Just recently in Australia, there has been a bit of controversy over Bill Henson's artwork: photographic depictions of naked underage girls. There were complaints, which got the police involved, they seized the artwork, there's an investigation, possible charges of producing child pornography. The models have been outspoken about defending Henson, so to have some of their parents. I guess it basically comes down to the question of; is it art or pornography? I'm not sure if the pictures are allowed to be posted, so you can just google the artists name to see them, but what do you guys think, porn or art, right or wrong?
If no harm has been done... if the models and their parents agree... Its art. I'm a firm believer that the human body is beautiful in all forms. however, i can understand where the opposing viewpoints are coming from. Do you have a link to the article?
there is no deviding line, only the emotional attatchments of capretious public oppinion. what's shameful is how much gets destroyed every time fanatics get public support for their pseudo-moral 'outrages' =^^= .../\...
I think, to say it's porn, they have to prove that the artist was intending to make porn, and was using the models for pornographic purposes, ie, to get off to it. Fundamentally thats the difference, porn is suppose to make you cum, art is suppose to make you think, or appreciate. This stuff definitely leans more towards art, by my definition at least. And unless they can prove (which they can't) that he made this with the intention to get himself or others off, it shall remain art, and not pron.
That doesn't change the fact that there's probably millions of dudes getting off to it daily. I think it's porn. And trust me, porn is great. But underage girls? I don't care what audience this stuff was intended for, I think it's a little weird. Plus, they hardly even have tits yet!
people who are sick enough can get off on the CRAZIEST things. Trust me. I saw a community on LiveJournal of people with tree fetishes, where they posted paticularly curvy, sexy trees. Its art. The human body is beautiful in all form. Like I said before, no one was hurt, all parties were willing.
David Hamilton is the most famous young female photographer on the planet. I've never seen any of his work that I would consider offensive. http://images.google.com/images?q=d...&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title People who can't admire the beauty of youth have a bigger problem than those who do. x
I didn't see anything that I would consider pornographic from my short google search. I did see some really cool art though. I believe these people are too caught up in what's designated as right or wrong to consider the fact that all the models were consenting and it seems that the parents gave consent too.
Actually you gotta wonder what people would make of Rubens and Michaelangelo with the little "cherubs" or whatever they're called ie 3 year olds with no clothes on. Serious thought tho
