Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[sputnik]

^^^
and offensive too

i'm with soj. it's a bit more complex than just saying that if this pic was found on some perv's computer it would be considered porn like all the rest. well so would any random pic of naked kids playing at the beach, if it was found on the same computer.
it's all context and intent and i would find it extremely disturbing to go back to having politicians and 'outraged citizens' imposing censorship and labelling art 'decadent' and 'pornographic'...

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

I find the vulgarity of velvet "paintings" pornographic, lol.

You try to have my 'dogs playing poker' velvet painting banned and I will cut you bitch!

[pacific breeze]

Hey! I used to have that pic but it wasn't in velvet! Wonder what ever happened to it, hmm.....

[Sojiita]

You can only have my velvet dogs playing poker painting if you pry it out of my cold dead fingers! Some things are worth dying for!

[pacific breeze]

Uh, Soj, I don't freakin want it!!!! It's all yours, honest.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

Uh, Soj, I don't freakin want it!!!! It's all yours, honest.

Lies..all lies..I know you want it..you covet my dogs playing poker velvet painting..but you cannot have it ...EVER! HAHAHAHAHA!!! ALL MINE. You can have my crucifix in a jar of piss though. Am bored with it. lol

[pacific breeze]

Piss Christ. Best name ever for a work of art, hehe.

[sweetness]

To tell ya the truth, there'd be some serious bloodshed if someone tried to swipe my precious velvet Elvis!

[nana55]

Originally Posted by MrsMarsters

I really don't see how its art, seems more like crappy art imo. I honestly do not really think it is all that "sexual", but at the same time I can understand why people would get upset.

I am not a professional photographer, but I do have a darkroom and do a lot of black and white. I'm more offended that people think this is good photography. I find it bery poorly shot. The lighting is poor and there are shadows on the wall. I know some people will say it's intentional. I say it's a crappy picture, not porn.

[nana55]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

Well, a pink taco shot of a five year old. That's where I draw the line.

I'm super liberal with this kind of thing. In Europe all the kiddies are naked all the time. It was on American tv that I first saw a blurred out butt crack of a baby, and I found that disturbing. Why blur a butt crack?

Anyway, this is an explicite pose. Her spread out vagina is the center of the picture. Naked kiddies running around in natural poses - no problem. As I said, I have a million naked pix of my nephews.

If this is art and the vagina of the girl plays no role in it, why not take a shot where it isn't spread open wide? It's a scheme. Overstep boundaries and you're considered an artist. I say: If you can't be an artist without exploiting children, you're no artist to begin with.

EXCELLENT POST!

[Mira]

Originally Posted by nana55

I am not a professional photographer, but I do have a darkroom and do a lot of black and white. I'm more offended that people think this is good photography. I find it bery poorly shot. The lighting is poor and there are shadows on the wall. I know some people will say it's intentional. I say it's a crappy picture, not porn.

^I'm changing my earlier position to this one, and adding that it looks like something a parent would take and later bore his/her friends with during dessert after a dinner party.

I'd also like to say that there have been many times when my daughter has wanted to kill me, but if I ever made what looks like a private family photo public (which I wouldn't) I'd be dead for sure.

[sweetness]

^^ Exactly. It's really poor quality, definitely nothing special. I'm not impressed with any of her other work either.

Excusing that as art is like excusing Michael Vick's animal abuse as his culture IMO.

[Yoko Ono]

The whole thing rests on the fact that these kiddie photos were taken over 20 years ago and they have been in art exhibitions and so it already has an
"art" label because of that.

I challenge Nan Goldin to take similiar photos NOW in 2007 as a part of a new portfolio and see if she doesn't get her ass hauled off the clinker or face child porn charges.

I'd bet $500 that she wouldn't get away with it NOW.

So as far as I'm concerned if you just take the picture on what IT IS rather than it's history , it's child porn.

If this isn't porn, i dare the owners of this site to put up the original photo and not the covered one.

They won't do it because IT'S PORN.

[Mari]

Child Porn Police. Sounds like a song.

[sweetrebel]

I am not an art person...I like the shitty roostser pics at my local wal mart, but IMO a shot of a kids open vajajay is wrong. IF she was laying in that position with her legs together, I don't know that any of us would feel that it was wrong. The shot itself is what I don't like. I love the idea of two sisters having a ball dancing and playing together, it's just offensive to me to see her spread eagle like that...