Child Pornography, Art or Dummy?
"Spiritual America, 1983, Ektacolor photograph, edition of 10, Copyright Richard Prince, Courtesy Richard Prince and Gladstone Gallery
Jesse McBride, 1976. Gelatin-silver print, 20 x 16 inches. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Gift, Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation, 1995. 95.4308. © The Estate of Robert Mapplethorpe.
The topmost image is of a young Brooke Shields taken by Richard Prince. Next is a work by Mapplethorpe. Both are well-known and respected artists as well as accused child pornographers.
John Cooper, an English "leading criminal barrister" lays out some factors for deciding whether or not it's art or child porn:
"It's important to look at the circumstances surrounding the images. For instance: How old is the child? Have the photos been taken in vulnerable circumstances---in other words was there an element of exploitation involved?
...Another factor could be what kind of photographer took the pictures. If they are known to have a good reputation, then this will be relevant too."
(Taken from Culture Grrl)
We know the artists are well-known, and therefore, not venerable artmakers, not pornographers, but does the public?
Comparisons are drawn between Mapplethorpe's children and putti of classical/Renaissance art.
The question becomes, however, if something automatically acceptable if it is an imitation of a Greek, Roman, or Renaissance works? I think a performance artist recreating the rape of the Sabines might be met with some resistance.
Sally Mann's photographs of her children has also met repeated controversy.
However, I think it is important to point out that Lola was not placed in the display case to stir controversy. Her inclusion was based solely on her iconic status in the Art + Design department as a questionable drawing manikin. When "she" was being propped up (lola lacks a foot), her skirt fell down. It would have been too much work to hike it back up, so in the random Dada spirit of the installation, we left it. She was not forcibly disrobed.
Comments
the litlle boys is so cutte naked
Posted by: riri | May 6, 2008 9:00 PM
the stalinist times.
this horrible processes,when manu og the aaccused pretend to be innocent.
stalin said:
-as more they are innocent as more theu deserve to be shut.
and the pictures ,too.
strange ,the staliist factor is litteraly and completelly pertinent to today's paranoia
Posted by: sadov | May 9, 2008 9:20 PM
"When "she" was being propped up (lola lacks a foot), her skirt fell down. It would have been too much work to hike it back up"
so much work to put a girls skirt back on? Okay i understand that they would have had to "un-prop" her, but common! Now why would you post this picture on the internet... I do not think this is art, however but the pictures that were drawn of her might fit the category. because when drawn... details can be left out.
Posted by: Brandon | July 26, 2008 7:32 AM
everyone is naked under clothing, shut up with your sensitivity, it aint your kid, so fuck off as far as telling someone else what to do with the kid, the child knows theyre being photographed, they know what people are going to think of the photographer, the photographer also realizes there are dumbasses like you out there who are going to run their mouths about something they take five seconds to judge. they also realize that many MORE people respect the art and don't just look at it as a picture of a naked child. so away, you are to narrowminded to enter the world of art
Posted by: un | August 21, 2008 6:52 PM
Personally I wouldn't judge the first one as child porn, you really can't tell the age of the model. Personally I'm not a fan of this type of work so I wouldn't consider it art.
The second photo is snapshot-esque, I would consider this child porn, there's little use of composition, there's full depth of field, it's not an artistic photo.
But the last one.. Sally Mann's photo.. That's just beautiful. It's a gorgeous representation of the innocent play of childhood, the joy of being free from worry.
and to "un"... A child does not know what the world will think of the photographer when a photo like that is being taken.. That's the beauty and magnificence of innocence...
Posted by: JD | September 30, 2008 6:29 PM
fascism has come to us waving a flag and carrying a cross...
Posted by: g.bush | October 16, 2008 11:29 AM
Anyone who thinks nude photography is pornography, is the perverted person.
Nudity has and always will be acceptable to children. It is the stigmatization by adults that children learn nekidness is sin!!!
The human body, male and female is beautiful. Yes, there are adults that prey on children, but they are a very small minority, yet schools are prohibiting photography at school functions in case such a person may be present, and these children are clothed!
BTW, pornography would involve a sexual subject to the picture, none of these pictures are sexual in nature.
The exposure of genitalia does NOT make it a sexual exhibition, even if the male has an erection, as an erection is not proof of sexual arousal, but a normal function of the penis!
Our society would be far better off if public nudity was allowed. However, we have made nudity a commodity in America, and it would destroy an industry of pornography if nudity became an open occupation!
Posted by: jonnie | November 20, 2008 10:32 PM
Man, this is a touchy subject. I generally think of child pornography as being exploitative. If being shot or painted by an artist, I don't consider it to be exploitative. Perverts molesting children is exploitative and disgusting in every facet of the word. As a mother, I vehemently support the blocking of children from adult material, and support the hanging of those that exploit them in a sexual manner.
Posted by: Leslie Hammond | December 20, 2008 10:20 PM
Personally I couldn't agree more about the touchiness of this subject. I do believe the first is the most pornagraphic as it shows the girl, who is the eldest of the three in an extremely suggestive position. The second one I don't believe is very pornagraphic because this child is extremely young, maybe a baby, and you see pictures of naked kids her age all the time, especially on packages for diapers. The third one, im on the fence, but mainly i would say closer to pornography if it wasn't taken by a parent, or you know what, even if it was.
I've shared my thoughts. That's what I have to say.
Posted by: Holly P. | January 12, 2009 4:56 PM
this little girl look good naked. I want to touch her everywhere. can you sent me more photos of young little girls naked. They are so cute. I wish that the last photo, of the naked girl could reach out of the web and touch me all over. I love the feeling. I want a little girl when I grow up.
Posted by: Davy Vane | March 21, 2009 3:40 PM
I want to see more naked children photos. Could you sent them to my E-mail?
Posted by: Davy Vane | March 21, 2009 4:41 PM
I want to molest them. Their little bodies is so hot. I want them to touch my penis and butt, and I want to touch their little butts and pussy.
Posted by: Davy Vane | March 21, 2009 4:54 PM
this is kinda sick.. it should not be online, yes maybe art but in the proper forum not the world wide web, remove it.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 7, 2009 2:21 PM