Comments on: When Pornography is Pornography and Not Fine Art

By: bursa mobil bekas

bursa mobil bekas — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:26:02 +0000

I agree with you in theory but in reality the prosecutor of the crown should not be the one to make this sort of decision. mobil bekas

By: B Rex

B Rex — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:37:56 +0000

Yes, there is a fine gray line between legal and illegal; between art and debauchery; between taking innocent pictures of one’s own naked children, and this picture of Klara and Edda, where the incidentally or not, the viewers’ eye is drawn to a child’s genitalia that is clearly visible. That itself embodies the legal definition of child pornography in some countries! The question of whether the focus on the genitalia is for the sexual gratification of the viewers, is very subjective.

Having said that, this “art” or whatever else you want to call it is nothing but child sexual exploitation. While it hangs in gallerias and at exhibitions, it also undoubtedly surfaces in child sexual abuse paraphernalia.

If as a society one can argue for the aesthetics of this being art, it will not surprise me if that society will evolve to support the ludicrous legal defense for paedophilia.

By: SG Phillips

SG Phillips — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:15:59 +0000

i agree look at my blog Bigfoot & Psychic Phenomea

By: David Greer

David Greer — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:53:48 +0000

Softcore pornography depicts nude and semi-nude performers engaging in casual social nudity or non-graphic representations of sexual intercourse or masturbation.like sex education ats all part of life.

Soft core is legel if you are an artist / the corts are veary blind minded and just no mind at all. But the law is so out dated.Child soft core cloathed models do reduice the risk of rape.Men youse the pitchers as a subatute hard porn or soft .lilamber preteen model was band… then back on line afte a cort herring..

By: David Greer

David Greer — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:09:02 +0000

I am a student studies in to sencership gone to far ! Need to ask you about sexualisation of children -Hi there I am wanting to know what your views on this about your web site!
Rember the movie howddog with that little girl in it she was not alould to see it on the big screen becoues she was not R 18 .But was alould to act in it and get raped in it and be around the movie set wile filming.! I don’t have a shower with my freinds girl if there is any there at the public beach.shes( 9 )I will stop this when she reaches pubictiy .I have Aspergers and am veary onest about everthing .I have got in and not understand about the numerous things that are tabo but the lady I lived with had talked to her dorter and me together .one night there was a storm and I was baby siting the girl tryed to sleep in my bed with me I lay down the rules .and dident let her mums x husbin her dad was a crazy man and if he cor’t me in her bed with this little girl he will shot me . evething ok. I told her mother what happend !
I have not got a prolbem with little girls two peice swimsuit.
this lady had a prolbem with her girl walking around in her underwhere in front of her nabers boy when I was bording with them but then seid no nickers under her leotards the next day.?
We are not alould to post pitchers of chrilden nude just in case some one might wack of to it unless that thay are national gerographic or art ? aneone can paint a nude pitcher in oil of a child and have it around Aneywhere crazy world.

I need to open a wider view on this I.m not saying that all 3 to 11 year olds should run naked around every where but arnt we all a bit over protective?

cheers from a man with aspergers & a student that studies

David Greer.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:49:50 +0000

I don’t see anything wrong with the picture…but what is artistic about it??

I think it would be a little strange if people who don’t know the children choose to have this photo on their wall or in their photo collection. Why? Because it’s a photo of two children playing and it belongs in a family photo album. It is not art.

By: mugsey

mugsey — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:10:44 +0000

I like the way you have held your ground on the child protection issue from the start, Nicholas.

It was Clive Hamilton who remarked that there has been a peculiar assumption made by a defensive arts community that “moral sensibility is always rooted in aesthetic ignorance”.

Clearly you have put that assumption to the test.

Perhaps you may be interested in my comments on another site.

http://artlife.blogspot.com/2008/10/salon-des-refuses-bill-henson.html

Best wishes,

Mugsey

By: artforprofits

artforprofits — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:02:05 +0000

I do agree with you Greg but this case can’t be ignored. If there was a way to debate the issue without involving the adolescent subjects of his photos then that would be great but this is not the case. It’s not about whether a pedophile in another country becoming arroused has any impact on anyone it is about the fact that there shoudn’t be such material available in the first place.

By: Henson Porn Debate Goes International - artmarketblog.com « Art Market Blog with Nicholas Forrest www.artmarketblog.com

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:54:07 +0000

[...] Grey V on When Pornography is Pornograph…Rich Coda on Urgent Spencer Finch Buy Alert…Otto Rapp on Urgent Spencer Finch Buy [...]

By: Grey V

Grey V — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:03:09 +0000

Please stop being so concerned with what a pervert will do with the image. A pervert will be aroused by underwear ads, horses, shoes, anything at all can arouse someone with deviant tendencies. Let’s concern ourselves with the children in the picture. How were they harmed? Well…. they obviously weren’t. How will they be harmed by a pedophile in Idaho becoming aroused – well they still won’t. The only harm will come from the society that tells them that they’re sexual when they’re not. The harm comes from the police questioning them to see if they were harmed. The harm comes from YOU programming society to believe that there’s a pervert around every street corner.