Sexualisation of children

[Fenixius]

I can argue up and down that the only way to get my message across was to use human brains, but at the end of the day, i still killed loads of people for their brains.

And it is here that your analogy fails. Because the sort of violence that you describe is nonconsentual. Obviously. There are exhibitions that roam the world displaying parts of the human body that should not be seen by the naked eye, outside of a hospital. By which I mean internal organs. I know that this exhibition exists (though the name eludes me), and I'm quite confidant that in at least one of the displays there would be a human brain. The brain itself isn't taboo, jim, but using nonconsentual means to acquire a brain is. Similarly, I have no objection to the photography in question, but if it had been taken without consent, in a vouyeristic fashion, then I would have a problem with it.

These are not private family photographs to be viewed by family and friends and to be laughed at later, these are photographs of living, breathing 13 year old girls that could be met on the street hung in a gallery and called art.

Correct. Except that inbetween the "met on the street" and "hung in a gallery", there should be some clause mentioning that permission of the models and their parents are given.

 

[Break]

So, Jim, your point is, that the artist should be aware of his audience, anticipate their reactions, and decide on his medium based on what will be most effective at conveying the basic concept he's trying to get across? Makes sense. Except that the audience holds a degree of responsibility in trying to understand what the artist was trying to say. If someone thinks that the chemicals used in paint are harmful to the environment, then they'll be greatly offended by any painting, and may get so caught up in their crusade to save the planet from the evils of paint, that they'll ignore any potential beauty present in the piece. When presented with a piece of art, people would be foolish to let their initial reaction rule them, and strive to find the deeper meaning that the artist was trying to show, whatever the chosen medium may be.

Those hundreds of classical paintings are art and they are pornography. Why can't people see that a picture of someone naked is pornography and calling it art does not change this. I'm starting to get tired of everyone thinking that because something is called art that places it above human morals and censorship.

The truth is that the most vile pornography you can think of is considered art, it is art just like any other movie/picture is art, why don't you hang that up in a gallery. Because most people think art can never be disgusting so when confronted by something disgusting they either call it art to trick themselves into thinking it is no longer disgusting or say that it is not art.

Why can't people admit that art can be disgusting and like other disgusting things that are dubbed 'not art' can be and should be censored.

Christ, you're really prudish, huh? Nudity = pornography? So, what, medical textbooks are porn, wet-nurses are the same as glamour models, but a really suggestive photo of a fully clothed woman enjoying a popsicle far too much is absolutely fine? Also, I love how you end the paragraph by basically saying that all pictures of the naked form, be it in a painting, a top-shelf magazine, or a bloody medical journal, should be considered as pornography, and subject to censorship.

That's pretty weird, but it's brought up another issue. Lets say that I go along with your definition of "pornography" as anything involving nudity, or, presumably, something that provokes sexual feelings and/or behaviour. So what? Why, pray tell, is erotica something to be hidden? Is it somehow harmful? I'm not quite seeing it, to be honest.

 

[jim_doki]

what i am saying Break is that whhen one uses a controversial medium to get across a message, the message will probably be overshadowed by the medium, in which case nobody wins. and erotica isnt something to be hidden away, it's to be explored and discovered between two people. it's supposed to be an expression of desire, of passion, of even love. I think the idea of "widespread erotica" (no pun intended) is a contradition in terms. It's meant as a way for two people to express desire

 

[Jeroen Stout]

what i am saying Break is that whhen one uses a controversial medium to get across a message, the message will probably be overshadowed by the medium, in which case nobody wins. and erotica isnt something to be hidden away, it's to be explored and discovered between two people. it's supposed to be an expression of desire, of passion, of even love. I think the idea of "widespread erotica" (no pun intended) is a contradition in terms. It's meant as a way for two people to express desire

Yes. Two - or more.

 

[Break]

what i am saying Break is that whhen one uses a controversial medium to get across a message, the message will probably be overshadowed by the medium, in which case nobody wins. and erotica isnt something to be hidden away, it's to be explored and discovered between two people. it's supposed to be an expression of desire, of passion, of even love. I think the idea of "widespread erotica" (no pun intended) is a contradition in terms. It's meant as a way for two people to express desire

Suresure, sex can be all those things. But I was using "erotica" to refer to pornography, as well. And then there's the fact that, fairly often, sex can just be a bit of fun. It's not your place to decide what sex is "supposed" to be.

And I got your point point about controversy. And answered with "if the audience is too simple to see beyond the medium, whatever that may be, they're not going to be particularly interested in art anyway". You realise that a controversial medium can be used to make a point? An artist might display a sensitive topic in a brazen or shocking manner to provoke interesting discussion on the subject.

Also, Stout's comment made me chuckle. Well said.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

To divert slightly, Breast Feeding in public? Some people will think it's sexy, some will think it's natural, and some just don't want to see it.

Now, IANAL, and I probably don't have any sort of rights to say this; but hell, I'm bitter.

I've got no problem with feeding kids or any other biological functions including urination, sex or anything else; BUT...I'd really like to have a place where I can go where it's not 'shoved in my face'.

HOWEVER, I'd also like a place where my wife (if it ever happens) can breastfeed, or my children (again...) can run round naked, like I used to, without having some idiot tell me that I'm spoiling their day.

Art and Controversy go hand in hand, and art NEEDS to be controversial to really work; but there's a big difference between Rembrandt and Damian Hurst's urine.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

My thoughts on the matter are as follows.

Sexualization of "Children" is bad.
Implying Children are "non-sexual" or that Teenagers should JUST be told "sex is bad" is stupid and leads to teen/tween pregnancy.