really?
no kids in the bathtub pics for you to show their prom dates someday to embarrass them?

and yeah d20 has it right on the money. i'm fairly certain it's deliberately designed to cause people to think and to debate.

The fact that the issue here is perceived to be what to CALL the photo just shows how insane these sorts of laws are. It shouldn't matter what anyone calls it. All that should matter is whether the children were hurt in some way. The only other thing that should even be a candidate for mattering is whether there is credible evidence that photos like this "activate" latent pedophilia in people who cannot or will not restrain themselves from hurting some other child. The law has no business enforcing aesthetic norms.

Oh that made me LOL.

Also, I don't think it's right to sell naked pictures of children (including this one) because they aren't old enough to give consent. When they grow up, they might feel upset, embarassed or taken advantage of. It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.

this reminds me of this book i read, the effects of light. it was sort of a shitty book, but it was about the life of one of those "porn or art" kids once she'd grown up

+1 exactly

In the United States, a parent or legal guardian has the lawful right to sign any waivers or contracts for their minor.

In the United States, we don't have ethics.

Bizzare photo, but not porn.

I'd add it is *more* effective as art specifically because it looks like a plain snapshot and not an overtly "artistic" work. Displaying it in a formal gallery setting thus makes the viewer consider the work more closely.

In other words, it's out of context - and why would an otherwise unremarkable family picture of a naked kid playing around suddenly make some viewers uncomfortable, simply because of the changed viewing surroundings?

...and for the poster who said art that needs to be explained isn't good art, all I can say is that understanding the full picture gives the viewer a real understanding . If you don't care enough to figure out the details, you'll miss out on a lot of good work.

This picture was seized by British authorities.

It's certainly not a picture I would take of my (nonexistent) children. Furthermore, were i to find out that someone was taking pics of my kids that looked like that, there'd be some SERIOUS explaining to do (if not outright clobbering time).

That might be true, but they don't have the right to sell pornographic images of their children.

And the BALTIC gallery is in Gateshead, the artist may be American but it's British law that's relevant in whether it can be distributed here.

The parents may have been irresponsible, but it's not pornography.

What if it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable, does it stop being art? The photo is shitty. The decision to display it in a gallery may be art (of the conceptual variety), but that doesn't make the picture itself any good.

Doesn't Jock Sturges get busted for this every decade or so? Someone's pandering to their constituency and making headlines.

It's a naked picture of two children.
Out of interest, what would the picture have to show for you to class it as pornographic?

This reminds me of the Federal Grand Jury case against Jock Sturges, the guy who put out "Radiant Identities." I have the book, and I have to say if you find anything pornographic about the photos in that book there's nothing wrong with the photographer or the subject. There's something wrong with you. The Grand Jury saw it the same way and subsequently threw the case out. They refused to hear it.

This is probably what will happen in this case too if it comes to that. Bottom line: It is not pornography. It IS art however, whether it appeals to you or not. There is nothing wrong with nudity. The photo was clearly not taken with the intent to arouse the viewer. These photos are also taken with the consent of the parents. Jock Sturges' works often INCLUDED the parents in the picture as part of the composition.

David Hamilton is another photographer who published similar works, to include "The Last Day of Summer."

You were able to find BOTH photographers' books in Barnes and Noble, Borders, and other book stores. They weren't kept behind the counter in some seedy liquor store, enveloped in celophane. They were available in the photography section. Because they were works of art.

Hell, the NEA gives grants in the tens of thousands of dollars for works I find FAR more offensive than this.