Page 3 of 3
Re: Abuse: In the name of art
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:16 pm
by Jacques
No - sorry Fred, from a discussion elsewhere, though the similarities are somewhat striking.....
Re: Abuse: In the name of art
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:54 pm
by crofter
Jacques I usually respect your opinion on most things on this forum, but I feel with this issue, yes it is slightly sensationalist but lets be honest about it that is the whole sum of the project ... to court controversy. The whole Child Abuse/Paedophile issue don't really come into this project, surely somebody must have signed model releases in these images and the sensationalist values of your post have been grossly overlooked??
It seems child nudity or near nudity has a lot of forumites very, very jumpy, must be the biggest taboo subject still known to man or woman surely though??
Re: Abuse: In the name of art
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:47 am
by Jacques
Fair enough, at least you have an opinion and have thought about it. Would you have a different opinion if a male photographer had taken these images?
Re: Abuse: In the name of art
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:12 pm
by crofter
Hi Jacques, yes the male v female thing does open up a fresh can of worms, personally I would say it would not cloud my judgement on these "posed" photographs if it was a male who was taking them ... of course you can guarantee it would have a major factor with some of the pc crowd though - can anybody clarify if their is such thing as a female paedophile as it just seems to be a male disease/thing??