Magazine Fights Censorship With Nude Six-Year-Old Cover Girl

re: Magazine Fights Censorship With Nude Six-Year-Old Cover Girl

Claire — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:39:15 GMT

It all comes down to whether the image is placed in context. Bill Henson's images inside a gallery space, surrounded by other portraits and nudes, dared the viewer to see them as non sexual, as ALL images of children should be. The same images placed in public would not have had the same background, and the viewer would not have read them with the intended perception.

At best, the magazine cover was poor judgment, as the image could not and would not always be viewed in an artistic light, and it has been forced upon unwitting viewers [unlike if it were in a gallery that people enter by choice, with an artistic viewpoint].

At worst, the magazine was cashing in on someone elses publicity and controversy.

re: Magazine Fights Censorship With Nude Six-Year-Old Cover Girl

GG — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:13:53 GMT

defines "provocative" or i will sue every single children fashion designers.

re: Magazine Fights Censorship With Nude Six-Year-Old Cover Girl

profrobert — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:03:37 GMT

Sorry, but this is exploiting children, who by definition cannot give informed consent. It is not possible to "validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art." I don't believe that these people are pornographers (that is, I don't believe this is being done for titillation purposes), but they are exploiting these children's nudity and sexuality to make a political point, which is wrong, too.

re: Magazine Fights Censorship With Nude Six-Year-Old Cover Girl

mwilk8mk — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:52:32 GMT

I wonder if any of the children had any say in posing...

re: Magazine Fights Censorship With Nude Six-Year-Old Cover Girl

youngmodern — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:46:08 GMT

what is art?