This is sliiightly the same as the other thread Atomik posted a few months ago (can't remember it's name, something like porn/erotica/art/nudity)
I was looking through a HUGE book yesterday by an artist named Nan Goldin and she takes some amazing photographs. I can't remember the name of the one I was looking through but it seemed to just be documenting her life and the people around her. A lot of it was everyday things such as "so and so at the beach" but then there were also a lot of her friends in intimate situations, not too unusual in the art world.
However there were quite a few of children, not in compromising situations, just playing or standing there, or doing what children do - but naked.
I didn't really think much of it, it was just like browsing somebodies family album.
But then by mad coincidence I was browsing the papers earlier and found this article
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A photograph by a controversial American artist which is part of Sir Elton John's private collection has been seized by police from a gallery on suspicion it may have breached child pornography laws.
The shot, from the artist's Thanksgiving series, was to be exhibited at the Baltic Modern Art gallery, Tyneside, this week along with some of her other work. But the day before it was due to be viewed by the public, police came and removed the image over fears that it might be breaking the law.
People could look at it and think "what a lovely picture" or they could think "phwoar nekkid kiddies" but isn't that the same for everything? People could be wanking over Michaelangelo's David?!?!
Is it societies fear over being called a paedophile, or the fear OF paedophiles (they're EVERYWHERE you know!)
Or is it that they are young and so possibly exploited?
Most parents have at least one picture of their child in the bath, or running around the garden with his willy out, but taken from a purely parental point of view, the same as Goldin's. So why is she getting criticism for sharing it?
Or she she just trying to cash in from being controversial (I think not, she's been around too long, and she was already famous for other photographs).
I guess it's a very grey area, as if you allow them to be shown, then would it be okay for child porn to be shown under the grounds of "artistic merit"
I'm pretty much on the bench for this one, but I thought it would make for a really interesting discussion.