People Called These Photos Of An Artist's Daughter 'Pornographic.'

[NakedShadow]

I don't see his photos as pornographic but parents should know what is best for their children, evident here as even nudity positive members here won't go this far for their children.
I do love the photographer's exhibit name: "I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR CHILDREN –- The Sexualization of Innocence in America"

Pornography is in the mind of the viewer and should have no bearing on the subject.  Unless were talking explicit sex acts.  Some people will find anything pornographic and there is no end to what they might demand be restricted based on their own nonsense.  They can prove harm or they can stfu as far as I'm concerned.

To be fair I know this forum tends to like to jump on the "nudity is good" train but we truly can't know the real intentions of the photographer. There's still definite repercussions for this kind of thing. I mean chances are it's fine but I'm not gonna immediately jump on the "negative" comments because they have some merit because like I said there's always details left out especially in journalism. My point being I don't think 90% of these are as one sided as "prudes bad nudity good".

I get your point, but in this case the photographer is her dad while they're on a trip. The photos look like normal things kids do. The worst photo is probably just the one where she's nude in the middle of the road on all fours cause what's the point.

lol this statement proved itself to come true before our eyes
don't google foot fetish

[Rob N]

The only photos here that were weird for me was the kid on the toilet and the kid on all fours in the road.

While I don't see them as pornographic, I always assign more privacy to bathroom activities and don't see anything of artistic merit in that.

As for the one in the road, I just don't know what to make of it. Why is the kid squatting in the road... I think if there were some context provided that would help. Perhaps they stopped in this deserted stretch of road to just stretch their legs and that was a random moment.

Of course, there will always be prudish conservatives that like to call everything pornography. The rest of us can't base our lives on their simple one track minds.

[Fishandchips]

The only photos here that were weird for me was the kid on the toilet and the kid on all fours in the road.

While I don't see them as pornographic, I always assign more privacy to bathroom activities and don't see anything of artistic merit in that.

As for the one in the road, I just don't know what to make of it. Why is the kid squatting in the road... I think if there were some context provided that would help. Perhaps they stopped in this deserted stretch of road to just stretch their legs and that was a random moment.

Of course, there will always be prudish conservatives that like to call everything pornography. The rest of us can't base our lives on their simple one track minds.

I get what you mean about those two pictures, I don’t see anything artistic about someone on the toilet. For the one in the road it does seem odd and the fact that we need the photographer to provide us with the context to explain the image kind of nullified it as art. Reason I say that is I was told by a tutor that art should need no explanation as the viewer should be able to reach their own conclusions (or something like that) and we are unable to do that. Perhaps someone else can though and nullify what I’ve just said lol

[Tree]

The only photos here that were weird for me was the kid on the toilet and the kid on all fours in the road.

While I don't see them as pornographic, I always assign more privacy to bathroom activities and don't see anything of artistic merit in that.

As for the one in the road, I just don't know what to make of it. Why is the kid squatting in the road... I think if there were some context provided that would help. Perhaps they stopped in this deserted stretch of road to just stretch their legs and that was a random moment.

Of course, there will always be prudish conservatives that like to call everything pornography. The rest of us can't base our lives on their simple one track minds.

I get what you mean about those two pictures, I don’t see anything artistic about someone on the toilet. For the one in the road it does seem odd and the fact that we need the photographer to provide us with the context to explain the image kind of nullified it as art. Reason I say that is I was told by a tutor that art should need no explanation as the viewer should be able to reach their own conclusions (or something like that) and we are unable to do that. Perhaps someone else can though and nullify what I’ve just said lol

While I agree that art should need no explanation to the informed viewer, most viewers of selected individual pieces of art are not properly informed. As the works were part of a collective exhibition, no piece stands on its own as an individual work and should not be viewed as such.

It's quite a common mistake today to think that each visual image stands on its own. While something like that could arguably be true of true of music, it certainly isn't true of literature. Who would say that a single page of a book, or even one chapter, stands on its own apart from the rest of the book?

Even with music, an understanding a song's background or intended meaning, familiarity with other songs by the same band or in the same style, and to some extent having had experiences related to those a song connects to all help the listener to gain a deeper appreciation of the art.

The same is true for visual art. There are lots of paintings that look weird on their own in isolation, e.g. a lot of abstract art. Rather than condemning what we don't understand, we should ask ourselves what we're missing. How is this puzzle incomplete in such a way that this piece forms part of the greater picture we can't yet see?

[jamesnotcompletely]

im late to this but yeah its kinda conflicting, for one the kid's really young and he might not have asked her if shes okay with these pictures being online, but when i look at this it isnt sexual at all, its literally just a kid who isnt wearing clothes. thats it. people who freak out about it really should reconsider their priorities

[JustARando]

im late to this but yeah its kinda conflicting, for one the kid's really young and he might not have asked her if shes okay with these pictures being online, but when i look at this it isnt sexual at all, its literally just a kid who isnt wearing clothes. thats it. people who freak out about it really should reconsider their priorities

I initially thoight this might be fine, but, on second thought yeah. I agree with you. It's not pornographic, but, it may not be something the child would want the public to see when they're older. Like imagine telling people your dad's name and the first thing they see is you doing potty on the street? Like, I get it it's normal and shouldn't actually be "bad", but, like sex is also normal but not everyone would be alright to have a public sex tape.

[norwaynudist]

According to the dictionary, the definition of “pornography” is:
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.

It should be obvious that these pictures fall into neither category, and it’s the idea that nudity is automatically sexual that’s so detrimental to nudism. And society, in general.

What the real question here is, is whether the pictures are exploitative, which they absolutely could be without being sexual. This is a whole other question, and I won’t pass judgement on this as I don’t have children of my own, but I have in many instances thought that some adults take liberties with their children that they would not have accepted on their own behalf, not just in terms of pictures but also stories and anecdotes that are told and re-told.

I’m sure the photographer had good intentions with the pictures, the real question is what his daughter will feel about them in years to come.

[eagleday]

What the real question here is, is whether the pictures are exploitative, which they absolutely could be without being sexual. This is a whole other question, and I won’t pass judgement on this as I don’t have children of my own, but I have in many instances thought that some adults take liberties with their children that they would not have accepted on their own behalf, not just in terms of pictures but also stories and anecdotes that are told and re-told.

I’m sure the photographer had good intentions with the pictures, the real question is what his daughter will feel about them in years to come.

This.

I think we need to consider whether we just, in the name of defending nudism, throw everything into the textile camp and yelling at them, here's this and that, if you don't like it then you hate us, haters gonna hate, we're the good guys, you're evil.

Some of us might think we need to "provoke thoughts", "make naturist revolution". Geez, I just want to relax naked in my backyard.

[ViolentBunny]

I don't particularly have any problem with the photos. I will always have some concern over people who aggressively advocate for or justify child nudity.  He mentioned that he wants his kids to grow up without body shame, but I'm not sure how a photo of your naked 3 year old on the potty in the middle of the road accomplishes that.

My parents have a ton of photos of me growing up, but I would die if they shared some of them with the world.

Naturism is often used by people to push boundaries of what is socially acceptable. It is also used by people who want to share or view photos of naked children.  I wouldn't go as far as saying he is up to no good, but I do think this is somewhat irresponsible on his part.

[swede]

I don't particularly have any problem with the photos. I will always have some concern over people who aggressively advocate for or justify child nudity.  He mentioned that he wants his kids to grow up without body shame, but I'm not sure how a photo of your naked 3 year old on the potty in the middle of the road accomplishes that.

My parents have a ton of photos of me growing up, but I would die if they shared some of them with the world.

Naturism is often used by people to push boundaries of what is socially acceptable. It is also used by people who want to share or view photos of naked children.  I wouldn't go as far as saying he is up to no good, but I do think this is somewhat irresponsible on his part.

good analasys and i agree. we need to make sure people are not using the naturist justification to justify looking at nude people. And not cool just blasting pics of your kids like that to the pubilc i think.

[Raphael]

I'm torn on these images. Of course, it's in the eye of the beholder what they consider pornography. And I don't see these photos that way.
But when you publish photos like this, it should be clear that some of these photos may cause outrage among some people.

If he wanted to portray nudity (or bare skin) as something normal, I think some of these pictures are not appropriate. (Regardless of what his daughter might later think about being presented to the world in this way.)

These are clearly staged scenes and I'm sure the photographer wanted to provoke.
I think provocation is the wrong way to convince others of your opinion.