portrait Thoughtful

Eventually babies will be born with clothes on. As for the picture ... great composition and great lighting. Having the subject face the edge of the frame like this implies some sort of tension which is very visible with the facial expression.

 

And I have no problem whatever with the subject matter.

 

People really do need to start wearing looser undergarments. You would think they were born with clothes on.

It's unfortunate, but true, whether anybody likes it or not, that if the wrong person saw this on the wrong day, that the photographer could very likely end up arrested.

 

Personally, I think the photographer knew exactly what he was doing, and was deliberately pushing the envelope. Most of this entire conversation could have been avoided by raising her hand another inch to conceal her nipple and create a much more innocent image.

 

This is not an innocent snapshot. It was deliberately done to be provocative. Not necessarily erotic, but provocative, and that might be all it takes.

 

No, there is nothing wrong with the human body. I have no prudish feelings or on the other hand I am not excited by this image. It is a well lit, well composed, well exposed (no pun intended) image. The crop is bold and interesting.

 

The question is, do you want the discussion to be about your image or about whether you should be arrested? It's your choice and you knew it when you made this photograph.

I don't see a nude child as some have suggested, I see a child without a shirt on. What kind of mind assumes she is nude without seeing the larger picture? I have no way of knowing what is below the photo.

 

I don't see a child looking at her undeveloped breasts. That never occured to me until I read someone's comment. So I studied the image and she is looking at her arm. I see a child looking downward with a thoughtful look. What kind of mind assumes she is looking at her "breasts"?

 

I don't see pornography. I see a beautiful moment captured. What kind of mind assumes this is pornography?

 

I don't see an exploited child as some suggest. I see innocence illustrated. I see trust. I see love. What kind of mind assumes she is exploited and then recommends that her parent continue to exploit her.

 

I live in the Midwest of the USA. A region noted for it's morally conservative views. During the summer, at beaches, in yards, it is not uncommon to see girls of this age with out a shirt on.

 

I am concerned that so many comments used the word nude. One dictionary defined nude as: 1. Having no clothing; naked. 2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body.

 

This does not fit that definition. What kind of minds wants it to fit that definition.

 

Unfortunately, what I do see is that with many of the comments, a vitriolic tone. Some have voiced there concerns evenly and with control. But many have not and I wonder what kind of mind responds so quickly with such vitriol.

 

I venture to guess this child will one day, as a woman, look back at this image with pride and fondness.

I think that this is a wonderful picture. I don't agree with any of the people trying to make more of this than it actually is. It reminds me a bit of the work of Jock Sturges in that the model has a very natural expression. I hope that you continue making your art and are not discourged by people who feel being nude is bad. Clearly they don't see the beauty of the photograph... they simply see someone nude and don't like it.

On the side of the people who don't like the image. That is fine. You don't have to like it. I hope that they all continue to take picture of people in clothes.

There are a lot of nut jobs out there...thats who see's all the things you are asking. Laws are put in place to protect the defenseless, children being the most defenseless of them all. While you and I aren't sexually excited by this image and see it for the innocence that it is, please don't be naive enough to think that everyone see's it the same way. The subjectification of children is a hot button issue. Ask Sally Mann. Ask Jock Sturges. Because they are well known has not made them free of the hassles that come with the art that they have chosen to produce. This is a thin line that needs to be walked.

 

The fact remains, that as innocent as you and I see this image, the very real possibility exists that in the United States, that this photographer could possibly be arrested for making it.

This photo is so repulsive it should be removed from Photo.net immediatly. No one should exploit a young girl like that.

 

Its also bull siht that its a bad photo because people find it erotic. One has nothing to do with the other. ITs a bad photo because this is a youg child! period, end of story!

 

I hope this photographer never posts sucha horrible picture again!

The man above joined photonet today only in order to make this remark. He has rated nothing else. Take no notice of him. I am woman with two children and my opinion is that this is a very charming photo of a child. If anyone sees anything else in it, it is they that are sick.

Très belle image, mais pourquoi ce cadrage particulier?

Beautiful photo. Nasty debate. This business of the "web risks" is becoming an excuse for all sorts of sick people to masquerade as "concerned parents" and the like and raise issues that a sane person simply wouldn't think of at all. The idea that anybody can be arrested in the USA for making and posting such a photo is ludicrous. The USA are under risk but, as far as I understand from my friends, my readings and my trips, are still far from becoming Iran or the Talebans' Afghanistan. In Europe, thank God, the very idea of this photo being seen as "pornography" is simply ridiculous. I have had similar remarks concerning an even chaster photo of my daughter, and replied that, even if some sick bloke somewhere in the Net gets excited or misuses it, I don't really give a damn - I simply refuse to self-censor my whole existence for fear of "InterNet abuses". And then, what is this meek willingness to accept whatever fundamentalist excess may come from the sickest part of a Nation or of the international community? Isn't photography a form of art, or at least a form of information, and aren't art and information supposed to be free and to fight censorship, rather than tamely accept it?

In the US you can get arrested for many reasons.

For making love, in "not approved" positions...*L*

The moral of that country leaves much to be said!

I don´t understand what the fuzz is all about regarding this pic?!

I'm not defending anything either way...simply stating the facts. The United States, whatever you feel about its "morals" usually start out with the best of intentions.

To me, it comes down to context, and where one draws the line. I personally would never post a photograph of a barechested girl this age, because I think some pedophiles might get a charge out of it and I wouldn't want to enable them. So the cost of posting this picture (a hopefully small number of perverts get illicit gratification) outweighs the benefit of posting it (a hopefully large number of non-perverts enjoy the photograph from an artistic perspective). I personally would not be comfortable posting any photographs of my children on the web, even fully clothed. Because they are this girl's age or younger, I'm just not ready for them to go out into the big bad world alone, no matter how beautiful I think they are.

Regarding context, I look at it this way. A barechested girl this age seems perfectly innocent in her family's backyard with her parents, siblings and a sprinkler or a pool, but what if her parents put her on a stage in the middle of Central Park with no shirt on, so that members of the general public can judge and comment on her beauty? That's not for me, and I think that is one reason people don't like this type of photograph on the internet. No need to get nasty about it, but you can answer for yourself whether the internet is more like a family's backyard or a stage in Central Park.

And to the person who waxed nostalgic about the glorious days of innocence gone by, think again. If you believe America had less hang-ups when you were a child, you're kidding yourself.

If someone is looking for pornography, they will find it. If there is someone out there looking for an image like this - with disturbing reasons - they will find it. The problem is not with the child, the photographer, or the image - it's the people who look at this photo and react inappropriately.

 

This is a beautiful photograph. The tones are wonderful and the girl looks innocent and thoughful. I can guarantee you that she couldn't care less if she had a shirt on. The bliss of childhood ignorance and the wonderful lack of physical shame.. that's what makes this such a wonderful image. It's not disgusting. It's not erotic. It is a picture of a child. In my experience this is how many children of that age spend their time.

 

If you're looking for 'dangerous' photos you'll find them - it's how you choose to see it.

Open your minds, the overwhelming majority are not perverts or deviants.

 

This is a beautifull, artistic, well composed photo of a child! Nothing more than that! If someone get some strange ideas about it, should find some professional psyquic help. Marcus, don't change a thing! That's a great photo!

First I have to say thank you to all of you that visits this site and sees my picture. When I first took this image and posted it I thought that it was just a great photo and I would never have any idea what kind of impact it would have on people. I also wants to thank all of you who supports me. First I thought that mayby I was "sick", but I have understanded that most of you sees the picture the way my intention was. Therefore I will still keep my head up high and be proud of this image.

Once again, thanks

Until I read this thread, I hadn't really understood the Satanic Panic of the 80s, when day-care workers were sent to prison on the flimsiest of pretexts and the most ludicrous charges; when self-appointed experts on ritual abuse coaxed terrible imaginery stories out of children, and got towns and states in an uproar over dangers that didn't exist.

 

I'm saddened by those who claim this photo is somehow wrong because it could provide fodder for pedophilia. As others have observed, there's lots of material on this site that could be used that way. I'm sure that somewhere, someone has masturbated while looking at the more adult photos, too. It changes nothing.

 

We're trying to protect ourselves by creating a culture of fear, where even the most absurd possibility of danger is reason to abstain. We're imprisoning ourselves in the cells that should be built for child molesters, who will commit their crimes regardless of what we do or don't.

 

One more thing: I have to wonder if the majority of the people decrying this photo have spent much time around naked children and nudity in general. Having done so myself, both in art classes and while changing the diapers and giving baths to my niece and nephew, I have a very clear feeling on when nudity is sexual and when it's not. The nudity in this photo is not, and pleading the danger of child molesters seems like a dodge for dealing with one's own discomfort with a lack of that clarity.

I think this image is quite beautiful. I don't quite understand how one may assume she is nude if she is not wearing a shirt. She still even possesses the quite androgenous body of a young child. Her genitalia aren't exposed, nor is she behaving in a way that is sexually suggestive. By the way, how do you know she's looking at her own "breasts?" I can barely see past her eyelids.

 

I wish someone had done an image like this of me when I was young so that I could enjoy it and treasure it now...but I lost the ability to appreciate the joys of innocence as a child due to going through puberty at the age of six and a half.

Marcus do not despair on another image the photographer was queried on taking a picture of a sleeping child!!!!! http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1760206

 

Obscenity is in the mind of the beholder.

 

Lenny Bruce in the early sixties used to comment "which would you prefer your child to see ? Two people making love OR a war movie with people having limbs blown off, people in distress etc.

 

The war movie of course is not real and the kids really enjoy it! Love hurts?!

 

Marcus you got hi jacked. I'm just trying to say it is a nice image and I do not agree with the idea that the image is horrible.

 

However I would not like a child of mine to read the above if she was the subject of the image. It would certainly confuse and probably be hurtful to her, that would be my prime concern at the end of the day.

 

Louis

I love this photo and wish i had taken it. I especially love the composition and the warmth of the flesh tones. I see zero sexuality here - at first glance wasn't even certain if this was a boy or girl! The child is not looking at her breast. Her eyes are closed. Her arms are folded, she's closed up at the moment - the composition of her body in the corner heightens this. To me the photo shows that tension - in her nudity she is open like a baby and yet on the other hand she's trying to control her world. The pornography argument is just silly.

You said "I felt that any clothing on this child will make it just as every other photograph and I feel that the lack of clothing shows the childs vulnerability."

 

You are correct, and that's where I have a problem - it seems her vulnerability was taken advantage of while your own image is hidden under a veiled blur. Sorry.

One word- Beautiful.

I like it. Nothing 'erotic' here at all. One thing though. At first I mistook her arms for a thick towel or something- maybe her arms need more distinction?

 

Two comments to the people who feel this is too sexual:

1) a photographer in the UK was in the news because she had a picture of HER baby daughter naked on the beach glowering at the camera. It was a GREAT shot. Showed perfect grumpy baby face. The last thing you noticed was 'nakedness'. The news made it into a story because they were bored. Most people I knew just thought it was a good cute baby pic.

 

2. My sister, when she was young used to have short hair and swim topless. A kid asked her 'are you a boy or a girl' once, because she had no top on. At that age- a girls upper body is identical to a boys. Boys topless are fine. What is wrong with this?

 

(And she looks like she's half asleep, not staring at absence of breasts...)

 

oh, and I'm female. In case that's not obvious by my name... ;)

 

the subject and how you thought is really good, but it's not nice to cut the hands and her hair,you could take the photo a little bit downer and a little to right....

First, get your facts straight! I signed up for photo.net today and saw this picture and was compelled to write. I did not sign up specifically to write about this picture.

 

Second you have 2 children, and see nothing wrong with this photo. Will someone please call child services! Moreover, just like you are expressing your opinion, I have expressed mine. To say that you should not take my opinion into account because I am a new member is crazy. How do you know what my photo background is? Maybe I am a professional photographer? Maybe I am a law school professor, specialising in 1st ammendment issues? would my opinion be more valid to you then? If I were a member for 5 years and had rated hundreds of photos would you all of a sudden think my opinion was better? Or is it your belief that your opinion is the only opinion that counts? I think the latter is the real answer. Its a classic liberal point of view, you either agree with me or you are wrong. Thats your philosophy Daniela, right? Well guess what sweatheart, I don't agree with you and your still wrong!!!

 

You can not minimilize my opinion by saying I have only been a member for 1 day. How about I minimilze your opinion by the fact that you have been a member for more than a year without posting any pictures? You like to comment, but not put yourself out there for review.

 

Do not ever minimalize someone's opinions. Its the most dangerous form of censorship out there.

 

Lastly, I agree with the posts that say this is not pornographic. I also agree with the posts that say this child should not be posing nude, because she is to young. She is what 10, 12? You do not pose nude at that age! There should be no debate on that point. All of you who say you should, I am waiting for pictures of your 10-12 year old to show up.