This is absolutly disgusting. When I first heard about it I didn’t think it was that big of a deal. It is. A little girl laying spread eagle on the floor is not art. For one its unlady like for al ittle girl to be acting like this. Children shouldn’t feel this comfortable naked in front of a lady with a camera. I would punish my children if they acted this way.
====================

well Wendy, i would keep you well away from my kids.

So, practice it as you watch videos!

And limbo dancuing, when done by big girls, is MEANT to be sexy.

i find this picture upsetting and feel that it shouldnt even be displayed on the internet at all.
For those of you who demand to see it, or think its ok, ask yourself…why do you want to see a child nude.
are there parent, are you a tribal native, or are you just a freak that has no life!

leave the kids alone and take this shit down.

In response to:

#261: “I honestly think this photo is stupid! What is Art about it? It figures a GAY person would have a photo like this in their house. Gay people are really f ‘ed up in the head. They always have to do something to put themselves in the spotlight and then if you disagree with them you are considered to be ‘backward’ or ‘not politically correct’. I am so sick of the Rosie and Elton type freaks. Real Art is Van Gogh or Picasso or Monet not this CREEPY photo.”

Art has nothing to do with sexuality of any people concerned (photographer, subject, owner etc) and that point is just as harmful as the photograph. Society has moved on since the artists you mentioned, and of course us artists still pay huge reference to the classics, but the world has changed since paintings of cherubs and Jesus. Get with the times, and get out of your box more often!

Meaning that in creating your population of scapegoats –I mean pedophiles– you are able to convince yourself of your own sanctity, deflect responsibility for your own base instincts elsewhere, and save those charming, sexy –i mean innocent– little girls from their horrible fate.

Well i would call your attitude sanctimonious, and i would not call it harmless.

5. So I know that this doesn’t stop till some-one stops it!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are Supposed to do!
Not just for ourselves, but for all!!!
Here is a Question for you to ponder…
We have Crossing Guards responsible for getting our children safely across the street, not because we as parents haven’t taught them the rules of the child’s own crossing safety but to stop other drivers who may be careless and uncaring of our childs’ safety crossing those streets!
Do we as a parent’s say that I cross my own children, so the Crossing Guards for all children, are not necessary???

Once again I don’t need images to bring about debate about child/sex abuse. I am a father of a 19 year old daughter and I would have been very angry/suspicious of someone that asked if they could take a photo of my daughter like this.

That said, the statement ‘What is important is that the image creates an environment for us to talk about concerns we have about images of children’ is stupid. All such photos do regarding child abuse is to cause people to try to get the photo banned – does, excuse my language, fuck all for a debate on child abuse.

A notice a few people use the old & well worn excuse:
“What is important is that the image creates an environment for us to talk about concerns we have about images of children”

Well excuse me, but we already know that there are plenty of sick people out there that use & abuse children, take photos & video of them so that they and other like minded perverts can get sexual gratification.

To debate this issue and to raise my concerns I don’t need a so called ‘artist’ taking a photo of two children to get me to think about/debate the problem.

Who knew they could be “art”

Don’t think it’s porn but do think it’s a crap picture

Ta muchly

This photo is of nothing more than two girls innocently playing together, which is clear. Not as clear are the photographer’s intentions or motivations. Does she know her subjects? Are they family friends? Why did she take the photo? I am not familiar with the photographer’s history or other subjects/photos. But I am familiar with subject composition. And this photo does not appear to be suitably composed to suggest it is art. The bright flash has thrown a shadow on the back wall. The background distracts from the subjects… basically it just looks like a hastily taken snapshot a parent would have taken with their Kodak. I don’t consider this to have any intrinsic characteristics of what would normally be considered ‘art’. And simply because the photographer classifies herself as an ‘artist’ (or is even widely considered as such) and sells her work does not make this photograph art. Be that as it may, it’s not pornography either, as I’m sure the photographer had no prurient interest when she took the photo. But it might be considered so by someone viewing it with prurient interests. Why would someone other than the parents of these two girls be interested in this photo anyway? Why would they allow them to be the subject of this composition? One might say that the subject of a piece of art is rarely of any interest to the vast majority of its viewers. And therefore any subject should be considered art within its own objective conceptuality. In other words, this photograph must be considered art. Whether it is ‘artistic’ is another matter.

One should consider this photo a picture of two young girls that only their parent should be interested in. Even if I was familiar with the artist and her work, and I appreciated her aesthetics, composition, subjectivity, or style, I would not be interested in this photo. Anyone who is interested in it is kidding himself (or trying to convince others) that he is an aficionado of the ‘artist’. Or he’s simply a pervert. You be the judge.

Although there is a very legitimate reason for the “pose” (though obviously it’s not posed, the bottom child just happened to be positioned like that during the belly dancing), it could count as a sexual pose under U.S. law.

However (though this probably wouldn’t matter in the U.S. where they seem to like to stick to the letter of the law rather than common sense), due to the obvious reason for the positioning of the child (they just happened to be like that whilst playing when the photo was taken), it’s NOT actually pornographic – it’s just kids playing and one just happened to be posed in a way that puts focus on her vagina. Fortunately U.K. judges and prosecutors when it comes to things like this seem have some common sense (shame they don’t seem to have any sense in other areas of law though).

Granted the artist knew what she was doing in order to emote controversy; this should make us consider the state of the art world today and it’s consumer instead of mud-slinging.
There’s plenty of reasons why the piece was initially impounded and there are reasons for why it was returned, which need to be accepted.

….. I believe the woman that took the photo is a lesbian. Now I have concerns about this photo from that point of view……

This woman damn well knew what she was doing when she took this photo.

….. One more point: Why on earth would the children’s parents have agreed to letting their children be photographed in this way? I know if it had been my kids I would have been disgusted. I agree whole heartedly with comment * 34 “…All involved should be ashamed…”

The parents of the two girls should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves

One thing she is very good at is self-publicity through controversy. She’s certainly not a good photographer.