[LeatherTrumpet]

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tat...rooke-shields/

I mean, wtf?

[Niamh.]

That's sick, what kind of a mother has she as well

[Prole]

Is it paedophilia, or is it art?

If you're going to remove every photo or painting of nude children from our galleries the places would be a quarter-empty. When does a picture of a nude child stop being innocent and become obscene? Isn't it only obscene if it's viewed in a sexual context?

Lewis Carroll, the Alice in Wonderland guy who was obsessed with children, took loads of photos of nude kids which I think were rather creepy, but they're still available as posters, post cards, as a collecton in books... Because those children are now long dead, does that make it okay?

[Niamh.]

I think it's sick to have a picture of a 10 year old naked with make-up on yes, I don't care if it's in the name of "art" or not

[Prole]

So... how about the Lewis Carroll pics?

http://photographyoflewiscarroll.googlepages.com/

What do you think? Sexual or not sexual? Innocent or creepy?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Prole

So... how about the Lewis Carroll pics?

http://photographyoflewiscarroll.googlepages.com/

What do you think? Sexual or not sexual? Innocent or creepy?

I never saw any Lewis Carroll pictures up until you just showed them to me now. In this day and age with paedophiles (yes, I know there were paedophiles before but I mean the awarness of them in our society) I don't see the need to have pictures like that. And I do find them a bit creepy tbh. Not that naked children are creepy but as a mother with 2 young kids, I would be suspicious of grown men/women wanting to take naked pictures of young kids

[Prole]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

I never saw any Lewis Carroll pictures up until you just showed them to me now. In this day and age with paedophiles (yes, I know there were paedophiles before but I mean the awarness of them in our society) I don't see the need to have pictures like that. And I do find them a bit creepy tbh. Not that naked children are creepy but as a mother with 2 young kids, I would be suspicious of grown men/women wanting to take naked pictures of young kids

I'm with you, actually. I do think art is controlled by people's sensibilities, which is a shame... but where vulnerable children are concerned I think you have to be ever on your guard. Lewis Carroll was well-known for "unusual" fondness of children. He was obsessed by Alice Liddell, for whom he wrote Alice in Wonderland. None of it is common knowledge, I didn't know about it myself untill a friend mentioned it a few months ago and I was shocked when I looked into his life and habits.

And for the record, Brooke Sheilds' mother ought to have been prosecuted. If a picture is clearly sexual, then it's not art, it's pornography.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Prole

I'm with you, actually. I do think art is controlled by people's sensibilities, which is a shame... but where vulnerable children are concerned I think you have to be ever on your guard. Lewis Carroll was well-known for "unusual" fondness of children. He was obsessed by Alice Liddell, for whom he wrote Alice in Wonderland. None of it is common knowledge, I didn't know about it myself untill a friend mentioned it a few months ago and I was shocked when I looked into his life and habits.

And for the record, Brooke Sheilds' mother out to have been prosecuted. If a picture is clearly sexual, then it's not art, it's pornography.

I never knew any of that about Lewis Carroll either, all I knew about him was that he wrote Alice in Wonderland, that's it basically. I'll never be able to look at Alice in Wonderland the same now lol!

I just think where kids are concerned, they need to be protected always, "Art" isn't a strong enough argument to jeopardize their safety in anyway

[BB_Eye]

Philistinism wins again?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Philistinism wins again?

or 95% of art is a crock of pretentious ****

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

or 95% of art is a crock of pretentious ****

You'd make a good fascist or communist. I bet you hate any art that isn't purely representational.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

You'd make a good fascist or communist. I bet you hate any art that isn't purely representational.

I hate crap masquerading as art

if you can piss

you can paint

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Philistinism wins again?

Are you suggesting that a picture of a naked 10 year old girl wearing make-up is ok if it's called art?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

Are you suggesting that a picture of a naked 10 year old girl wearing make-up is ok if it's called art?

that is the way I took it too

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

that is the way I took it too

Well, it wasn't very clear what was meant by it but I have a 9 year old daughter myself and the thought of someone taking a picture of her like that and hanging it in a gallery makes me feel sick

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

Well, it wasn't very clear what was meant by it but I have a 9 year old daughter myself and the thought of someone taking a picture of her like that and hanging it in a gallery makes me feel sick

would be the way every parent would feel. i wonder if the person who took the decision at the gallery was a parent?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

would be the way every parent would feel. i wonder if the person who took the decision at the gallery was a parent?

Not Brooke Shields mother though obviously! I mean people are being arrested for having naked pictures of children on their computers, I don't see how the same thing hanging in a gallery is any different really.

[Prole]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Philistinism wins again?

Not agreeing with your own interpretation of what art is doesn't make someone a Philistine. In the same way, a debate is about challenging people's ideas with your own, not name-calling because you feel differently.

[setanta]

Brooke Shield's photo is sexually suggestive in tone - anybody can see that - and should never have been on display in the Tate.

[WOMBAI]

Having it on display would make a joke of all the child protection laws we have in place.

The person who made the decision to display it should be held accountable.

[Prole]

Could it be that the photograph was deliberately provocative to highlight the sexualisation of children in our society? My five year old neice is having a birthday party this week, where she and her little friends visit a place that puts make up on them, paints their nails, does their hair... you can buy children's clothes in the high street that'll make them look like King's Cross hookers and they're allowed to watch all kinds of crap on TV that's far too old for them. I'm all for the protection of children but maybe this photo is simply polarising the fact that children are now sexualised at a very early age, sometimes by the people who love them and want to protect them the most.