Ah, the age old question of art vs. porn. This reminds me of the scrutiny that came upon Jock Sturges and Sally Mann a few years ago.

My problem is that I don't feel that it'sGOOD art.

The only thing disturbing about this photo is the fact that someone out there is calling it pornography. I don't want to meet that person.

*shudder*

This seems like one of those situations where if you consider it "pornography" it says a lot more about you than it does about the photo.

That's not porn, though it's not professionally done either. It's just odd. Just looks like a picture a grandmother would take of her grandkids playing around.

If it is art, which people keep insisting it is, this question is worth pondering: how many of the models for the great nude masterpieces were underage? Quite a few, I'm willing to wager. So.

There doesn't really seem to be anything overtly sexual about it. Although I'm sure there are guys who go to the Louvre and pop boners all over.

Well said.

Whether or not it's porn is irrelevant - it's silly. Who would want to see this in an art gallery? Art like this is completely wasted on the likes of me.

+1

One thing that can definitively be determined in all this is that Elton John is really weird.

Yep. Twats. A kid with someone's dick up their arse is porn. This isn't it.

I don't really get how an image of kids not doing something sexual can qualify as porn, and I doubt it would be such a big question if the artist was not known for "sexually explicit work." Every time I hear of a 'baby in the bath' shot being reported to police by photo developers, I wonder if the cops look at the bloody thing before making an arrest. Going through the effort is a waste of time, money and paperwork. Mostly paperwork.

Maybe I don't link nudity with sex as much as other people, I don't know.

what I see here is 2 young children that do not seem to be concerned with thier own nudity or sexuality, but rather just having fun playing. the pure innocents of childhood.......it is the people that try to steal thier innocents for their own personal pleasure that makes it porn.

i'd actually say the opposite. i think it's fantastic not because of the photo itself, but because it absolutely nails the viewer with the uncomfortable issue that we're talking about in this thread.

i agree with the posts in this thread that seeing a naked child as porn says more about the person asserting that -- and the culture they live in -- than the picture itself. i'm willing to bet that's why the photo was exhibited in the first place.

It certainly isn't a photo I'd take of my kids (if I had any), nor would I be showing it off, either. Frankly, I don't really find naked child crotch artistic, really.

Maybe it's not outright child porn, but I can certainly see why it would make people uncomfortable, too.