Kanner said:

*sigh*

You have a *really* low opinion of art and artists if you think that merely causing a fuss is somehow art.

Put it another way - any artist who merely aspires to get 'a reaction' from their audience is setting their sights FAR too low.

A great singer can make me cry. A great comedian can make me laugh. A great painter can make me feel wonder, or horror, or virtually any mix of thoughts depending on what they dream up. A great photographer is the same, but with a sharper, more realistic edge - because their subject is fresh, precise and in the moment, and not recreated through memory and approximation. Still photos of war, particularly - there is little else that can make you feel such horror or anguish or burning anger for the situation.

A badly taken shot of a naked kid dancing with another kid... doesn't do anything above a vague level of discomfort. Maybe it's great if you know the kids. Maybe it works if it's an amazing photo, taken perfectly with a once-ever situation. But this is not such a photo.

If you wanna argue that 'anything is art and who are you to judge', fine. I just take that as meaning you're a crappy artist, and someone who pays more attention to the signature on the painting than the actual painting itself. Because it's REALLY EASY to judge, just so long as you haven't gone through the *amazing* modern art brainwashing process. You really need to think back to the time before someone explained to you that 'It's vague and talentless, therefore it's not art, but because it's intentionally vague and talentless, it's art.' NO. It's just vague and talentless, regards of whether that's intentional or not.

Nor is it really valid to turn a single crappy portrait of a naked kid into a vast arguement about nudity and naturalism and 'how we perceive the human form'. People in our society wear clothes. People in other societies wear clothes. People have worn clothes for thousands of years, all over the world. Deal with it. =)

rebelwithstyle said:
Porn is designed to arouse people. I can safely say the photographer didnt take this picture to arouse people. The question we should be asking is whether or not the people that think this is porn are pedophiles. Do they look at it and think "Wow, thats a picture of some naked kiddies and it turns me on. It must be child porno?" That is what is disturbing about this story. Kids have been running around naked since there were kids to run around naked. Takeing a picture of it dosent turn it into porn. In my oppinion everyone that looks at this and thinks "it's porn!" needs some serious help.

Necia said:

You know, I wouldn't think that this is something anyone should need to have explained to him/her (and you shouldn't feel too personally attacked here; you're hardly the only one stating the view that you're stating), but apparently it is.

There is a massive and fundamental difference between "I'm uncomfortable with graphic pictures of naked children displayed alongside other sexually explicit pictures, especially in a world in which there are some really ill people and some really horrible things that happen to young children because of that--and either way I don't think this is artistic; I think it's just creepy" and "that young girl's genitals are getting me hot, so this must be porn."

I mean, seriously, are you really failing to see that difference? Are you really positing that the only possible reason that the public display of a photo like that could make someone uncomfortable is because that person has a secret, shameful desire to have sexual contact with children? If you're really making that stunningly baseless leap of logic, I'd argue that you're the one who needs help, because the connections you're making are not in the slightest logical or rational or grounded in reality.