Forum: Arts / Debates

Page:
Page 2 of 3: 1 2 3
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By LiL_Mizz_Danca
On Sat Aug 06, 2011 05:44 PM
Sorry, should of realised that the link wasnt very appropriate for this board. My bad.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Sat Aug 06, 2011 06:08 PM
^ I actually don't think it is porn, so don't feel bad.

I have seen photos by this very famous photographer ( not sure what the name is) that has naked people in the photo sometimes. There was this photo of children in a warzone setup and they were naked. I can't recall the name of this photographer, but I know she was in some nature magazines.

End of hijack
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hummingbird
On Sat Aug 06, 2011 07:28 PM
There's a big difference between a photographer who sets the subject matter to one who takes the shots as they happen Jazzy and that's what a photographer in a war zone does, this kid was not photographed in a war zone, all of those shots were purposely posed.

That was my point, is this right?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By oz_helenmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Aug 07, 2011 04:49 AM
I'm totally with Panic on this topic. Let children be children. I have no problem with children modelling to sell children's products and/or being photographed in an age-appropriate way, but being photographed in the same way than an adult would be photographed to sell products using sexuality or sensuality is not appropriate at all.

This is an example of appropriate usage of children in advertising: Image hotlink - 'http://www.earnandlearn.net.au/_images/contentLanding/earnandlearn-banner-default.jpg'
(Elijah got down to the last two for that job.)

Helen
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By J1ll
On Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:58 PM
As the mother of 2 daughters and someone who has struggled with self image my entire life I despise this overt sexualization of children. I'm not saying it's new because it's not but it gets progressively worse.
I do not want my daughters to see this and think for a fraction of a second it's ok.
And let me point out- if a Father had his daughter dress up and pose this way in the privacy of their home it could be grounds for pornography. Why is it different because it's a professional photographer coupled with one more set of parents looking to cash in on a famous child.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hylndlasmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 04:02 PM
Edited by hylndlas (107168) on 2011-08-08 16:03:51 .
jazz_lover wrote:

^ I actually don't think it is porn, so don't feel bad.


Actually Jazzy in some of the cases I've worked on in Forensics that would be considered KP. Mild maybe.....but still KP!
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 04:14 PM
Art isn't porn. I don't think it's child porn. And child porn laws are notoriously overly rigid and ridiculous, so I think that is neither here nor there...
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 04:21 PM
Edited by jazz_lover (99333) on 2011-08-08 16:22:40
I'm a bit surprised that would be considered KP, interesting what I learn each day.

I guess I thought of KP having sexual undertones. A topless child doesn't seem to ring too many bells for me, because I used to run around topless as a kid at the ocean etc.

I guess that I am not a mother, so I don't have that "sixth sense" in what is considered too sexy. For me, that child with red lipstick rang bells, but the topless one seemed innocent like a kid playing in the ocean.

If she were my child, I still wouldn't want her topless because I wouldn't want that to come up when she is an adult. At a few job interviews they asked how I felt about porn, have I posed in porn. I think being topless as a child would create a possible blur/obsticle in adulthood.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panicmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:04 PM
Just because I wouldn't let my kid do it doesn't make it kiddie porn. This is NOT PORN. And when you say it is, you're making a mockery of the families who have legitimately been affected by the kiddie porn industry. There is absolutely nothing overtly sexual about these images. My mother is an amateur photographer, and she loves to dress little girls up in all kinds of outfits - including wedding dresses and couture gowns. Do I think it's creepy? Sure. Would I let my daughter do it? Not for Vogue, although I probably wouldn't be able to stop my mother from doing whatever she wanted. Still, it's not porn. Clearly. NOT PORN.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry (karma: 1)
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:17 PM
Edited by jazz_lover (99333) on 2011-08-08 17:18:35
^ The photo that got deleted was the girl topless without any time of top. She was just wearing pants.

I agree that it isn't porn, but I'm not sure if you missed the topless photo that people are talking about.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hylndlasmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:19 PM
Let me make myself clear. The image I'm referring to was the one that was removed by me after it was discussed by the other mods that very clearly toed the line enough to be removed.

The other pictures while I may think they are inappropriate I wouldn't consider those to be KP at all.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry (karma: 1)
By ChristinePremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:24 PM
Image hotlink - 'http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qLJN7vtK4xaAqxQAFgEcSQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/401/2011/08/05/voguead2_130148.jpg'

Yes, part of a bigger problem.

Aside, PLEASE don't let this child walk in these shoes. (Notice the poor fit...)

Keep On Dancing*
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hylndlasmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:29 PM
jazz_lover wrote:



I agree that it isn't porn, but I'm not sure if you missed the topless photo that people are talking about.


I have to wonder if someone over at google removed it for the same reasons because it's not listed on an image search of her now.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panicmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:46 PM
The photo that got deleted was the girl topless without any time of top.
Aah. I didn't see it. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Europeans and Americans have VERY different views about breasts (generalizing, of course). Are we debating whether girls should be photographed topless? Or are we debating the modeling pictures posted in the OP? Those seem like 2 separate topics.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 06:01 PM
^I think the thread got a bit hijacked by the topless photo. I guess we should get back to debating the Original Topic because the majority of the members missed the topless photo.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Spiorad
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:13 PM
^^^^Topphilly- The first thing I thought of when I saw those pictures was that I thought they were sexed up.

The second was that her feet looked HUGE and it was a horrible idea to put her in those things because she looks so out of proportion!

But she is a beautiful girl and I wish her all the best!
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:26 PM
If you look for the topless photo it's out there.

Just saying.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By MarlaSingermember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:35 PM
Do the Vogue pictures remind anyone else of those ads Steve Madden used to run?

Image hotlink - 'http://www.bwgreyscale.com/adimg02/adv_0978.JPG'

Image hotlink - 'http://www.bwgreyscale.com/adimg03/adv_1374.JPG'

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw how out of proportion her feet looked to the rest of her body.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:37 PM
Oh my gosh. I searched her _____ ( pm me if you want to know)

There was a photo of her topless on a bed, with a boy who was also topless standing by her. This was NOT innocent by any means. The boy seemed older and had a lot of muscle, and this girl was topless and sitting curled up on the white sheets.

I know this is a hijack, but I am wondering what these parents are thinking.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By slice
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:42 PM
Jonelle wrote:

Do the Vogue pictures remind anyone else of those ads Steve Madden used to run?

[image=http://www.bwgreyscale.com/adimg02/adv_0978 .JPG]

[image=http://www.bwgreyscale.com/adimg03/adv_1374 .JPG]

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw how out of proportion her feet looked to the rest of her body.


I totally remember those from when I used to read Seventeen. I like Steve Madden shoes now, but back then those ads kinda freaked me out.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 09:19 PM
Edited by Heart (21721) on 2011-08-08 21:20:56
Proceed with caution. Golden-star-mod-approved-by-imadanseur links to censored no-wait,you-really-think-that's-seductive?-Because-I'm-not-into-feathers images below.

Spoiler: Show


re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By DeStijlmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:08 PM
My family has photos of my sisters and I topless in the backyard growing up.

The difference between the existence of those photos, and these photos is that these photos we're staged.

There isn't any innocence to them. They aren't a candidly captured moment of childhood innocence and play bound for family albums - they're staged fashion photographs intended for wider publication. Possibly intended to sell something. Don't go ignoring the context in which they we're produced, because I think thats the underlying issue here, not the content itself.

You can't just be like "Oh but kids are naked all the time and its natural!" - because yeah, kids are naked all the time and it is natural ... in the safety of their own homes whilst going about normal kid business, NOT under the flash bulb of strangers for a world famous publication.

This does cross some lines for me. I'm referring mainly to the photos Heart posted.

More so, it crosses a line because this kid is only 10. Her semi naked photos are all over google for anyone to see and discuss. She is 10 years old, how can she possibly understand the ramifications of this whole saga? How could her mother or father possibly be comfortable with the notion that anyone in the world can now access topless pictures of their 10 year old?

Fashion photography has always had an obsession with these dirty-blonde blue eyed aryan-type children. I find it creepy whether they're clothed or not, really. I don't put make up on a cow and present it as a sophisticated individual, because it is what it is. Kids are kids, why exactly do we need to portray them as anything else?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panicmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:19 PM
There isn't any innocence to them. They aren't a candidly captured moment of childhood innocence and play bound for family albums - they're staged fashion photographs intended for wider publication. Possibly intended to sell something. Don't go ignoring the context in which they we're produced, because I think thats the underlying issue here, not the content itself.
I assume you're inferring that these are pornographic. Do you think any of your reasoning matters to a pedophile? I think not. A ten-year-old boob is a ten-year-old boob no matter what context it's in.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry (karma: 1)
By CheesePlusCakemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:51 PM
In regards to the original Vogue pictures, I think they're more comical than sexual. I didn't think there was anything wrong with them because I found them hard to take seriously. The clothes are big on her, the shoes are huge, and she looks ridiculous with all of that makeup on. At least she doesn't have skin showing. I don't think it's tasteful, but I don't think it's pornographic either.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By DeStijlmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:07 PM
I assume you're inferring that these are pornographic. Do you think any of your reasoning matters to a pedophile? I think not. A ten-year-old boob is a ten-year-old boob no matter what context it's in.


No,that wasn't exactly what I was inferring. I don't personally see them as being 'pornographic' , but I don't doubt that a pedophile would. I just don't think its a logical comparison to compare them with kids being topless in their own backyards or because there is no A/C, thats all. All I was saying is a line needs to be drawn between the two.

If anything, I think just because we don't find something sexual, doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about protecting kids from people who do. I think the fact that these photos are so posed and so readily available on the internet invites trouble. I don't think that was the photographers intention , but I think it is a reality that we need to acknowledge.
Page:
Page 2 of 3: 1 2 3

ReplySendWatch

Powered by XP Experience Server.
Copyright ©1999-2021 XP.COM, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS