I don't think its porn, but do we really need crotch shots of babies on display? I think not. haha. Gross.

What's been really strange and interesting to me is how we as a society perceive the chests of young girls. It's not obscene to see a young prepubescent girl's breasts, because they haven't started developing in earnest. Why? We know when we look at a young girl's chest that there are going to be jutting breasts there very soon. And it seems to me that a girl's chest is a girl's chest. If an adult woman with a completely flat chest - and I know a few - were to bare her chest, would it be obscene on, say, America's Funniest Home Videos? Of course it would. But they show flat-chested young girls without censorship all the time. What's the difference?

That's what I'm getting at, and in a way what the artist is getting at. We don't even know what's obscene and what's not obscene when it comes to naked children. How then can we even attempt to pass judgment?

Definite score for Art... Nan Goldin always seems to pull ignorance out of it's safe little social coddling clothes and thrust it but arse naked into the light of day.

Yeah, that might be part of what's causing the discomfort. It's not just the nudity, it's what kind of nudity it is.

Why do you believe this?

Be specific.

i don't think it's not art. I think it's just not my type of art.

People's conception of art changes from person to person, some choose to deem art that doesn't suit them as "not art". I personally think ratrods are art. They just choose mechanics and steel to express themselves. I bet not a lot of people would agree that they are an artform though.

I think I already gave my opinion on that, back a few pages.

I hope you really don't think that these two scenarios are in any way related??

I think it is USING children. Illegal? No. Not right? In my *opinion* - no, not right.

Now we've delved into a discussion of morality. And any scholarly discussion of morality boils down to this: it is subjective. The morality of one person or group is not the same as the morality of another person or group, and no group is governed by the moral code of another - with the exception of some basic human principles, such as the right to live and other basic human rights.

And with how contentious this issue is, and with the almost sheer divide in two, you cannot possibly make any kind of moral judgment that is not tainted by bias.

The morality discussion is incredibly clear-cut throughout the last century in the courts and the government - or was, until the latter part of the century when the so-called "moral majority" started to insist that they were the only ones with any kind of tolerable moral code. Which is complete bullshit, and we all know it. And it's the moral majority that has brought the biggest outrage against this case, so that's automatically one strike against it, to be perfectly honest.

If it boils down to morality, which this has, it automatically gets the benefit of the doubt, in any unbiased decision. It's the exact same reason abortion is legal.

God damn it.

Times two.

The question seems to be why does this image make people uncomfortable... it's obviously nothing to do with the actual situation depicted, that of kids at play, so it therefore reflects not on the moment captured by the photograph, but on the life the photograph has since assumed due to the entirely arbitrary assumptions and biased judgements attributed to it via the media and it's control over our perceptions of innocence and the corruption thereof...

The children are not the ones being used in this situation, we're the ones being used, or perhaps they are being used in absentia from the original moment captured on film by societal insecurity.

Just because something is legal, that does not make it right.

And while the pic you posted is not my type of art--I don't nec. think using kids in this way is right--it was not what I was referring (obviously unclearly) to. When I said "parents selling pics of their naked kids" (going on a comment someone else made) - I was actually sort of humorously thinking of parents selling shots of their kids in the bathtub, etc, like on ebay---and I was being sarcastic. (Because that would be gross.)

I think we need a color or font to use for "scarcastic".

Anyway, that being said, I still think that much of the "naked child" art stuff is not right--most.

Illegal? No...but like I said, just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Which is the most flawed argument that exists in the world today. Because if it's legal, then obviously your perceptions of "right and wrong" are irrelevant to it.