Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
gardenhead_:
I was talking to my friend about this yesterday, and she said similar thing - that Bill Henson's work was wrong because the subject of the photograph (the child) would be damaged by that and that she couldn't properly understand the implications of what she was agreeing to. But I can't help but feel that it's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - society complains that the child is now damaged irreversibly for reasons x, y and z and starts to treat her differently, child hears this and believes that she is now damaged.
jhocking:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 25 May 2008, 03:20 ---we show only a moderate tendency to learn from the past.
--- End quote ---
I like this line.
--- Quote from: Eris on 25 May 2008, 07:12 ---The photographer has just as much right to display them than if the kids were clothed, because it still has a huge amount of effort put into it.
--- End quote ---
I'm of the "art shouldn't be censored" camp (in case this wouldn't be obvious from my job,) but I've seen a couple people state this point and I want to respond in a devil's-advocate sort of way. The amount of effort an endeavor takes is not relevant to its moral standing. There are a great many things that would take a lot of effort but which you do not have a right to do/display.
David_Dovey:
The Holocaust was hard fuckin' work.
KharBevNor:
Aaaaaand we've Godwin'd a fucking thread about CHILD PORN.
Can we get a lock now?
jhocking:
Don't know why you take that tone of exaggerated ridiculousness, child porn is a much more serious issue than most of the time when I see a conversation Godwin'd. Still over the top though.
Why do we need a lock exactly? Because not everyone is fawningly agreeing with your dismissive comments on what constitutes art?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version