is it right for a 14 year old to pose naked for art?
of course
Side Score: 36
|
 |
of course not
Side Score: 36
|
|
|
|
|
it is art! why should it be too young for a 14 year old to pose naked for art? they have baby's naked in painting and photos they call art. and old people are they too old to be considered art? i mean how old is too old and how young is too young? they have 14 year old actors who do all sorts of things for instance drew barrmore she did drugs and shoots when she was young and miley Cyrus and everyone else who have done it. why is it not considered to be art? what gives you the right to say something is or isn't art? i mean art is the creation of something. and therefore is you create a good photo whether it be a 14 year old girl or a 20 year old girl who are you to say it isn't art???? Side: yes it is art you fools
It's not as simple as "of course" and it's not completely about whether or not it is right. There are a few factors that play into this situation. 1. Mental Health or Stability of the Poser. 1. Environmental Security 2. Proximity of Intimacy 4. Medium and Level of Graphic Detail 5. Intent 6. Incentive 7. Consequences If all of these are fulfilled without an issue and the well being of the poser is looked after, I cannot say that it would be wrong or that we shouldn't allow 14 year old's to pose. Side: yes it is art you fools
Exploitation is wrong no matter who the subject is - given this, why do we feel the need to say in addition to it that "14 year olds posing nude is wrong"? It is not underage nudity that is wrong, it is exploitation, and the matters should be handled separately. If a person abuses a position of authority - be it that they are older or that they are richer or that they are that person's boss - to force someone to do something they do not understand or which is explicitly against their will, then that is wrong. But we do not need to assume that just because the person is a minor, they cannot understand what is being done. I know persons who were mature at the age of thirteen, and I know persons older than myself whom I would not trust with their own lives. There are reasons why we have judges and juries who take the time to think about whether anyone has been wronged; because it requires human judgment to determine this. Mechanical special-cased laws, such as those prescribing definite age limits, can never accurately describe what is moral. To say that taking a photograph or painting or other depiction of a naked minor is wrong in all cases is tantamount to saying that nudity itself is wrong - a view I simply do not understand. Side: of course
2
points
Underage nudity in the public arena is exploitation. A 14 year-old cannot provide meaningful consent. "But we do not need to assume that just because the person is a minor, they cannot understand what is being done." Actually we can. Increased understanding of brain development shows that within the teenage years, neurological development isn't particularly sufficient to provide teenagers with a rounded foundation for making mature decisions. The likelihood of a 14 year-old girl or boy having the faculties to seriously consider the short and long term consequences of such action is questionable at best. "There are reasons why we have judges and juries who take the time to think about whether anyone has been wronged; because it requires human judgment to determine this." Actually, it requires adult reasoning. That's why we don't put kids on the jury stand. "Mechanical special-cased laws, such as those prescribing definite age limits, can never accurately describe what is moral." But they can prescribe limitations that are beneficial for proper child development. "To say that taking a photograph or painting or other depiction of a naked minor is wrong in all cases is tantamount to saying that nudity itself is wrong - a view I simply do not understand." You can't understand it because this is absolute nonsense. It's patently, demonstrably absurd. Side: of course not
2
points
"Right" is in the mind and eye of the beholder. Nudity has always been a part of the world of art and always will be no matter what the age of the model. The operative words here happen to be "for art" and not for pornographic purposes. While I should think it to be very difficult to find and receive parental permission to do so, I find nothing at all amiss with posing nude for the sake of art and most especially not if the artist is using chalks, watercolors, oils or sculpting as a technique. Photography would be my last choice in dealing with children or teens in an "artful" way. Side: Pose any way you wish for art
2
points
Hi, My Name is Joanna. I'm a 13 year old girl and I've been watching this argument. or discussion what ever you want to call it ^_^ Me and my friends go camping a lot in the summer and of course we take a camera. I take loads of pictures of us doing the most random things, I might try at night to take a picture of my friends at night but they have chosen to take off their clothes for some odd reason. But I would do as well, since it's all good fun. No one is around but my best friends. So after this camping trip I looked back at the pictures, some of them I knew I took but others I had no idea were taken then looking back there are quite a lot of us naked. And then I started to think if it was wrong? I mean we didn't get beaten then stripped of are clothes and made to pose if so then yes it is wrong but it was just built up of us having a good time and if that is wrong then I don't want to be right. I mean me and my friends know the dangers of everything we do. That's why we're very careful and we know that some people are sexually attracted to us. I mean we are pretty girls and we get creeps talking to us all the time. we know how to protect are self's far more than adults understand. like my email is up on a few sites so I get a new add every day and sometimes I get thee odd one who rights: Lucas Loves Brooke says: *would u lemme fuck u? =] But Some girls like me and my friends know how to respond to people like this. And just because some adult might Fancy me doesn't mean I should have to wait till I'm 18 to act free and artistic if he Fancy's me then that's his problem. lets say the same guy fancied my shoes should we band shoes? Side: Pose any way you wish for art
I think the question asking for right and wrong has already failed. Sure, if the owner of the 14 year old wants to sell their children then what will stop them? If art demands such a thing and people are willing to sell their children to make money then feel free. If people happen to use that as a source of sexual gratification then so what..? There are no negative consequences for anyone except maybe for the child who may or may not completely understand the nature of their actions but even adults dont understand why they do what they do so I doubt they can deem whether a child can pose naked or not at least with reasons. Side: of course
1
point
Well for one I do agree with the whole idea of protecting children and preventing people from using their power to take advantage of kids, but how is a simple thing like a photo of a child posing naked going to critically harm them? I mean i understand that they could possibly feel stupid about it later on but aside from that there really isn't much that could happen. No one is going to rape them just by seeing their picture on the net. No one will target that one child just because they posed for someone. Besides, the fact that the child is 14 already means they have went through puberty making them adults in a sense of being able to reproduce therefore giving them a pretty good idea of what they are doing at this point. Now the whole reason that people are arguing this is because they look at things from the point of view of a hater. People always think of others using the photo inappropriately instead of just admiring the beauty. Honestly who cares if some random person uses the image to their own amusement how does that affect the child? I mean people go on porn sites and do the same things there. Seriously there is nothing wrong with people using the photo as they please. As long as they don't black mail the person or use it to force the person to do something they wouldn't normally do then it should be fine. Seriously the whole fact that there are laws preventing children from being able to express their sexuality is wrong. The government tries too hard to protect people by controlling their lives. If a 14 year old chooses themselves to pose naked then there is really nothing you should do to stop them. Also as backup there are people called parents I mean you have a child deciding for themselves and then you have a full grown adult behind them to approve it, and whats wrong with that? Side: Of course
1
point
if all parties understand that the act of posing naked and the act of rendering the naked human form have a sexual quality, i do not see anything objectionable in the act of a 14-year old boy posing naked for "art"......however, art has very little to do with it. the art studio is a very sexually charged environment when a naked human being is being rendered by one or more clothed people. moreover, the likelihood of the 14-year old boy getting an erection during this process is, like, 100%. check out my blog (i am an older male posing naked for "art") Side: Of course
1
point
I would reject the very question on the basis that it is essentially useless. How do we define 'right' and who are you or I to say what is objectively 'right' or 'wrong'. Moral judgements are all essentially useless and serve no value. It is on this basis that I do not object (not claim it is 'right) to such photographs. Side: of course
|
In these days... yes, it's wrong. it's called child pornography. it's really quite simple, it's illegal for someone to possess photographs of a naked child... and if there was ever someone who had a 14 year old pose naked for them, i would call them a pedophile. this whole art thing is bullshit. might as well say that slitting someone's throat and then videotaping them dying is just art. actually, that is the defense that psychopathic serial killers use. Side: of course not
So something being illegal makes it wrong? Funny, I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. I have cousins who are aged 12-15. A few years ago, we were on holiday in Crete, and they decided to play naked in a private pool at our rented residence. Their father took a picture of this. Does that make him a pedophile? Sure, it wasn't "posing", but hell, even if he had asked them to stop splashing around for a while so he could get a decent picture, would it be a sign of pedophilia? Or just of a parent wanting to keep a clear reminder of happy memories? Slitting someone's throat and them posing naked are hardly comparable. Obviously exploitation of a person is wrong, no-one is arguing against that - but what you are doing is jumping to the conclusion that the portrayal of underage nudity must be for purposes of exploitation, and this is simply not so. Obviously it can be, but so can many other non-illegalized things. The solution is not to also ban them, but to make exploitation illegal, and leave it to the courts to determine what was really going on - that is why they exist. Side: of course
3
points
"I have cousins who are aged 12-15. A few years ago, we were on holiday in Crete, and they decided to play naked in a private pool at our rented residence. Their father took a picture of this. Does that make him a pedophile?" It certainly doesn't make him a pedophile. In and of itself. But he's not asking underage children to pose for "art" in a public arena. A private pool rented for family use and the public sphere are two different places and atmospheres of consideration. "Obviously exploitation of a person is wrong, no-one is arguing against that - but what you are doing is jumping to the conclusion that the portrayal of underage nudity must be for purposes of exploitation, and this is simply not so." How are you not exploiting fourteen year-old boys and girls by having them pose naked in order to be criticized and exposed for public consumption? Side: of course not
"it's illegal for someone to possess photographs of a naked child" No its not. Parents, for example, can have nude pictures of their kids. Nudists can have pictures of their kids. Anybody can have pictures of naked kids as long as they are not in sexually suggestive poses. On the otherhand, children dressed in sexually suggestive clothing is considered child pornography. Side: Of course
3
points
I don't believe underage teens or younger should be able to consent to nude photographs. I don't believe it is overtly pornographic, to believe so would be to believe that the naked human body is purely sexual; something that I don't find to be the case. I do think exceptions should be made for relatives of the children; I don't really care about parents taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub, my own mother did this. Otherwise, full-frontal nudity should be banned as it is not acceptable to coerce the underage to do things they do not understand/have a full grasp of. It is a protection against abuse and of the child's right to maintain control over his or her own body without the coercion, manipulation, or beliefs of adults overriding it. If they want to pose nude at 18, fine, let them; but until then they should be able to make up their mind without being subject to the wills, suggestions, desires, and economy of adults. A boy or girl at 16 does not understand the consequences and does not have the power to deal with whatever may come from their exhibition. They can take pictures of themselves all they want and deal with those consequences (if posted online they should be immediately taken down, of course), but how can they deal with a photographer taking and owning the license to a picture with their fully nude body? How are they going to deal with the publicity, the fact that they may be in a book or publication? Essentially, allowing them to pose naked for others is allowing their nudity to be bought and sold; taking it away from someone who doesn't even understand what that entails. I find this problematic and almost inviting problems that children simply cannot and shouldn't have to deal with. Pedophilia is only a part of the danger, though it is considerable. Side: of course not
Would you care to explain why 18 is some magical age where everybody suddenly gains an understanding's of their own interests and the right to decide what to do with their own lives. This is horse shit. It's my body, if I'm 16 and I want it plastered on the internet or on billboards I should have no restrictions to do so. Why is it up to a 'responsible adult' to decide a child's life for them. Please, drop the paternalism then you might be able to think without the moralistic and authoritarian hazy that surrounds your argument. Side: of course
2
points
For one thing; the underaged can take as many pictures of themselves as they like. The issue I have is with displaying them in public places, selling, and distributing them. In effect; they are giving their body over to the general public, or certain members of the public. Children's lives are entirely up to "responsible adults"; unless you are against parenting I don't see what you mean here. Do parents not have legal rights over their children to see to their raising and welfare? Are they supposed to allow their children to pose naked for fear of being accused of wrongful imprisonment if they dare to incarcerate them in their rooms for a sentence of one weekend? 18 is not a magical age; it is an age where the average mental development and social/economic/political enfranchisement reaches an acceptably high level; a level to allow for physical independence. I use the age of 18 as a marker because this is what society has determined to be definitive of an adult. As far as I can tell the age of "adult" is, at most, too low and should be raised higher. Mental/ social maturity is certainly not well-developed before the age of 18 and it is arguable if it is achieved (by the average human being) before the age of 21. A major aspect of my argument IS the fact that people under the age of 18 are not independent and are not given the power (by society especially but also by nature) to handle situations that arise from having their nudity displayed to the world. It doesn't matter to me if the age of 18 is really definitive of adulthood in an objective way; what matters is that it is determined by society that it is. This enfranchisement is one of the key aspects of my argument. This is the same concept that bars people from selling themselves into slavery or children under a certain age from working full-time jobs in mines and factories: people are not able to give up certain rights and certain types of people are not able to enter into contracts/ take on certain responsibilities because of their physical, social, economic, or age status. If you do not believe there should be a set age to determine adulthood do you think that people under the age of 18 should be tried as adults for any and all crimes they commit? Should a ten year old be charged with manslaughter in the first degree if they play with their grandfather's gun and accidentally kill their friend? Should 15 year olds be charged with felonies if they steal a car and take it for a joy-ride around their home-town? Should we house people under the age of 18 in the same prisons as that house 30 year olds? Side: of course not
You're only picking on photography when there are so so many other ways to use a poser. Sculptures and paintings are two that I would consider safe if the final render isn't sexually explicit. Even then though there are situation that would allow this to be ok. If for instance it was a marble sculpture of two 14 year olds, two females, two males, or a male and female, that was intended to be sexually explicit, only accurate depictions of the body's are needed. The two don't need to be present at the same time, the two posers, so what's the problem? Is there anything threatening about it if the artist renders the sexual activity him or herself? I also think that good humane intent is behind any good artist's work. You know what I mean? There is always a reason for an artist to work, and if sexual deviance is in the intent there usually is a reason for it. Advocating homosexual acceptance, displaying the difference between physical maturity and mental maturity, or it may just be a symbol of innocence. There is a lot that a 14 year old body, male or female, could bring beyond sexual connotations. Even with the sexual aspect though, using a 14 year old body would be ideal because everyone older than 21 knows that the difference between a child, an adolescent. Anywhere from 10-17, we all feel the urge to screw, and in most cases it would be around 14 that we first figure this out, and yet the figure of a 14 year old suggests child like innocence, but with obvious differences that suggest maturing and the end of that innocence. Point is, even if it's sexual it could have meaning worth expressing. Side: yes it is art you fools
3
points
I specifically picked on photography (and video, though I didn't mention it specifically) over sculpture and paintings for the same reason I don't mention knives and blackjacks when talking about an individual's right to keep and bear arms; we are living in 2008, not 1611. When talking about the repercussions of allowing the public display of underage nudity the finer art forms of sculpture, painting, lithograph, wood carvings, cave paintings, and totem poles are left out due to their smaller distribution and composition of the current media economy and popular art. I still disagree with a child being used for painting and sculpture, but I am perfectly willing to make an exception due to the lower threat associated with it and the unlikelyhood of unsavory characters using the venue for exploitative or disgusting purposes. Still, the threat is still there and most of what I said about photography can be laid against the other art forms, though to a lesser degree. I do take exception to some of your propositions and what I perceive to be your priorities. For one, you make this strange statement: "I also think that good humane intent is behind any good artist's work. You know what I mean?" There are a couple of things wrong with this: legalizing the public display of underage nudity does not, without a qualifier, prevent it from being used by non-good artists. To be honest, most "artists" fall around the mediocre-bad range, not good. Secondly, there are plenty of unsavory, malicious, or otherwise unscrupulous good artists out there. From Nazis, to rapists, to serial killers and child molesters, there are plenty of good artists with disturbed personalities and/or terrible motives. "Point is, even if it's sexual it could have meaning worth expressing." This, and the sentences preceding it which indicate that nude and even sexual public displays of nude children and teens have artistic value are disturbing to a certain extent. Anything has artistic value; gutting a human being and arranging his or her internal organs into a religious symbol is jam-packed with meaning. The problem is; is this meaning worth the possible (or inevitable) repercussions or abuses? I err on the side of protecting children from abuse, not artistic fulfillment. Just as in science, war, economics; art doesn't have full license to do whatever it wants in the name of itself. No matter how pure the motives are I don't feel it is worth the risk. Consenting adults can do whatever they wish with their body and likeness; children, however, should not be put at risk for mere artistic fulfillment. Artists can still create the likeness of a nude child without the use of an actual nude body, I don't care much about that; but I do not want children to have their naked bodies laid at the feet of art or commerce, to be used to further the careers, bank accounts, or perversions of an adult population hungry for all manner of unsavory satisfactions. Side: of course not
There is a fine line between art and pornography. unfortunately the line differs from person to person. While an art piece may make on person think about the beauty of the human body, another person may just see a nude body as a source of sexual gratification. Fourteen-year-young children simply do not have the mental capacity to understand what dangers there are. In this case it is up to the parents to decide at the moment what is right and what is wrong. The problem here is that the parent themselves may be exploiting the child without anyone knowing but since it's in the name of art, nobody would even think about the possibility that not all is right. As to the point of babies being used in nude photos, they should not be posing nude either. While I may be looked upon as prude, the pure fact is that even the youngest can be sexually exploited. There is always a concern for the safety and wellbeing of these children. Unfortunately, as pure and innocent as children can be there are people in the world who would use such images for less than innocent reasons. Side: of course not
At such a young age, we are proned to do things that we may regret later on in life. I don't think that the law is to protect us from pediphiles alone, but also actions that we may later wish we hadn't taken part in as we mature. I know several people in my life who did drugs when they were young who now wish that they hadn't because it ruined their life. Well the same thing applies for pornography. If some 14 y/o takes nude photos just because it seems fun at the moment or everyone else is doing it, then later in life when they try to get a good job if their employer researches them on the web, pornography will come up and that employer might not want to hire someone who is so easy to sell themselves at an early age. SO the fact that is illegal is good for many reasons than to just protect the teenager from pediphiles. It is to protect them from "living in the moment with no regard to future consequences." So-to-say. Side: of course not
2
points
For those of you interested, there is a case in Australia pertaining to under-aged nudity displayed as art. It seems that the father, even though he is defending the photograph as non-sexual, has blogged about the sexual nature of children the "latent sexuality", as he terms it. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23997882-12377,00.html The child isn't concerned with the photograph, she was pictured at age 2 (now 11) by her mother. The picture was then displayed by the artist, her father, in a national magazine resulting in a national uproar. The blog post has been taken down, of course, but here are some memorable quotes from the articles: "The sensuality of children is integral to parental fondness… Centuries of jealous puritanical mores-akin to the suppression of all aspects of childhood-have discouraged the artistic exploration of the sensual delight of children and the enjoyment of their own bodies. Undoubtedly a part of this taboo was the fear of the child’s latent sexuality and its potential for exciting inappropriate and sinful desire…" "The works challenge the taboos against the recognition of child sensuality; but they are not a form of erotica… In the process, however, they do acknowledge that the child has access rights to an erotic language… The confronting aspect of this suite is that the sensual language proceeds from the child alone." Side: of course not
1
point
the act of posing naked for others to render your body is in and of itself a sexually loaded act. the act of rendering the naked human is in and of itself a sexually loaded act drawing hte genitals/breasts is like "touching them/fantasizing about them" check out my blog at www.themodelundraped.blogspot.com Side: Of Course Not
|
