Forum: Arts / Debates

Page:
Page 3 of 3: 1 2 3
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By boleyngrrl
On Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:08 PM
I've watched enough French films in class to know that the French seem to treat nudity/sexuality a bit different than in the US (don't know about Britain/elsewhere). The films seem more blase about nudity than American-made films. In the US, mainstream films usually tend to make nudity a big deal--it's led up to, it's sort of hush-hush, even in many R-rated movies. In the French films I've seen (PM me if you want a list--I don't remember all the titles and I'm not looking them up this late) nudity is just a fact. It's like "We're having coffee and being flirty and" *BOOM* nudity.

I don't think partial nudity being published this young is okay. I don't think this girl's outfits are appropriate for a 10 year old who isn't playing dress-up in her mother's or sister's closet. The topless ones are just sort of "What?" I guess the problem I have with this is that it is published. It doesn't seem right to me. Plus, it makes me wonder how this girl's mental state is going to be, always in the limelight from such a young age, surrounded by models, many of whom have self-image issues that could rub off on her. There are the healthy ones, but there are so many that strive for some strange "perfection" that makes them look like skeletons.

My biggest problem? That the article is called "Gifts." Seriously? Too far. Not cool at all. That is just sick and wrong on SO many levels, given the age, and the fact this has nothing to do with birthday/Christmas/Chanukah/Kwanza/Easter/any other gift-bringing holiday. That bothers me. A LOT.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By reel_faerie85member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Aug 09, 2011 05:57 AM
I think the photos are very beautiful and well done, they are in fact stunning.

However they do have a child in them and I feel the sexuality is a bit OTT.

Saying that, I've seen kids out in the street wearing less and flouting it about.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Hoosier
On Tue Aug 09, 2011 07:13 AM
I just really think that kids have no place portraying adult sexuality. There is no point. I think it is completely distasteful. She is a pretty girl, she will still be pretty in more kid-friendly photo shoots.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry (karma: 2)
By panicmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Aug 09, 2011 08:35 AM
^Yeah, but if she only did kid-friendly shoots, we wouldn't be talking about her right now. Like it or not, the ad was super-effective.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By oz_helenmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Aug 10, 2011 05:50 PM
We aren't talking about the product being sold though. I don't even know what is being advertised. So therefore, the advertising wasn't effective as there's been no increase in brand awareness. Unless this child is "the brand" of course.

Helen
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnutPremium member
On Wed Aug 10, 2011 05:57 PM
In this case, I think the child is the brand. I didn't know about her until this whole thing, and now I am curious about her because she is a talented and gorgeous model.

I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were using Vogue to make a name for their child within the whole world and not just France.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Hoosier
On Wed Aug 10, 2011 06:13 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I typically don't buy products because I saw it in an ad (unless it is a sale ad lol!). My husband and I are both pretty particular about things so anything new we purchase has been researched (as far as electronics, etc goes). I am a jeans and t-shirt kind of girl so I don't even look at clothes ads. I buy the same type of jeans because they are the only ones that fit well and feel comfortable. Ads almost never make me want to buy something...the exception being food lol. So for me, this ad, or whatever it is supposed to be, is useless. But I won't even begin to argue with you, Panic, that controversial/shocking/etc ads can get more exposure and attention. And that can lead to more profits for the company. I just think there is a fine line that, when it comes to children, shouldn't be crossed.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By dust2dustmember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Fri Aug 12, 2011 05:00 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the 'problem' here is that the fashion industry is showing 20-40 year old women pictures of 10-16 years olds (cat walk models, advertising, ect) and saying that's what they should look like?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By SoloJazzDancer
On Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:46 PM
I agree the girl is beautiful. I wish I was as beautiful as her. That being said, she's 10 for heaven's sake! I'm not sure I would call it kiddy porn or child porn but its close. Can you imagine how many pedophiles bought that magazine? They say how easy it is over the Internet to find out anything about someone including e-mail and home address. Look at how many movie and TV stars are stalked and they are grownups. Her parents didn't think of any of that? What kind of parents are these people? I also agree that the title of the pictures, Gifts, is way past creepy.

For those who had photos of themselves without clothes when they were kids, unless you have one of those creepy, hands on relatives that should be arrested, how many pedophiles saw that photo? How many pedophiles do you think saw her photos? It's just way to creepy for words and something should be done about parents who let their way to young kids do that. They are the ones in charge and I think they aren't doing their jobs.
Page:
Page 3 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