chinless high-brow proponents and critics about "how art is provocative", "how art is inspirational", "how we see the inner workings of..."  and what's worse, they have an audience who are stupid enough to listen and take in what they say.

Stuff like this is absolute proof that an idiot is born every minute.

Stuff like this is absolute proof that an idiot is born every minute.

That, and the continued existence of phishing emails and 401 scams 

"Honi soit qui mal y pense"

As a child I used to wonder why Australia's highest seat of learning had that for a motto. I wonder no more.

Sorry if simple logic and honesty has upset anybody who would rather repeat meaningless phrases uttered as political sound bites for the masses.

you are ridiculous and closed minded.

hey, c'mon bluewoman, give every one a go at this. It would seem that friend thinka is anything but 'closed minded'

Sorry if simple logic and honesty has upset anybody who would rather repeat meaningless phrases uttered as political sound bites for the masses.

i'm sorry, but my statement stands. everyone here expressed an opinion, this is a subject for debate. there is no absolute right and wrong. thinka thinks he is 100% right and therefore is incapable of hearing what anyone else has to say.

unfortunately this topic is not black and white, there are many gray areas. 

thanks, heller for making me respond again.

my thoughts:

(1) is it art or pornography...it could be art in some peoples view, but it certainly is not pornographic

(2) is it/does it abuse the child subject...would have said yes, but having heard the girl yesterday and her genuine indignation, I would have to say no

(3) was it necessary to produce it...definitely not

whoa - i missed a doozy. That's what i get for not lurking around for a couple of days. I'd have to say that that pic can be technically called art - think it's a heap of shite myself, but my opinion is by no means the authority. I think that 'art' depicting kids should be allowed, especially without the amount of debate it is currently getting - how many people would have seen that shot if the media hadn't have blazed it across the airwaves? I can understand the argument that a child is not mature enough to make an informed decision and it is up to the guardians of that child to make decisions for them - to protect and nurture. But if the child is comfortable at the time to sit for something like this and the guardians aren't using it for exploitation then it should be fine. It's up to them. If all pictures of naked children are banned does this mean even cherubs in religious paintings have to go? Imagine in 2000 years time - archaelogy or the human study equivalent (can't for the life of me remember the term) is turning up artifacts from our history "it is strange, but children did not seem to exist back in this society"

On saying that - i have two little girls - one almost three and the other approx 4 weeks old (hence my absense) - i'm not sure in this current climate i'd be prepared to use them as nude models - at least not to exhibit. Unless of course i needed to raise awareness that i was exhibiting my work and needed a wider ranging audience to help buy my precious art work off me

It's good to have you in here Simon. Congrats on the new bub. I agree with your thoughts too. I tend to blame the media in this. Why all the furore after 5 years????

simon- congratulations!

very exciting, i have a 3 year old myself, so i'm sure you have your hands full.

very nicely, put. (you too, heller)

the thing is that i got caught up in it all (i can't help but play devil's advocate), i actually do see (and agree with, to a degree) both sides. i don't believe in censorship, but i must say that i don't have a lot of respect for these parents.

of course the girl was indignant, she was raised by these people (i'm not judging, i'm just trying to make a point) the children and their child bride mothers who were, taken from the polygamist sect/compound here in the u.s. practically all thought that the government was wrong for intervening (and given the outcome so far, i'm not so sure the government handled it right). of course they did, they were raised to think that the life they are a part of is normal, and to them, it is.

i don't even disagree with everything thinka said, but i do disagree with the way he attacked expressed himself.

i am hopefully done. i don't want to think about this any more.

of course the girl was indignant, she was raised by these people (i'm not judging, i'm just trying to make a point) the children and their child bride mothers who were, taken from the polygamist sect/compound here in the u.s. practically all thought that the government was wrong for intervening (and given the outcome so far, i'm not so sure the government handled it right). of course they did, they were raised to think that the life they are a part of is normal, and to them, it is.

Can you elaborate on this for us in oz

sorry, ego-centric american mistake.

brb.

it was a few months back and it was a huge mess, over 400 children were removed from a compound in texas and taken to los angeles, where child services and other agencies dropped the ball.

i'm still looking for info.

>>Imagine in 2000 years time - archaelogy or the human study equivalent (can't for the life of me remember the term) 

Anthropology! that was bugging me.

@Bluegirl: good point about the brainwashing. That girl could be just as brainwashed (just on a different lean) but that is something that could open a can of worms as well - is it brain washing, indoctrination, education . . . . ? depends on your point of view again.

Well i have to go - work and all that stuff!

simon- you are absolutely right, this topic is right up there with religion, sports and politics. nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

---------------------------------

since i brought it up here is some basic information about the texas polygamist sect (apparently, i was wrong about them being in custody in los angeles, but the rest is the same).

http://www.infoniac.com/breaking/400-children-removed-from-polygamist-sect.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90619236

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html

the above are 3 articles showing the chronology of the events.

i have to leave this topic. my heart just can't handle it.

(i know i've said that before..........)

(1) i am going to try really hard to not respond to anything else here, this is getting out of control

(2) i am hopefully done. i don't want to think about this any more

(3) i have to leave this topic. my heart just can't handle it

why are you bothering to keep writing this...we all know you just can't keep away  

i'm ignoring you.

@ thinka. (a misnomer if ever there was one)

And I am sure I don't quite understand the idea of phrases like "in the best interests of the child" It pretty much sounds like "PCSpeak" waffle with no real meaning whatsoever - a drone question which could be asked of anything at anytime - Are Corn Flakes in the best interests of the child...? etc. etc, merely insert something here instead of "Corn Flakes" and it means just the same whatever - nothing really!.

I totally understand that you would have a problem comprehending the meaning of something as simple as "in the best interests of the child", but then again I  (mistakenly) assumed that there was an adult discussion taking place.

What a shock it was then, to discover that we had been joined by an immature, self opinionated clown who has no idea what he (or anyone else) is talking about.

I suggest that you go back to writing whatever drivel it is that (supposedly) wins you awards, as you certainly won't win any awards for informed discussion.

Now go away and eat up your Corn Flakes sonny, and stop bothering the adults.

I've come in very late here but have read from the top and it's pretty amazing the anger some people seem to have when faced with an argument that challenges with their own "opinion". ... be a lot better to give a reason than discount an opinion I would think

of course the girl was indignant, she was raised by these people (i'm not judging, i'm just trying to make a point) 

  I saw this little girl on the news, she seemed quite precocious and intelligent with a better. more considered view of the situation than the prime minister of Australia's rash comment. IN fact she spoke better than most Aussie kids of her age. So I think that remark is actually a bit of a slight on this kids intelligence and upbringing - she seemed to be very aware and far from stupid.

And I see that nobody here has even attempted to explain why this picture "was not in the best interests of the child"  as the guy up there asked a while ago but they do seem to get very angry at someone who asks some pretty straightforward questions. Have to say that phrase is something that as thinka said, could be applied to anything unless you back it up with reason. IN this case it certainly doesn't seem to have harmed this particular kid though admittedly she is stiull pretty tender in years she seems very well adjusted.

Maybe it would be better to explain why it was "not in the best interests of the child" rather than just yell at someone for asking a simple question - it makes me wonder how much thought has gone into the statement when there is no attempt at all made to justify it other than to start slagging the person who questioned it.
If you claim it's easy to understand wouldn't it be better to communicate rather than just jump up and down?

I saw this little girl on the news, she seemed quite precocious and intelligent

It's nice to know that you consider an 11year old girl has the worldly knowlege to comment here, or was she not just echoing the thoughts of her parents?

Maybe it would be better to explain why it was "not in the best interests of the child" rather than just yell at someone for asking a simple question 

If you need to have "in the best interests of the child", spelled out for you, then I would suggest that you do not have very much in the way of parenting skills.

I'm sorry but you simply don't seem able to back up your statement with any form of intelligent reasoning. If you can explain it, then do so. But if you can't at least be civil enough to admit you can't. sorry but I don't know why you seem to be so angry when anyone asks a simple question.

We're talking about  communication skills here and no decent parent could possibly be without them. If you can't communicate how could you be any sort of a parent?

Gee whiz, just asked a question.!!

well I'm back and i'm off - can only note two things here: "closed minds" seems to very possibly mean : someone's made me think and I think I might be wrong. ( guy's got a good name there!)

and if you can't answer a question - shoot the asker rather than be embarrassed about it!!

Oh that and the fact that apparently the best interests of someone are served by the strangely inexplicable desires of strangers rather than the best meaning thoughts of their parents and loved ones. And if a kids speaks well and clearly and makes your opinion seem just a bit poorly thought out: they are the devils work!!

Interesting world isn't it?

It's been real..... well not informative but interesting. see y'all

and go ahead, yell some more - beats explaining yourself.

Thanks for popping in soclearlee. All views are welcome here...as are you

You have made it abundantly clear, soclearlee, that you do not know or understand what you are talking about, and along with your mate (thinka) your title is another misnomer, as you don't appear to see things soclearlee at all.

You claim to have read from the top, and from that I can only deduce that either you are a very poor reader, or that you have difficulty absorbing what you do read.

Really the only angry people here are you and your pal.

There was a perfectly sensible discussion going on here, when along came your pal thinka and started carrying on like a loony, and all you have done is to take up where he left off, you have introduced nothing new to the discussion, apart from displaying your inability to grasp facts.

What is it is with you people from the lunatic fringe, that inhabit the outer regions of the art (or what passes for art) world.

If I were you, I would confine my activities to watching Big Brother, (sorry I cant tell you what channel it is on) where you are sure to find like minded vacuum heads, or as an alternative, may I suggest that you join the Church of LOTU, where I know that talents such as you display will be appreciated.

Oh and by the way, if you use punctuation in your posts it makes them so much easier to read and understand.

Have a nice day.. 

There has been a lot of personal views mixed with some anger and hot air from both ends of this debate.As usual the middle ground has been filled with cliches and politically correct statements...

I now have a continuation  to this contentious issue:

How does this

differ from this:

or do we still have the same discussion issues of child abuse,  wrongly behaving parents, child pornography, or art ????

To me the second picture gives a totally different impression, being 100% inocuous, whereas the first picture does tend to appear provocative when they are compared.

Is this because of age difference?

Is it because of the full face looking straight back at you?

Is it because the first picture is obviously a long-haired girl?

I still cannot find any personal excitement from either...and am very glad to be able to say that...

At what age does a picture of a naked child become uncomfortable to others on this forum?

Someone mentioned cherubs, gotta wonder how the photo of the girl is wrong, when this:

is ok, I mean look, you can see a penis and everything! Shock and horror should surely ensue.

Personally I don't find any "shock, horror or discomfort" from any of the images.  They all seem perfectly innocent to me.  It's just the label of "art" that annoys me.  Anyone can do that (maybe not the one SK posted though) - even me - it has no value, skill or anything other than being a bloody photograph of a kid against the backdrop of a painting done by a kid (or some retard adult) and it gets called art.  I think what really annoys me more than anything is that thare a people who are dim enough to pay money so that someone can make a living out of that stuff and real skilled people have to work their nuts off doing a proper job...

There are worse things than that, one "artwork" I heard about was just a cube of ice, about 3 foot to a side. Slowly melting. Pretentious tosser of an artist got some number of millions of some currency or other for it, despite the fact that the ice cube *he* made was going to melt before the exhibition ended - what they'd actually paid for was the right to go to an ice company and have a replica made.

Just to make it even stupider, apparently the terms of sale say they can only do this 3 times, to obtain 3 ice cubes.

With this one, the only part I can find merit in is the daylight robbery of someone with far more money than sense. 

"You claim to have read from the top, and from that I can only deduce that either you are a very poor reader, or that you have difficulty absorbing what you do read."

Sorry  I've  been a tad busy dealing with reality.

Dear Andromeda,

I realise it wasn't directed at me - but what the heck  this poster supported me  so I've  also read from the top yet again - (and I have to say I was going to drop in Anne Geddes web address so you could try and have it shut down  oh here it is: http://www.annegeddes.com/ and she is definitely not an artist IMHO so yes, it all has been created to merely promote her career. so do go ahead and flame her.) ... but I digress - I  don't seem to be able to find a cogent point of view from you anywhere - in fact whenever you are asked to explain yourself you seem only able to attempt to insult people. Nowhere here can I find anything but a repetition of a politician's statement - please do correct me if I'm wrong by showing me your explanation..

It appears the only person who does not understand and is incapable of explaining what they are talking about is you - again , feel free to explain  but to date all you have done is avoid any explanation whatsoever. just like this oh hell - I meant EXACTLY  like that. If you CAN explain yourself, please do so. I am always willing to look at another point of view when it is well explained - so far I see no attempt at all on your part which doesn't fill me with intellectual envy at all. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, only with knowing it and refusing to change.

Cheers - and please do feel free to explain instead of complain.

Otherwise , just start piling up the rocks to smash all those nasty stained glass , cherub filled windows which apparently were not built in the best interests of .......

aaah what a way to start the day!!! I was rather depressed and feeling sorry for myself due to some personal tragedy but now I feel I've made a positive statement to the betterment of society sadly it would seem your reaction will be predictable. aaahwaddayagonnado??

BTW while I am a very great supporter of the arts I do agree with many of the comments above about wanker artworks and you could read my early posts for my opinion of the quality of the work in question

BTW

Here is the original

and here is a bit more explanation ( no need for you Andromeda!!)

http://www.artistquirk.com/curiouser-and-curiouser/

So do feel free to start burning all those Lewis Carrol books too!

A dissertation on Lewis Carrol's photography

I'm off to get on with it, but Heller:,....cool!! very interesting and revealing all of it eh!!

oh yes, very revealing  

What part of "in the best interests of the child", do you require explained to you, thinka?

I know that you're immature, but I know that most (but not all) parents would be aware of what is in the best interests of their children.

The quote below would be funny if it didn't come from a very deluded individual......

I feel I've made a positive statement to the betterment of society sadly it would seem your reaction will be predictable. aaahwaddayagonnado?? 

I reccomend that you save all the posts you have made here, and re-read them when/if you grow up. (I would suggest in maybe 10 years time)

I am very sorry that you have had a personal tragedy, and if posting mindless rubbish on here makes you feel better then go right ahead.

Have a nice day. 

ooh as a new user I'm not sure if I want to get involved much more considering what I read, but , really I thought this might be a place for intelligent discussion - you still don't seem to be able to come up with any sort of answer there - maybe that is what makes you so angry? the only mindless stuff here would seem to be your lack of clear answers Andromeda - So you can't give an answer because everybody knows the answer?  oooooh dear, I am not  sure I would want  to teach my children that sort of thought process! I'd rather them be able to express themselves instead of just lashing out in anger when they can't. Do you also roll around on the floor screaming and kicking your feet?
You seem to have some trouble with reading and comprehension. 
I doubt that you have too many good days at all but I wish you all the best.

All I did was ask some pertinent questions - you sadly so far do not seem to have any answers at all beyond a tantrum. That little girl in the picture certainly did not have any trouble making herself clear - does that make you angry too?  Maybe you should re read these posts and see if you can find wher you have given any sort of intelligent, factual answer.

Lee

oh in for a penny..

How hard is it to work out?

So you have worked it out then, and can now see it soclearlee?

I am not  sure I would want  to teach my children that sort of thought

Oh dear me, please, please tell me that you are not looking after children!

*Silly me of course not, this person is a child him/herself*  

So still having trouble answering the question then?

I'll bet you don't like jews, blacks or muslims either!

or Kiwis

Shut up heller, don't encourage him/her.

well kiwis is understandable  eh brew!

sorry on all counts, couldn't help it, it's just too easy!

Well at least we agree on one thing.

I'll bet you don't like jews, blacks or muslims either!

How much?  

Ah yes. Much easy to throw tantrum than answer simple questin when small child. When grown up ..not a good look actually.

Huh???

I am thinking that you do not write soclearlee.

Still having that reading and comprehension trouble then? Never mind, it's a bit too late to make a contribution at this stage anyway. Keep up the...yelling at people when you are incapable of clear expression thing, it's really very flattering and keeps attention away from possible failings!

As Aldous Huxley once said,,,"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." ROFL!!!

And obviuosly your doors of perception closed long ago if they ever were open

So many words being thrown back and forth... None of this is accomplishing anything...

Ah dear old Aldous, I knew him well. (Actually that is one of my favourite quotations)

You are very funny Lee, and here was me thinking all along that you were serious.

Very true - comprehension levels appear to be way down - beam me up Scotty!!

You can't always trust the beamer upper..

i hope you are proud of me..............i have taken any more bait.

but............i was wondering how you all felt about the exploitation of................................

pets:

sorry, i just had to lighten this up a bit.

My dog does a similar thing... pretty much any time you start stroking him, if he thinks he can get away with it, he drops onto his side for a belly rub then rolls partly onto his back and spreads his legs wide open.

yes, pets (and often children) have no shame..................and i'm not saying that they should.

It's sometimes amazes me how dogs can mimic things that women do