By: jaguar_ev12
7/07/2008
9:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jaguar_ev12 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| No normal person can answer this. |
|
By: lefowlerau
7/07/2008
9:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Apart from exploitation of the moment,what purpose does this photo serve?"
----------
In about 2000 went to an exhibition of Yoko Ono's in New York, there was one installation that took my breath away, basically it was an empty room with a ladder in the centre, you had to climb the ladder to read the word "Yes" written in small print on a piece of glass (apparently the piece made John fall for Yoko?)
I was blown away by it.
Why? Don't know. Can't launch into some long-winded explanation, it just moved me, that's all.
What purpose does it serve?
It's art ... its purpose is that it is art.
You don't have to like it or understand it or anything of the sort. It is what it is, don't try to make it what it is not.
I don't particularly like the Nelson photo, in fact I don't like it at all, but I am not going to write it off as pornography just because it doesn't appeal to me.
That's the first step towards a society that burns books. |
|
By: jaguar_ev12
7/07/2008
9:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jaguar_ev12 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I haven't read all the posts,but is anyone calling it pornography?I see it as exploitation of a minor for profit,thouigh why anyone would want to buy it is a mystery.
Just imagine if they had written (yes) in large letters on the floor.I like the old masters and even Picasso's early work,but this thing you described and people on plastic domes,im afraid they leave me cold,but they do not exploit the young. |
|
By: christine476
7/07/2008
9:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
christine476 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I think the child was exploited merely for financial gain. Her comments today on the news sounded orcherstrated to me. |
|
By: dazedlady2003
7/07/2008
9:20 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dazedlady2003 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Now that we have all seen this girl as she is several years later...
Do her parents feel any safer allowing her to walk to the local corner shops?
Do they think she is safer catching the school bus from a block away?
Will she be more or less respected by her peers and teachers - and other parents?
Does she have any male teachers who now feel compelled to look at her - maybe even touch her?
_________________________ _________________________ ____________
Very interesting questions, thy.... |
|
By: thy.nemesis
7/07/2008
9:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I've just visited her mother's web-site - which contains a number of images and concepts which I personally found to be somewhat disturbing...
For example, what is the purpose of the dress sleeve off her daughter's right shoulder in the first of these 2 photos?
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamch ild_2003&img=13
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamch ild_2003&img=19 |
|
By: zardraa
7/07/2008
10:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
zardraa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
i feel sorry for the child - people are saying she should feel shame and dirty, as though she's just some underage pornstar all for a nice photo her mother took. I think the media and all the over-reaction will do more harm than the pictures ever will.
If there's a law passed it should be - that naked picture of underage children can not be used for promotional material. And all art works of children under 18 must not show genitalia. |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
7/07/2008
10:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<<<And all art works of children under 18 must not show genitalia.>>>
That is definitely the direction Western culture is headed.
If we were to make this retrospective though....it would require the destruction of at least 5000 works hanging now in the worlds leading Art Galleries. |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
7/07/2008
10:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<<<Fortuneatly child nude scenes are not allowed in movies or TV>>>
I've seen about a dozen or so in my 70+ years.....but, come to think of it, nothing that's been filmed after the mid 80's.
The last one I recall I took my grand children to see ...it was "Blue Lagoon" with Brooke Shields.
It was rated PG. |
|
By: jaguar_ev12
7/07/2008
10:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jaguar_ev12 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I had the misfortune of seeing it also.Much ado about nothing. |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
7/07/2008
10:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<<<<For example, what is the purpose of the dress sleeve off her daughter's right shoulder in the first of these 2 photos?
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamch ild_2003&img=13
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamch ild_2003&img=19>>>>
The links don't work for me.
What do you see the purpose as? |
|
By: lefowlerau
7/07/2008
11:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"I like the old masters and even Picasso's early work,but this thing you described and people on plastic domes,im afraid they leave me cold,but they do not exploit the young."
-------------------
Actually, apart from on a purely aesthetic level, the visual and plastic arts don't really appeal to me (Dance, music, theatre are more my thing), this is why I was shocked at the response evoked in me by the Ono piece and probably why I have no particular visceral reaction to the Nelson shots.
It is interesting you mention the Old masters, as the representation of child nudes is a frequent theme in a number of their oeuvres, nobody seems to be up in arms about these pieces, but there is a similar likelihood of some perve being aroused by these pics as they are by those of Henson or Nelson or Geddes for that matter, it could be argued .. and that is without the K-Mart and Target catalogues being factored into the mix.
Were the children exploited? Have any of Henson's subjects come forth with anything other than praise for the photographer?
And if we want to talk exploitation, I have seen posts noting that even at 11 the girl cannot give informed consent, and yet nary a comment on the fact that it DID NOT STOP the press from broadcasting her name, her face and every single word she spoke across the country and the world. If it is merely about exploitation, why is the girl's picture plastered across every newspaper in the country with thick black bars emblazoned across it, rendering the photo more sinister than any rebuke from the PM can ever do?
If the broadcast and print media and our own PM shouting at an 11 year old girl, for the whole nation to hear, that she was somehow involved in something "dirty" in order to sell papers and placate voters isn't exploitation, then my trusty old Macquarie has failed me for the first time. |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
7/07/2008
11:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I believe there was a "Blue Lagoon 2".
Darn....missed it!
I thought it was well targeted at the school holiday audience at the time....... as a children's plot directed at the target audience.
I don't recall any evidence of disquiet about Brooke's nude scenes ....although I did see, years later in the New Idea, that Brooke was offered a body double for some of the scenes. |
|
By: thy.nemesis
7/07/2008
11:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
[[ <<<<For example, what is the purpose of the dress sleeve off her daughter's right shoulder in the first of these 2 photos?
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamch ild_2003&img=13
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamch ild_2003&img=19>>>>
The links don't work for me.
What do you see the purpose as? ]]
Hey Gran!
I presume your browser is inserting '%20' where the space is after the 'ch' (this can be avoided if you cut and paste the link inteo the address bar and remove the space)...
The images are part of her Dreamchild series at: -
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/
Anyway, the concern is that the same basic dress is deliberately worn off one shoulder in image #13. The child is sleeping on a chaise lounge and that style of dress simply doesn't slip off the shoulder by accident...
I had noticed that the dress looked odd off the shoulder in #13 before I saw it in #19 - but the latter picture left me in no doubt that the other image was unnecessarily contrived... |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
7/07/2008
11:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<<<If it is merely about exploitation, why is the girl's picture plastered across every newspaper in the country with thick black bars emblazoned across it>>>
Lef...the SMH (bless their leftist, and normally despised by me....hearts) published the picture "sans bars".
There you go. |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
7/07/2008
11:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You were right thy.....
Thanks.
Had a look at all the photos on the page....including the one with the bare shoulder.
I don't know thy.....I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
|
By: peaceleo69
7/07/2008
11:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
you cannot blame the media for the response here.
Her father put the photos on the cover of the magazine to make a statement and the response is, as would be expected.
If anyone is exploiting the girl-he is;using her to present a point of view.
Unlike past paintings drawings etc-this is not a representation or someones perception;it is an actual image of a living child.
The young girl sounded self assured and said if a child consented to it-it was ok and people should look for the real meaning-but when asked what the meaning was-she had no idea!
A six year old-has no idea of what is being presented-even if she is having fun posing for the cmaera;like all young ones do.
They have no concept of how others will view something they just see as fun.
As Hetty Johnson pointed out;had it been for a family album-its personal and ok.
If it was a picture of a society-where it is normal to go semi clothed to naked;there is no problem.
If it is reality, in horrific places ,like a war zone or a tragedy-unposed,there is no problem.
But in a society that does not have 6 year old children roaming round naked-it is unacceptable.
And I find it rather confusing;the only ones who keep harking back to the issue of pornography in regards to these pictures;are the ones who believe it is acceptable.
Those who disagree with the presentation-do not seem to view it as pornography-just unacceptable in the social climate we live in!
Pornography does not enter into it-altho the issue of paedophilia can!
Paedophilia is not pornography;it is a vile sickness.
There is no problem with pornography as such;unless it is exploitative;as most is consentual and carried out by those of an age of consent.
Pornography has a specific purpose!
There is a big difference between pornography with adults of a consentual age and the use of children;who could have been photographed in the same situation-clothed.
What was the need to divest her of her clothes, to obtain photos of her ... |
|
By: white.fella_again
7/07/2008
11:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
white.fella_again Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
just a couple of strange question, if i took a pic of my self nude as a child and no one knew about it or seen it and was still in possession of it as an adult, would it be right or wrong?
------------------------- ----
Also in this age of digital imagery if a graphic designer was to create a photo of a nude photo of a child like image that was 100% artificially created with out any use of children would it be right or wrong?
the reason for the second question is because a J A P once showed me an image of a lady laying on a beach in bikini that was 100% created on a PC, and it looked real to me. |
|
By: thy.nemesis
7/07/2008
11:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>> By: greatgranswisdom
You were right thy.....
Thanks.
Had a look at all the photos on the page....including the one with the bare shoulder.
I don't know thy.....I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree. <<
As I said elsewhere, the artist's pictures are very-much-contrived - and too many of them have images of girls with bits showing, legs spread and/or in other age-inappropriate poses...
Moreover, I am not so much outraged that she has been potentially sexualised by her own mother or even that a few adults have deliberately used her in their attempts to score political points...
Overall, I have a nagging and underlying fear for this child's psycho-social well-being and physical safety as a result of this blatantly cynical exploitation... |
|
By: patticake16142
8/07/2008
12:35 am Yahoo! Profile:
patticake16142 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I totally agree, peaceleo69.
Although there is nothing pornographic about this photo, it is definitely an innapropriate picture to have on the cover of a magazine that will be seen by many people. It is exploitation of a child, and thanks to this exploitation and the subsequent coverage of the media, the picture is now being seen all over the world.
I have three daughters, and whilst I have photos of them nude or partially dressed (from their younger days) they are for the family album only, not something I would want shown on a magazine cover, on tv or all over the internet.
Unfortunately, there are people in the community who will look at these sorts of photos in the wrong way....for instance, would this childs parents like to see her picture on Dennis Fergusons wall, or on his computer? In calling this art, we are enabling the wrong people under the guise of a legitimate excuse to access these images. It is a very fine line that is being walked between art and abuse. |
|
By: lefowlerau
8/07/2008
12:38 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Paedophilia is not pornography;it is a vile sickness."
----------------
And there is nothing at all to suggest that the photographer is a paedophile, there is nothing to suggest that these photos will encourage paedophiles.
You say the link to pornography is inappropriate, I tend to think that the link to pedophilia is extremely tenuous.
It seems to me a lot of people are seeking sinister motives that just don't appear to be there or suggesting that our opinions on the human body; on art; on what we find acceptable should be prefaced on what some paedophile may or may not get off on. I may be wrong but this is how it comes across.
And to think that banning these pictures is in any way going to reduce the instances of child sexual abuse ... well ... how???
Earlier, I brought up the fact that my Mum published a nude photo of me as a child in a newspaper classified section for my 21st birthday, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some paedophile could have latched onto that and gotten their jollies from it.
Does it make myself or my mother paedophile enablers?
By the way, the reason she had the photo published was that she thought I was "adorable". She loves me and i have no reason to question her motives, regardless of the fact that she did not have my consent to take the photo or to have it published.
To paraphrase Nietzsche; sometimes our resolution to find the world ugly and bad actually makes the world ugly and bad. |
|
By: patticake16142
8/07/2008
12:59 am Yahoo! Profile:
patticake16142 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I just took another look at the photos from the Dreamchild series, I noted that in all of them, the girls were posed as a Lewis Carroll character. Looking at the picture in question, I noted that Olympia was posed as "Lewis Carrolls Beatrice Hatch". Beatrice Hatch was, in fact, a real little girl - one of 3 daughters of a reverend - that Lewis Carroll "formed a special friendship with". She was portrayed by Carroll in that exact pose in a painting when she was 7 years old. There is also a full nude picture of her older sister Ethel, aged 9.
A journalist in 1966 said this about Carroll: "I always call him Lewis Carroll Carroll, because he was the first Humbert Humbert. Have you seen those photographs of him with little girls? He would make arrangements with aunts and mothers to take the children out. He was never caught, except by one girl who wrote about him when she was much older."
Now, Humbert Humbert, for those who don't know, was the protagonist/narrator in the story "Lolita"...a man who formed an unhealthy obsession with a 12 year old girl.
So, having all this information, I have to wonder why a mother would want to pose her child/children as girls who were undoubtedly sexually abused by a man that was trusted by the family and respected in the community? |
|
By: thy.nemesis
8/07/2008
1:09 am Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>> By: patticake16142
I just took another look at the photos from the Dreamchild series, I noted that in all of them, the girls were posed as a Lewis Carroll character. Looking at the picture in question, I noted that Olympia was posed as "Lewis Carrolls Beatrice Hatch". Beatrice Hatch was, in fact, a real little girl - one of 3 daughters of a reverend - that Lewis Carroll "formed a special friendship with". She was portrayed by Carroll in that exact pose in a painting when she was 7 years old. There is also a full nude picture of her older sister Ethel, aged 9.
A journalist in 1966 said this about Carroll: "I always call him Lewis Carroll Carroll, because he was the first Humbert Humbert. Have you seen those photographs of him with little girls? He would make arrangements with aunts and mothers to take the children out. He was never caught, except by one girl who wrote about him when she was much older."
Now, Humbert Humbert, for those who don't know, was the protagonist/narrator in the story "Lolita"...a man who formed an unhealthy obsession with a 12 year old girl.
So, having all this information, I have to wonder why a mother would want to pose her child/children as girls who were undoubtedly sexually abused by a man that was trusted by the family and respected in the community? <<
Hmmnnn....then there's the Wonderland series (and THAT picture with the Cheshire Cat)...and the bondage in Games of Consequence...
Somehow, these contrived pictures aren't quite as innocent as they might at first appear... |
|
By: thy.nemesis
8/07/2008
1:16 am Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Then there's the Phantomwise series...
What's with the Beauty of the Harem and the Gatsby Gal (LOL...maybe it's Ausgal)? |
|
By: lefowlerau
8/07/2008
1:24 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"as girls who were undoubtedly sexually abused by a man that was trusted by the family and respected in the community?"
--------------
Undoubtedly? I would be careful not to invest your own hang ups onto others.
To suggest their was a sexual element to the relationship between Carroll and the Hatch sisters???
Who's next?
JM Barrie?
Baden Powell?
Roald Dahl?
Well, I suppose if one seeks depravity as ardently as you do; most everyone will end up depraved by the time you are finished.
Enjoy. |
|
