Extremely delicate question but need an honest answer.

[jwbryson1]

I think the photographer I am referring to is Sally Mann. You can Google her work to see what I am talking about.

 

[nycphotography]

Seems to me far more of us could go to federal prison than what we'd like to admit. I for one have this album on my shelf.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2TUNPR2JK...hipled_zeppelin_-_house_of_the_holy-front.jpg


The problem with this distinction is that it is a SUBJECTIVE one, but the people applying it to others always think they're doing so OBJECTIVELY.

We could discuss the particular materials involved and the politics around the application of the law...

But to try to draw the line between art and pornography is just plain impossible. Why? Because no matter where you draw the line, art will immediately start intentionally crossing it again and again just to prove a point.

Move the line, and you move the target of the art, and its still largely irrelevant. That is, after all, how provocative art works, no? Art will still be violating your norms. It probably wouldn't be good art (in its genre) if it didn't.

Thankfully, the last 3 or 4 decades have seen us finally starting to back away from the thought police... pornography is what it is, drug use is what it is, music is what it is... the last bastion of irrational response seems to be "protection from the cold cruel world."

Laws against child pornography are reasonable.... but only if the definition pornography is very narrowly construed to that which almost everyone can agree is pornography. 2 standard deviations, or 97% of everyone at least. When you lose that narrow constraint, the law (and application of the laws) becomes subjective, and subjective laws always become oppressive when enforced by unreasonable people.

As your friend is being prosecuted, I'd like to hope that it's due to narrowly defined materials that leave no doubt as to what went in to producing them.

But if that's not the case, then the prosecution is abusing its power.

Maybe he should consider taking his case public, facing the embarassment of buying pornography, and expose the law enforcement and prosecution for abusing their discretion.

Another recent news blurb... Jeffrey Mitchell of Miramar Beach, Fla., Displays 'Sex Offender' Sign in His Front Yard | AOL Real Estate

 

[terri]

We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic. Thanks.

I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family. I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it. In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription". I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue. Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age. Is that helpful at all?

I would have to agree with this. There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion. Even for the purpose of art. So, I guess it depends if this subscription is ONLY minors. That could make a difference.

Again, "art" is in the eye of the beholder. What may have no artistic value to you could be seen by another as something with value, so that cant' be the distinction between "art" and illegal.

Well, from your statement it would appear you have answered your own question. You are wondering when art "crosses the line" into something else, yet you also hold that it is in the eye of the beholder and should remain subjective. So, there you are.

Sally Mann upset a lot of people for publishing her "Immediate Family" body of work. Not all the images were of the kids naked, and they were raised to feel okay to be nude. It is the societal backlash that forces one to look at the pictures now through that lens, sadly. The images themselves are excellent. But they were her own kids, hanging around the farm, being kids.

 

[Mully]

The House of the Holy album was published before many laws of this nature were in effect

 

[nycphotography]

So?

Was the album pornography then, with 20/20 hindsight?

Or is it pornography now?

Or it is still art now, even though there is never a good reason to take pictures of naked kids?

 

[tirediron]

"I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it!" (or words to that effect)

 

[paigew]

I pretty much primarily photograph my kids. Kids love to be naked, I love to document life. Therefore I have naked photos of my kids. I would never put those photos online however because they are meant to be family snapshots. I think the line is crossed when children are posed i.e. pretty much anything other than documentary type photos. Obviously this excludes babies because who doesn't love a good baby booty

As for your friend, seems pretty shady to me. I don't know a man (or woman) who would pay for photos of kids that are not their own, especially naked ones...from a shady looking site. I know he is your friend but you never really know people kwim. We need to protect our babies.

 

[amolitor]

There are legal standards, but they're generally very vague.

There are also tons of picture of naked kids that are, to all but a very small minority of people, perfectly innocent. No sexual content implied or explicit, nothing but kids being kids. Sally Mann falls under that head.

If your friend subscribed to a service which provided "legal" photos of nude children, it sounds like it was catering to pedophiles. Why else call out that they're legal? If it's just innocent naked kids, you're selling art, simple. Was your friend buying supposedly legal images as pornography? Was this for sexual satisfaction? These are rhetorical questions, I'm not looking for answers. Answering, and even arguably asking, is pushing this thread out of acceptable territory for TPF, so please do NOT answer. I do hope that if these guesses are on target, though, that your friends gets the help he needs instead of jail time.

 

[Mully]

So?

Was the album pornography then, with 20/20 hindsight?

Or is it pornography now?

Or it is still art now, even though there is never a good reason to take pictures of naked kids?

I do not see this as pornography, granted it is a photo but was made to look more like a drawing/painting and there is nothing sexual about it. Look at the image for Free Bird ....the 1960 and early 1970 had a number of so called racy images for albums

 

[terri]

So?

Was the album pornography then, with 20/20 hindsight?

Or is it pornography now?

Or it is still art now, even though there is never a good reason to take pictures of naked kids?

I have the album, too, but I didn't buy it for the art. Who knows what the AD had in mind for this particular cover, or why it was chosen. In this particular instance, it's children climbing a hill. I can't say it caused any controversy at the time, or whether it would if it came out on an album cover now. This image is benign enough, I agree. I'm sure there have always been pedophiles who may react differently to such an image. This is a topic that gets painted with a pretty broad brush. The world is different and images are transmitted differently, too, than when this record came out with this cover.

 

[SCraig]

I think the answer to your question is as abstract as the question itself is. The answer, in my personal opinion, is that it is art and not pornography as long as the children are part of the background and not part of the main subject. When they become the subject and the viewer starts looking at them, then at that point, again in my personal opinion, it starts to become pornography. Maybe I'm wrong and just need to think about it more, but I think this is how I feel about it.

 

[480sparky]

"I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it!" (or words to that effect)

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
..........................—Justice Potter Stewart, referring to Jacobellis v. Ohio.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?

If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?

 

[jwbryson1]

I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?

If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?

I think you pose a good question. Even if it was advertised as a "legal" site, I don't think that would serve as a defense in a criminal case, but perhaps if he does end up in prison he could sue for civil damages for fraud/deception. I dunno.

The key difference between this website and Sally Mann, I think, is the intent of the user. In this case, the fact that he purchased a subscription to a website that displays these types of images is pretty damning evidence. We are not talking about it here, but I think it is probably understood what the purpose was for buying the images.

Very sad indeed.

 

[Mr_Mac]

While still subjective, to say the least, pornography is defined as;

1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Anyone can say that even these definitions are subjective where "eye of the beholder" is concerned. Somewhere there is an artist who took a photograph of a beautiful man or woman nude and called it art only to have someone else look upon that same photograph and became sexually aroused! The very same thing can be said for photographs of fully clothed men and women! There would almost certainly have to be a general consensus that what is viewed does/doesn't elicit such a response then it can be called art/pornography. The next question is who can be nonobjective in making the final determination? I suppose, in this case anyway, a judge or jury.

A sticky wicket, for sure.