Article from The Guardian

[dalekboy]

The notional paedophile now dictates what we can look at

Whatever the artistic import, images of naked children are now viewed by society exclusively through a sexual filter

I am reminded once more of episode of Reboot that celebrates Enzo's birthday. The censors insisted on the removal of a shot where Dot, his older sister, kisses him on the forehead. Their reason - it was an obvious sign of an incestuous relationship.

These attitudes and decisions say more about the people making them than anything else.

Comments

[kaths.livejournal.com]

The thing is, until the kids are adults we won't know how they are going to feel about it, so it shouldn't be assumed that they would be okay with it.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The problem is, all such judgements about artistic value are ultimately subjective (when you start claiming that some have objectively better technique, you just get into the idea that empty technique has intrinsic artistic value etc). So it can never be usefully used to settle these arguments - and somehow, the people who want to ban it are always among the ones who seem to find it of minimal artistic value. The photo was by a noted photographer, who in her artistic judgement thought it was worth photographing, lots of people value her work, the only real answer to 'well, I don't think its a good photo' is 'well, don't go and look at it then'.

And as far as the kids opinions - you do realise that by that same reasoning, we can't assume kids will be ok about ANY photo taken of them? We have to trust their legal guardians to make decisions in their best interest, or ban the public display of children entirely.

[kaths.livejournal.com]

I'm not planning on going to see the exhibition :) But I'm still entitled to express my opinion about the artistic merits of the photo.

I realise it's difficult to know where to draw the line with photos of kids, but showing your genitals is a fairly easy example to categorise.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

I hope you're not feeling like you're being picked on, you just happen to be raising interesting points to discuss.

So would you say photos taken at a nudist resort that featured children wouldn't wash? Certainly if they're playing games you will get the occasional angle that will show genitalia.

Or the previously mentioned Spencer from Nevermind? There's no doubt he's a boy.

And in answer to your other reply, just checked some of our catalogues. No kids in underwear (though young teens are still okay, apparently), but there were children in swimsuits, one and two-piece.

[kaths.livejournal.com]

Like I said, hard to know where to draw the line :)

When you say photos taken at a nudist resort - by whom? And for what purpose? If they are just private photos as per any holiday you go on, I don't see a problem with that (and they're quite strict about filtering out people who go to nudist resorts for the wrong reasons).

If someone's taking pics to eg illustrate an article for a newspaper, I don't think they should include any naked pics of the kids, even if their parents give permission.

The album cover is a tricky one - the younger the child the less it seems to be an issue, even though there are people who abuse babies. Perhaps it's so hard to contemplate that, that we (ie society) just don't see it as an issue in the same way as with eg 6 year olds.

I think it's also hard to judge because there's too much context around the album. Anyone saying it shouldn't have been published would be seen to be attacking the historical value of the album, its musical contents etc. It needs to be presented out of context to be judged just on the merits of the pic.

If it had been my child in that photo, I wouldn't have allowed it to be used for an album cover. But if they wanted the photo to be used for something similar when they grew up, that'd be their choice.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Good answers, all.

The magazines produced by various nudist resorts feature pics of people of all ages, from babies and small children, through to people in their eighties and nineties. So the photography of the children is no more sexualised that that of anyone else, but it's come under fire from some groups trying to protect the kids, because the pics may fall into the hands of paedophiles.

Geffen originally discussed altering the album cover, but decided to go with it when Cobain made it clear that if they wanted the penis hidden, he wanted a sticker placed over the boy's member saying "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."

the younger the child the less it seems to be an issue is actually one of my general points - why should a shot that just happens to have the genitalia of a baby in it be any more agreeable than shots of children at 3, 7, 11, and onwards? If the shots are not sexual in nature, and aren't intended to evoke an erotic response, but still need to be hidden away for fear of the paedophiles, where's the cut-off point? And why aren't the babies considered to need equal protection to the six-year olds?

The problem is that once any reaction becomes knee-jerk, we lose control of it and other things get lost at the same time. Cases need to be decided on their own merits, not on arbitrary gut responses.

And if Spencer had been your kid, and you hadn't wanted the pic used, I know you would have made the decision with at least some consideration and thought, rather than an automatic "no!"

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Fair comment. But at what point is there a cut-off?

If you had a child and had taken a couple of photos of them as a baby and toddler, them in the bath say, or naked on a rug, or being breastfed. Is that wrong? Probably not. Is your intent to embarrass or sexualise them. No.

But if when that child has grown into a teenager or adult, they tell you that they find those photos offensive and want them destroyed, what do you do? To you they aren't offensive, they are wonderful snippets of a child's life. Should you have assumed that they wouldn't like them in later life and so never have taken them in the first place?

And it can extend to the kids in the cute lion outfits, underwear catalogues, etc. How much are you going to censor what you think is cute or wonderful, on the off chance that maybe your child will hate it in later life? Especially if they aren't bothered by it at the time? "No, I'm not taking a picture of you in that super-hero outfit, because when you are 14 you will hate that shot."

The cover of Nevermind, I think, is one of the iconic images of the twentieth century. Spencer Elden, the original baby, posed in bathers for a retake when he was 11. This year at 17 he announced that he felt like a porn star and it was kind of creepy many people had seen him naked. Who's to say how he'll feel in another seven years, or twenty?

As parents we can only do what we think is right for our kids, and we're going to get it wrong a chunk of the time. For the parents of Klara and Edda, they may be proud of their children, think that the photo is great art, that it captures a moment innocent play.

And if that's the attitude they instil into those children in regards to that shot, there's a chance that the kids will feel that way too.

The fact I think it's bloody ordinary doesn't matter.

[kaths.livejournal.com]

No easy answers unfortunately. But there is a big difference between having pics of your kids in your photo album, and putting them in an exhibition on public display.

Haven't they stopped putting pics of kids in underwear in catalogues now? I'm sure I read something about it at some point.