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?