portrait Thoughtful

I agree, this is a beautiful photograph and also a successful one based on the raging debate it has sparked. I, too, see no pornographic aspect to it. That said, I can assure you that it has certainly already found its way onto a porn site or news group somewhere on the internet and THAT is why I feel that while there is nothing inherently wrong with taking this photograph, there is a problem with posting it on the internet. Just my 2 cents.

In my opinion, art is achieved when a piece forces an interpretation in its viewer. Therefore, judging by the number and wide range of comments you've elicited, this is indeed art.

artful picture, wonderfully photographed!

interesting discussion about art, pornography.:-)....a psycholgical study of turning paranoid ......maybe even an explanation why a superpower started the war against poor Irak....

kind regards, helmut

Marcus. Hold your head up and feel proud, the image is wonderful and intimate. Sad that it sparks this dull old debate. The image is not pornographic, but you just know it will get the Americans going (sorry, and a few Belgians). Any abuse of children is sad, and childporn should be punished hard and Dutroux should hang by his balls until death (how could you possibly bring him up in the context of this image???). For a parent to shoot such a tender and beautiful image of their child and to post it here is perfectly fine. I guess we Scandinavians have a much healthier attitude towards the human body (adult or child) than the the ones demonstrated in this debate. If you really want to protect children, stop feeding them happy meals and coke three times a week, start them exercising, make the roads safer, decrease pollution, ban the use of Phtalates in products for children and drop the hysterical fuss over this lovely image!

 

Anders Hald

I'm sorry photo.net patrons but Brian has already won the war. He accomplished his goals the same way national terrorist such as abortion clinic bombers and international terrorist like the Al-Queda network (who think their opinion is so right that it justifies their extremism) have struck fear in the U.S and the Global Community. But lets give kodus to the ladies and gentlemen like Marcus, Stephen, Nana, TAS, Venkat and the many others who fight by the rules of engagment while the 'IT'S-NOT ART-terrorists' (not directed to Brian, but to those who can't express an opinion withoug losing it) resort to using the forum equivilant of an Improvised Explosive Device - a.k.a 'Flaming' - to paralyze our Photo.net community with fear. I know his tactics have Marcus and many other members of the photo.net community looking over our shoulders... Congratulations Brian from the same community who believes you have the right to express your opinion but never stooped to your level and took off the gloves. We have lost our innocence because of people like you but I just wanted to let everyone know that we see you Brian (directly addressing Brian this time) for what you really are. The person who ruined our Eden and you know what.... you aren't any better than the people you hate so much.

Isn't it funny that everybody that has been commenting seems to have been at the spot when and where this picture has been taken?

My definition of "nude" is: without any clothes. All I can see is that she doesn't have a top. Does that mean that she's not wearing anything else? I don't know, and how most other people do know is a mystery to me.

Another comment said "she's looking at her breasts"... Her what? Anyway, nice job. I mean, usually most people would have to bend their heads much more than this girl is doing. To me she just looks thoughtful, or even the opposite, like resting.

(Note: seeing the title only now, I'm glad I judged it correctly :-)

Conclusion is that most people see what their culture determines they must see. And I'm afraid it's always the same kind of people who think their view is the only correct one and that they have to use violence (or the CAPS LOCK key) to convince people of their view...

To Ivan; I understand how you're feeling - I'm from Belgium too - but I still think you exaggerate a bit (but then it's later in the process too).

And most importantly: very nice tones, although I'm personally not such a fan of the composition (especially because her hair is a bit cut off - you'd think there was enough room to get that too...).

I don't know what is more compelling, the image or the comments.

I have a young daughter. I photograph a lot of children. I am an american. This is a beautiful, dignified shot, reminding me (as the viewer), the simplicity and shamelessness of childhood.

A little moody for a child. Thats funny that people think this is a nude

Shame that this beautiful shot became an outlet of extremism from puritans and nonpuritans.

"If you really want to protect children, stop feeding them happy meals and coke three times a week, start them exercising, make the roads safer, decrease pollution, ban the use of Phtalates in products for children and drop the hysterical fuss over this lovely image!"

Very true, but unfortunately those who disagree with you voted and will vote for the draft-dodging recovering-alcoholic monkey with "moral clarity".

A quick browse through the "Top Photos", I found some displays which are otherwise fun and innocent, which will enrage the Faux-News crowd:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2666860
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2671993

Ok I agree with Andrea Garza. I think also the debate here is that you posted it. I would not post my daughter on her from 10 and up as this.

 

I am concerned that the debate here is on this photo but not on some I have seem as in http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1575012, and http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=861452

 

no one sees any thing wrong on these. but do here. is it because this is a girl. I do believe it is in bad taste with the pose and no shirt in a studio.

Wow ZZ or whatever your name is...you seem to have those pages saved real good. Is that what you do when your not handing out 1/1's on anything decent on this site?

On day one of my Art History 101 class the professor taught us that anyone who uses the critique "That's not art" is not an artist. We may not like it, but there is only one person on the planet who knows if it's art... the artist.

 

As to the argument "the photographer could be arrested in the USA..." Yes, that's true. But it would also be tossed out of court, as was each case against Jock Sturges. According to the laws of this land (America) this is not child pornography.

 

I was born and raised in the U.S., but I also lived in Morocco for two years and in France for two years. At the French beaches girls of all ages go topless and wear g-strings. On the Moroccan beaches mothers wear full Muslem garb while their daughters swim in one-piece suits complete with frilly skirts to cover their lower regions twice. It IS about culture.

 

I'm curious why these photos have not received such a long stream of comments: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2838998

 

Great photo, BTW.

Beautiful tones, wonderful compostion, a very special portrait. Girl~

Is it realy just me that noticed her eyes first? Amazing light and detail in her hair. Also, brilliant job on attracting comments! ;) Oh and to Brian Markowitz (its not art) who said would ansel adams have taken this... In the national portrait gallery (london) there was an exhebition of Cecil beaton, and there was a couple not so dis-simmilar in there... cecil beaton being IMO a much greater photographer!

Art: n., "...The application of skill to the production of the beautiful..." - Webster's 2nd.

Success at said application of skill: this photograph.

The civilised side of the Atlantic: the one you're on, to some; both, to others. Maybe neither.

Infinite series: this discussion.

This American likes it that Photo.Net is a multi-ethnic, multinational, multifaceted community.

Best regards from the right side of the Pacific - at least if North is at the top of your map. ;-) We now return to the imbroglio, still in progress.

Apparently, this photo is still controversial. The first time that I saw a beach in Europe, I was embarrassed for about 10 minutes. It is a shame that people get so uptight about other cultures. This photo is acutally very modest.

Well, I'm a little late to the party, but the thread looks still alive, so let me add me 0.02 EUR.

 

> There is no reason that a child should be photographed in the nude

 

Of course there is. The same reason that makes us photograph beautiful landscapes, flowers, nude women ... her beauty. And this picture is as much art as a landscape by St. Ansel...

 

> You do not pose nude at that age! There should be no debate on that point.

 

Well, you made this rule up, you will have to accept that others debate it. And, by the way, you're wrong...

 

> Is definitely pornography. ... What is the difference between an artistic nude and a pornography ?

 

So you say you can't tell the difference between an artistic nude and pornography, but this is definitely the latter? Well, relax, it's the former (If you count a topless girl as nude.) ...

 

> It is not a vaction snapshot or a chance capture. ... You had to ask her to take off her shirt.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Could easily been shot the way Jock Sturges does it. For those who don't know Sturges work: The adolescent girls on Sturges photos go naked all summer long, he lives among them and just asks them to keep their position when he sees a picture (He can't take real snapshots because he works in large format.).

 

And finally to those who are concerned that such a picture will be abused: That really is a disturbing thought, I agree, but if you really want to be sure to avoid it, you will have to keep all children locked away. When some people can imagine breasts on the flat chest of a seven-year-old girl, they can just as well abuse pictures of fully clothed children...

 

Regards, Andreas

i'm impressed ! this very good and full of respect for this human.

Excellent, thought provoking image. How many children have been maimed, murdered and scared in the name of freedom in Iraq.

I am surprised at the comments that this photo has provoked, when I first saw it I saw a well toned aesthetically pleasing portrait of a young girl. The thought that it might be seen as child porn and morally unexceptable didn't enter my head. If you see any hint of porn in this photo perhaps it is sad reflection on modern society.

 

 

this is a beautiful photograph. i can not see anything wrong with it. congratulations!

Isn't this a photo of a little girl saying her prayers before going to bed?

I didnot know that this TOPIC of nude child photography was going on here on your photograph, Marcus, but I see it was an earthquake!!!

 

I am very much against this kind of Child photography, especially her being half nude in front of us :(

What do I have to feel here??? and she seems even very much ashame and embarrassed!!!

~IMHO!~

 

 

Thank you, Biliana

What if this were an image of a boy? You would all be singing a differnt tune about it. I think the lighting is incredible. I am also a great fan of controversy. Makes one wonder why nudity is seen as so unnatural.