Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[leapinglilies]

i didn't read ever post cause this is a long thread, but i did see the photo in question and it's very suggestive and those girls are WAY young. at first i was defending elton and the photog but then i saw the image and i was like 'c'mon, who needs to create an image like that?? for what purpose?' it's not cool, yo.

[Grimmlok]

Heaven forbid people actually read the arguments presented.

[pacific breeze]

Yo.

[Voodoo Child]

Hey I think we are all guilty at some stage or the other of not reading a whole thread!

[Grimmlok]

I usuallly skip over the one word responses (i fucking hate that, i mean why bother at all?)

so technically, i'm guilty..

[Voodoo Child]

^^I'm the opposite. I skip the long-winded thesis ones!

[pacific breeze]

My one-word responses are rare and that one was meant as a joke in response to the thread you were commenting on, Grimm, since that poster also used the expression. Sheesh.

[Grimmlok]

yes dear, i'm quite well aware

[Aella]

As others said more eloquently on this thread, this picture may make most people uncomfortable, but that can often be the purpose of art. Is it to my taste? No, but that doesn't say anything regarding its artistic value. I happen to think Damien Hirst's work is overhyped crap, but he won the Tate Prize, so there you have it.

I think the fact alone this work sparked so much discussion and heated reactions says a lot more on its artistic value than its aesthetic appeal or lack thereof, or the picture quality/composition.

The truth is, if I'd seen the piece in the context of a larger exhibition, it's possible that I would have glanced at it without a second thought. Or I it might have possibly shocked me-either way, I can't know now, because taken out of context and with the whole scandal/the website blurring out the pink taco (sorry Sojiita) bits, it's like a whole new layer of seediness has been added to it that has nothing to do with the original impact.

Calling it pornography is just beyond ridiculous imo, and completely trivializing of actual child pornography. And forgetting about factors such as context, intent and impact on the subject. The picture is meant to be shown (and has already been displayed, multiple times) in the context of a museum and exhibition, as well as the wider context of a different, pre-pedophile era. The intent of this picture is art-and yes, probably contraversy, debate, and some attention-grabbing. Pornography's sole intent is to arouse. This doesn't mean pedophiles can't wank to it, but it's hardly the reason it was created, and it's not an artist's responsibility to predict how someone can view their work. And finally, while one may make big arguments about subject exploitation by photographers in general, or speculate about how mortified the girl in the photograph is today (which is pure speculation-for all we know, she bores everyone to death by parading the picture a famous photographer took of her once), I don't think having this photograph taken was traumatizing/uncomfortable for either of the girls, which we certainly can't say for victims of REAL child porn.

The witch hunt against Elton for owning a piece of what is regarded in relevant circles as art would be hilarious if it wasn't so enraging. Yes, he decided to buy a piece of child porn (with little GIRLS, for fuck's sake!), and then just for laughs, donated it to a museum. Because ALL pedophiles are so forward and open, you know! Wow, what a great way to illustrate that mass hysteria isn't only scary, it's often based on the stupidest arguments.

And whoever suggested buying the piece to burn it-that statement by itself is more disturbing than a thousand shots of prepubescent vagina. Jesus.

[pacific breeze]

^^^Very well said.

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

yes dear, i'm quite well aware

to you, too! Dear! Damn, double posted.

[Aella]

...and I meant pre-pedophile hysteria era, obviously. This is why one shouldn't make posts at 6AM.

[twitchy]

For everyone who felt that the picture ought to be burned, you'd probably like this: Degenerate art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" In December 1938 Goebbels and Hans Hoffmann, the photographer and unofficial artistic advisor of Hitler, began a campaign to burn all works remaining in the Köpenicker Strasse depot. By the time a secret bonfire was set to destroy that which was deemed worthless, the number of objects had shrunk to 1,004 paintings and sculptures and 3,825 drawings, water colors and graphics." Source

and for Grimmlock for future reference:

[img=http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/946/brnhryfireun4.th.jpg]
Christ Community Church members enjoy a good, old-fashioned book-burning. Jack Brock, the Christ Community Church founder and pastor, said the books burned Sunday were ....a masterpiece of satanic deception.''

[img=http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1814/bookburnpennhd3.th.jpg]
On Sunday evening, members of the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Penn Township sing songs as they burn books, videos and CDs that they have judged offensive to their God.

[img=http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3435/montibookburningit4.th.jpg]
Monticello, Minnesota burns books on evolution.



As long as we're discussing censorship, I'd like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a Happy Banned Books Week!
ALA | Banned Books Week