Everyone's giving their ethics, values, and opinions here. I'm surprised you of all people object to me giving mine. How do you have a one-side discussion?
Sorry, but that’s not what it’s about. That’s what you made it about by inserting, repeatedly, your values, ethics, and opinions, as well as throwing around some terms not in the law you cite. But carry on…
Eleanor Bullock believes otherwise.Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse and probably
No, but it became that because you have steered it in that direction. This has become a vehicle for you to voice your moral outrage. This was a discussion about a specific instance where specific photographs were seized by law enforcement when a church group acted as the morality police on behalf the community.Brian, This thread is about how photographs can hurt children when they're used improperly as models and how penal statutes are enforced. It has nothing to do with ethics per se, but common sense and doing the right thing.
Not with you taking on the role of judge and jury, no.I am a father and I would never have made my daughter strip naked to take photographs of her for publication. If anyone here does that, would they admit it right now, here?
No, it’s not. Some of us believe that Sally Mann’s art deserves more respect than it has been afforded in this conversation. I stand up for every artists right to make whatever art they want to, as long as no laws are clearly being violated. If an artist creates work that violates your sensibilities but doesn’t break any laws, they’re within their rights to do so. Art doesn’t have to stay within the boundaries of morality or good taste! That’s absurd. Whether you approve or not, the world includes artists like Andres Serrano who have a right to say what they want.I doubt anyone will. All this argument for art and other justifications are just bravado and argument for argument's sake.
Also, we are talking about modern times with new rules, standards, understandings, and penal statutes. If someone applies the standards of the past today, they could wind up in jail for a long time. I've posted many parts of the Texas and Federal statutes many times to show the legal issues, not the ethical issues. These statutes were not around 60 years ago with Bullock.
Everyone's giving their ethics, values, and opinions here. I'm surprised you of all people object to me giving mine. How do you have a one-side discussion?
If a photographer wants to do nudes, use adults only. No children. Why would you put yourself in a position to go to jail?
indeed, the phrasing implies the use of Phyical force to have the subject pose against their will. that is itself implying a extreme value judgement. in Mann's Photos the subjects were already not dressed, and in the other one the subject was happy to undress woring only ablit the pine needles. and the Wreck each photo seems to be a family just enjoying the sun.By stating “Stripping a young minor naked for a picture of this type is child abuse”, you are no longer simply offering your opinion and values,
In case it isn't obvious, Wreck Beach was a clothing optional beach back then. It remains a clothing optional beach to this day.and the Wreck Beach photo seems to be a family just enjoying the sun
Good luck, guys. If I were you and wanted to publish nude pictures of children, I'd keep the phone number of a criminal attorney handy.
….The problem is too many people don't find the opinions of others very interesting. They don't get curious as to why someone would think differently than they do and what those different opinions actually mean…
Good luck, guys. If I were you and wanted to publish nude pictures of children, I'd keep the phone number of a criminal attorney handy.
That is my experience as well.It strikes me, however, that it's always the more prudish folk who try to push their values on the others.
Absolutely. When someone chooses to "go all Pat Robertson" when viewing art that includes an unclothed human form, I tend to wonder what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place. All too often, it's those minds that rush to outrage and then act on it, as did the Danbury group in this instance.In my opinion and experience, there is nothing intrinsically pornographic about a naked human body - whatever the age. And if, when looking at Sally Mann's photos of her children growing up, someone's reaction is sexual thoughts....the problem is with the viewer, not the images.
Oh, I think the coffee table (and the door knob) have a great deal to answer for! ;-)There are people who become aroused looking at door knobs, coffee tables and all kinds of inanimate objects too. Nobody blames the coffee table.
Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996
Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996
Accusations of other people's minds is quite inappropriate here, not least because the opinion that Alan expresses is widespread enough to be within the norm.
Here is an interesting article from 1996
For those who want to define nudity in children as pornography and criminal and child abuse, I wonder if this only applies to photography? When I visited the Uffuzi museum in Florence, Italy two years ago, I saw MANY paintings, quite realistic in their renderings, that depicted unclothed children. Should those be removed? What if they came to a museum exhibition in Texas? It’s a very slippery slope.
I guess she will always be defined by those early pictures. That's sad, because her subsequent is so superb.
I guess she will always be defined by those early pictures.
My guess, is only by a certain audience.
I believe this will be the case, yes. The work in question has been exhibited widely for nearly 35 years now, and only occasionally, and in certain places do these photographs inflame hypersensitive individuals.
A while back I asked the forum membership to explain to me what it is about Sally Mann's photograph "Night Blooming Cereus" (link provided) that warranted inclusion in the work seized by the Fort Worth police, and I don't believe anybody provided an answer. So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?
So, I'll ask again: please explain why this image is considered by some as offensive and (potentially) pornography?
I'm surprised the gallery (Mann's gallery that loaned the work) hasn't filed suit for the return of this property yet, if it is true that the authorities have them.Certainly beats me why that photo would be seized.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?