Nude Kids Art Exhibiton

DucksNuts · 06-03-2008, 03:32 AM

Melbourne artist Victoria Larielle is set to exhibit nude pictures of 11 year old children to protest the censorship of Sydney artist Bill Henson, who is being investigated and the children interviewed, after a police raid recovered 20 odd pictures of nude 12 and 13 year old girls.

Larielle says...

Quote:

She was inspired to do so following the furore surrounding Henson's now notorious exhibition from which NSW police last month seized 20 photographs of a naked adolescent girl and boy.

"I felt really upset that Bill has been persecuted so much by the government and Australian people that don't understand art, perhaps," she said.

Seriously....c'mon, its child porn no matter how you label it, and *maybe* 10% of the people who visit the exhibition will *see the intent of the artist to capture the vulnerability and fragility, not just of young people, but of everyone"...the rest will be fucking perverts.

Sundae · 06-03-2008, 03:59 AM

I think it's time we stopped pandering to the paedophiles.
Damnit, I doubt there's more of them out there than when I was young, and yet Fathers think twice about taking pictures of their baby girls now, about being alone with their daughter's friends, parents aren't allowed to film sports days or school plays, innocent underwear adverts are castigated as child porn etc etc

Talk about sexualising children!

If a person (usually a man) is sexually stimulated by children, they will always find some way of gratifying themselves. I'm not saying child porn should be legal - far from it - but for goodness sake the rest of the world should stop tripping over itself to make sure a square inch of childish flesh is not on display.

Children are being treated the same way as fundamentalist Muslims treat their wives. Kept indoors, kept covered, never exposed in front of anyone who's not family. With the same short-sightedness in that if there is any danger, it's usually far too close to home for these measures to help.

DucksNuts · 06-03-2008, 04:35 AM

I agree Sundae, its ridiculous the second thoughts you have to have these days.

I stopped myself from taking pics of the boys at Bondi Beach because there were topless chicks everywhere and I didnt want it to look suspicious.

That said, I dont think *artists*, male or female, should be taking pictures of young kids nude, whether they be professional models or their own, and passing it off as an exhibition.

I have pics of my naked ferels in my online album, and one of my friends commented that I will get hung and quartered for child porn.

binky · 06-03-2008, 01:44 PM

I agree Ducks, I stopped taking pics of my kids in the bathtub, even at 2 yrs old, for worrying that someone would take it the wrong way.

Aliantha · 06-03-2008, 05:10 PM

I have a couple of naked bathtub pics of my boys, but I don't have them online anywhere. Just in the family album for all to see.

I think the art which was removed should have been perhaps a private exhibition rather than a public one.

It's pretty much guaranteed the price of the images will be 10 times higher than it was prior to the showing now though. Good or bad? I think I'll reserve my judgement on that. I think if you wanted to artistically show vulnerability, there are probably other ways to do so.

Just because I don't get it doesn't mean it's wrong though I suppose.

monster · 06-03-2008, 07:13 PM

No men commenting. interesting but not surprising -speaks volumes in itself really.

Sundae · 06-03-2008, 07:38 PM

I just don't know what to think about this.
I mean I've posted my flesh as an adult, and also as a child. If anything I felt the adult pics were more risky (and obv more risque!) just because a potential partner or employer might stumble across them.

Photos of me naked at about 12 months in my cot, or in the bath aged 2? Nope - no worries. Yes I know I'm old enough to repulse a paedophile now. But isn't that like people joking about women being too ugly to be raped? "Oh it's okay for you, you're at no risk"

Ah it's late & am rambling. It's always a complicated subject. But I think the current situation is akin to cutting off a leg for fear of a chilblain.

monster · 06-03-2008, 08:01 PM

I agree. But then posing children naked for pictures as opposed to candid shots.... I feel there is a difference.

SteveDallas · 06-03-2008, 08:31 PM

Well, I haven't had a chance to organize my thoughts coherently for anything more than a one-liner, but I'll give it a try. In short I'm with Sundae.

In another thread I suggested that the way to end the objectification of women was to have as much female nudity as possible, thereby making the female body yawn-worthy. I was only half joking.

I believe there's a similar dynamic at play here in certain senses. Anything even remotely smacking of the sexualization of children is evil, evil beyond all other imaginable evil.

The problem with this situation, of course, is that nudity is not always sexual, and being sexual doesn't always require nudity. (Exhibit: subscription-only web sites featuring 12-18 year old girls modeling swimsuits etc. Skeeve city.)

One thing I can guarantee is that the, as Sundae says, effort to make sure no square inch of underage flesh is shown, has guaranteed that more pedophiles will be aware of these exhibits and will see the pictures than if they were just ignored.

classicman · 06-04-2008, 10:20 AM

First look at this thread for me. I have heard horror stories of innocently taken nude pics of children in the bath or whatever being used against the parents in divorce cases and whatnot.
I think for the most part that I agree with SteveDallas. On the other hand, once that line is eliminated .... how far can these images go? boy girl in same pic? boy girl smiling and holding hands??? body pars??? on top of each other???? Now where is the line??? I'm only 1/2 playing "Devils advocate" here.

glatt · 06-04-2008, 11:10 AM

We belong to a pool, every once in a while, you will see a mom there taking pictures of the kids. Never a Dad. I would never even bring a camera to the pool.

DucksNuts · 06-04-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

DETECTIVES cleared a provocative photographic display of naked children that opened in Melbourne last night.

Two plainclothes officers sat through a 10-minute projection of images by artist Victoria Larielle.

The show, entitled "I am not a pornographer nor a pedophile but an artist", was held in the city's Loop Bar.

Acting Sgt Tony Richardson no action would be taken after the detectives decided the images were not pornographic.

06-03-2008, 03:59 AM	#2
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	I think it's time we stopped pandering to the paedophiles. Damnit, I doubt there's more of them out there than when I was young, and yet Fathers think twice about taking pictures of their baby girls now, about being alone with their daughter's friends, parents aren't allowed to film sports days or school plays, innocent underwear adverts are castigated as child porn etc etc Talk about sexualising children! If a person (usually a man) is sexually stimulated by children, they will always find some way of gratifying themselves. I'm not saying child porn should be legal - far from it - but for goodness sake the rest of the world should stop tripping over itself to make sure a square inch of childish flesh is not on display. Children are being treated the same way as fundamentalist Muslims treat their wives. Kept indoors, kept covered, never exposed in front of anyone who's not family. With the same short-sightedness in that if there is any danger, it's usually far too close to home for these measures to help. __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

06-03-2008, 01:44 PM	#4
binky all hollowed out Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ridgecrest, CA Posts: 982	I agree Ducks, I stopped taking pics of my kids in the bathtub, even at 2 yrs old, for worrying that someone would take it the wrong way. __________________ The meanest Mom EVER!!!!

06-03-2008, 05:10 PM	#5
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I have a couple of naked bathtub pics of my boys, but I don't have them online anywhere. Just in the family album for all to see. I think the art which was removed should have been perhaps a private exhibition rather than a public one. It's pretty much guaranteed the price of the images will be 10 times higher than it was prior to the showing now though. Good or bad? I think I'll reserve my judgement on that. I think if you wanted to artistically show vulnerability, there are probably other ways to do so. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean it's wrong though I suppose. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

06-03-2008, 07:13 PM	#6
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	No men commenting. interesting but not surprising -speaks volumes in itself really. __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

06-03-2008, 07:38 PM	#7
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	I just don't know what to think about this. I mean I've posted my flesh as an adult, and also as a child. If anything I felt the adult pics were more risky (and obv more risque!) just because a potential partner or employer might stumble across them. Photos of me naked at about 12 months in my cot, or in the bath aged 2? Nope - no worries. Yes I know I'm old enough to repulse a paedophile now. But isn't that like people joking about women being too ugly to be raped? "Oh it's okay for you, you're at no risk" Ah it's late & am rambling. It's always a complicated subject. But I think the current situation is akin to cutting off a leg for fear of a chilblain. __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

06-03-2008, 04:35 AM	#3
DucksNuts Bitchy Little Brat Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Queensland, Australia Posts: 5,067	I agree Sundae, its ridiculous the second thoughts you have to have these days. I stopped myself from taking pics of the boys at Bondi Beach because there were topless chicks everywhere and I didnt want it to look suspicious. That said, I dont think artists, male or female, should be taking pictures of young kids nude, whether they be professional models or their own, and passing it off as an exhibition. I have pics of my naked ferels in my online album, and one of my friends commented that I will get hung and quartered for child porn.

06-03-2008, 08:01 PM	#8
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	I agree. But then posing children naked for pictures as opposed to candid shots.... I feel there is a difference. __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

06-03-2008, 08:31 PM	#9
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	Well, I haven't had a chance to organize my thoughts coherently for anything more than a one-liner, but I'll give it a try. In short I'm with Sundae. In another thread I suggested that the way to end the objectification of women was to have as much female nudity as possible, thereby making the female body yawn-worthy. I was only half joking. I believe there's a similar dynamic at play here in certain senses. Anything even remotely smacking of the sexualization of children is evil, evil beyond all other imaginable evil. The problem with this situation, of course, is that nudity is not always sexual, and being sexual doesn't always require nudity. (Exhibit: subscription-only web sites featuring 12-18 year old girls modeling swimsuits etc. Skeeve city.) One thing I can guarantee is that the, as Sundae says, effort to make sure no square inch of underage flesh is shown, has guaranteed that more pedophiles will be aware of these exhibits and will see the pictures than if they were just ignored.

06-04-2008, 10:20 AM	#10
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	First look at this thread for me. I have heard horror stories of innocently taken nude pics of children in the bath or whatever being used against the parents in divorce cases and whatnot. I think for the most part that I agree with SteveDallas. On the other hand, once that line is eliminated .... how far can these images go? boy girl in same pic? boy girl smiling and holding hands??? body pars??? on top of each other???? Now where is the line??? I'm only 1/2 playing "Devils advocate" here. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

06-04-2008, 11:10 AM	#11
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	We belong to a pool, every once in a while, you will see a mom there taking pictures of the kids. Never a Dad. I would never even bring a camera to the pool.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)