Naked Teenagers - Art?

Remove all ads!

I would tend to agree with Merlanni, The Magister, and Decados -- but then artists also need to eat. Art for art's sake is a great concept (which is true for greats works in museums), but an art exhibit in a small gallery has only one goal -- to make money. Galleries are in the business to sell pictures and paintings. Museums are in the business to share culture. A gallery can also share culture and art -- but it's main thrust is selling.

Keep the great works in the museums. But ban the exploitation of children by modern "artists."

 

Ilmater:

Ah, well, I wouldn't classify that as a biological solution so much as a social one, but yes, that would work nicely. Good luck, though.

Decados:

The difference here is who would be deprived of proper use. Many,many people use alcohol on a semi-regular basis, and most of them do it properly. Very few of them go out driving drunk or end up beating their wives and very few of them end up being alcoholics. Complete prohibition of alcohol would deprive these people of the legitimate use of alcohol to protect a few.

On the other hand, very few people legitimately use pictures of nude children. I would guess there are a few artists out there who legitimately wish do express something using them, but that's probably it. I'd guess there are several hundred to several thousand times the number of pedophiles out there. To deprive a very few of legitimate use to prevent a great many more abusing such things is reasonable.

As a whole, I have no problem with saying the natural human body is a beautiful thing, even in a non-sexual context, but I think there are safer (for society as a whole) ways to express that than using pictures of nude children.

 

I... um... Not really sure how to say this... Oh, the heck with it! I agree with NOG. Wait until they are 18 and are consenting adults and then do it. I can see very little artistic value in photographing nude minors. Wasn't there another flap recently about some child star (Hannah Montana maybe?) being photographed nude and having the pictures show up in a magazine with just a sheet covering certain parts of her?

 

I have to say I agree with the above -- and I'll add that IMHO pictures of nude children belong only in medical textbooks for the rarified purpose of illustrating obscure skin conditions. I can think of no other reason I would consider valid for the use of nude teenage pictures. Wait until they are 18 and capable of forming consent on their own before you take nude photos of them for any purpose other than medical.

I really, really hate pretentious artists doing stuff like this and then calling it "art" and implying that the rest of us great unwashed fools are too unrefined to understand their genius. I don't know if the artists should necessarily face charges but his work should be destroyed and a firm warning extended that this kind of "art" is not acceptable in our society.

As for Miley Cyrus, she wasn't nude as she was covered -- I wouldn't want my daughters in those poses, mind, but the incident was blown way out of proportion. Her previous image being subverted was what was at the heart of the matter, and as I think has been said before by others the poses with her father were more disturbing.

 

Very interesting topic this one. There was a case in Finland a month back where an artist made an artpiece where she put naked pictures of teenagers together as criticism towards child pornography. She claimed to have found those through a simple internet search. Of course the artpiece was confiscated along with her computer harddrive and she was found guilty of a couple of charges but given no further punishment. Can't say I disagree with the sentence. If you want to make some sort of artistic statement use adult actors that are supposed to represent teenagers it might not have the same "punch" but art really is no more of a valid reason for using underaged naked models than other commercial purposes.

 

Without seeing the pictures, I'm not sure it is fair to pass judgement. The closest I have found to a picture is the background shot in this article

It isn't a clear enough picture for me to judge if it is porn or if it is art. That will always be the question and I don't believe any two people will have the same standard.

EDIT: Actually, that picture may not be from this exhibit.

 

So it's from your private collection?

Anyway, I agree with NOG's analysis of the alcohol vs nude pictures scenario. Which just goes further to convince me that my earlier position is appropriate.

 

The missus tends to be pretty liberal, but I think she will draw the line at naked teenage girls in the house. At least until Little Snook is a few years older, and then she will be handing out condoms and forcing me to have "the talk".

 

My
Sculpture of a naked Roman emperor = Art.
Live naked artist expressing the isolation and fake politeness of todays people by dancing and making stupid faces while being silently observed by a bunch of people holding wine glasses and wearing stupid clothing = The kind of art I don't want to understand, but whatever, let them have their fun.
Pictures of naked teenagers = Not art. It's about what it leads to.

 

Personally, I think we are asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether the work was or wasn't art. Since at least some people (ie the artist, the parents, the teenage kids who posed) feel it was art, the short answer to that question is yes, absolutely, these are works of art. Whether or not these works are truly works of art is, however, completely irrelevant. If we all agreed that the work was art, would that vindicate it? While art is meant to be subversive and to challenge our sensibilities (and this work does an admirable job of both), artists do go too far once in a while. We shouldn't be asking whether or not the work qualifies as "art". We should be asking if the work goes too far. I think it does.

 

So you're classifying it offensive art. That works.

 

Yes and no. Lots of art is offensive...and there is nothing wrong with producing offensive art. The problem in this case is that the artist may well have exploited minors in a misguided attempt at making some sort of statement. That is where I think the artist went too far.

 

Porn is made by pornographers, I don't feel this is the case in this situation - Bill Henson is a well established and well regarded artist trying to create what is in his, and many other peoples eyes, art. In terms of overstepping normal social boundries, well yes, but I think that was part of the point. The over-politicisation of the issue is imho rediculous - surely the fate of work is better decided by the art world, the child/parents and the law rather than every populist politician and his dog.

I can't say I'm too interested in seeing the work, nor that I condone it, but I'm not a particularly huge fan of censoring, especially in light of all the greats works that have been banned at different times thoughout the ages. I think there are also more serious issues in the sexualisation of the young in popular media rather than in art circles.

At the end of the day no ones getting abused, someone gets to express themselves and make the statement they want, and chances are only a handful of people in art circles will view it, and they'll likely view it as intended. Rich, artistically inclined people are buying his work, not seedy backstreet child-abusers. I don't want to have a government that censors art and stifles creative freedom just because of social norms.

 

I would argue that most societal norms take precedence over pretentious "art". Also, perversion is not a trait only possessed by the lower class -- plenty of "rich, artistically inclined people" are perverts too. I concede that the artist's intent may be pure, but he made a mistake here, IMHO, and I don't think perversion should hide behind a shield of "artistic expression."

 

The fact that these works challenge societal standards of decency is not the problem. If the work is perverted (it could be tasteful), that isn't the problem, either. Challenging societal standards or being perverted is not illegal, and shouldn't be. The problem is one of exploitation. While whether or not the works in question were exploitive in this particular case may be a somewhat nebulous issue, these kids are minors. Where minors are concerned, we should always err on the side of caution.

 

Fortunately, the law is far more supportative of free speech and art than most people: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm?section=australia

One of the pictures is included, with nipples censored because y'know, nipples are horribly, horribly offensive.

I'm actually quite surprised by this outcome - was pretty sure the artist was headed for a good long time in jail. I'm also kinda underwhelmed by the picture, but I guess not all art has to be especially interesting or good...

 

Considering that the prime minister has spoken out about the case so strongly that law might be about to change soon enough though.

 

"I also said, when it comes to the independent processes of the law, they are completely separate from what any individual or politician may think, feel or respond to by way of their own individual judgments." - Kevin Rudd

Hopefully he sticks to his statement, it was a good outcome for free speech imho

 

The sad fact is that there are perverts out there who will get turned on by a photo of a dirty toilet. There are folks who will masturbate to pictures of a tree. Does that make such pictures porn?

If you look at, say, the Miley Cyrus picture and get turned on sexually, who's to blame? The photographer or you? Can artists control how their art is interpreted? Charles Manson claimed to have been inspired by the Beatles' White Album. Should be ban the album?

There's a classic old joke that illustrates my point perfectly:

A man goes to a psychotherapist for analysis. The doctor shows him a series of Rorschach ink blots and asks the patient to describe what they look like. He sees nude women in all of them. The doctor replies "I am ready to make my diagnosis: you sir have a dirty mind!" "Me?" asks the patient, "you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!"

 

As distasteful as I find them, the pictures do certainly appear to have been produced as works of art rather than as pornagraphy. I would, however, question how the law can be applied going forward. Are the police expected to have to rebut the defence of a child pornagrapher that their works are produced as art and not as porn? It would be very easy to cater for a market at the blurring of the two lines, although graphic images would obviously be in violation. A blanket ban on such imagery of minors would be much easier to enforce. I can't see this as being too great an infringement of free speech, after all there are hardly any great benefits to society by allowing such images.