English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is any just image of a child ipso facto pornographic, or does it depend on the context? Who gets to decide, and why?

2007-01-28 13:06:05 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Photography

3 answers

As of late, we in America have become overly preoccupied with pedophiles (understandably) and your query should be more along the lines of when nudity becomes pornographic. There is a fine line, and it is not always a clear one. Different societal cultures dictate norms. "Eye of the beholder..." know what I mean?

Personally, I saw nothing that one might consider "suggestive" with either photographer. I'd have to cast my vote on artistic in nature.

2007-01-28 19:48:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Both Jock Sturges and Sally Mann were hired to take those photos, by the parents of the children. That makes it art, or at least, legal.

I know for a fact in one case, Jock Sturges' assistant was arrested for kiddie porn after a worker at a lab in San Francisco turned him in. (Interestingly enough, the assistant was an African American, the child was of European descent. I can't help but think this had something to do with it.) In time, it came out that the pictures were commissioned by the child's parents and the assistant was released from jail and all charges dropped. His life was never the same however.

I agree with the previous respondent, that in America we have simplified this question to an either/or situation. It is not that easy. A lot depends on who is LOOKING at the image of say, a four year old running down a beach naked. To the parents, this is high art. To a pedophile this is porn. It kind of harkens back to the legal definition of obscenity: "I don't what it is, but I know it when I see it" (Oliver Wendel Holmes). Eddie Adams' shot of the naked Vietnamese girl running away from the Napalm bombs could be porn in the wrong hands (eyes?). So I think one has to consider the intent of the photographer when s/he made the picture before we call something "art" or "porn."

Good question.

2007-01-29 12:42:21 · answer #2 · answered by jeannie 7 · 1 0

What a strange question.

I never heard of Sally Mann until you asked this query.

From what I can find on the net, she is only taking photographs of them as, Our Lord, God, made them. As they came from the mother. Natural.

In Europe this would be considered natural and artistic.

2007-01-28 17:50:21 · answer #3 · answered by Mere Mortal 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers