Art or abuse? Image of naked girl on cover of arts journal causes controversy

blah blah blah , this is clearly not an obsence photo. The child is covered up and is only portraying the body as a beautiful thing. Why must people make an argument out of anything and everything.

She's not even real. It's just a painting.....a really crappy painting but a painting non-the-less. Give it time....soon that women who has become famous for taking pictures of babies will be accused of participating in child porn.

JESUS! Michaelangelo would be sick at the controversy!

No one wants to say that the child looks bad because that means they noticed it and makes them look bad themselves.

Well, I don't have an issue with stating it's wrong.

Since no one stated a positive about this...something great coming from viewing this....guess there's nothing great about it.

I guess you did not realize that I was being sarcastic about my parents, grandparents etc...Read it again with sarcasm Plz. I also meant all the haha photos take of their children in diapers, in the tub, on a bear rug etc...Sorry my sarcasm did not reach through the internet!

OMG!!! my parents, grandparents and even my great-grandparents were all sexual predators!! I agree with all the responses that said in essence...it's the viewer that sees the sexuality in it, not the person who shot the photo or created the art...I believe anyone who can sexualize this photo had an inherrant problem with the human form, which by the way has been cherished-idolized-immortalized-admired(insert your favorite word here)...since the beginning of time as we know it...Is the statue of David porn? Lest we forget the story in the Bible about the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her hair--and depicted in many art forms--does this constitute a fetish? We all could go on and on, throughout history and deemed so much of the things we may hold dear as pornography, are we ready to do that?

It's good to see that this article creates controversy of this magnitude. Let me tell you a story that should really create an outrage, not just controversy.

Approximately 5 years ago a prominent doctor my town was arrested, tried and imprisoned for 5 years for child pornography. End of story? As far as the Department of Justice is concerned it is. The real story is the How, and Why, of it all. It all started with the doctors nurse. It seems that the doctor had a picture of his granddaughter as his screen saver. Was she naked? Or in some sexually suggestive pose? No, she was in a fairy costume, but you could see her nipple through the fabric. His nurse, a religious fanatic demanded he remove the offensive photograph immediately. Of course the doctor refused, it was his computer, in his office, and it was after all his granddaughter's picture. The nurse complained to the Local Police, they interviewed the doctor and dropped the complaint. Not satisfied yet, the nurse went to the U.S. Attorney, they in-turn sicked the FBI on the poor doctor, seizing his computer where they found more pictures of his granddaughter. Some were of her at 2 months old, butt up on a bear-skin rug in front of the fire place, some were of her at 4 months old taking a bath in the sink. He was indited, tried, and sent to prison for 5 years for "possession of child pornography". He is now labeled for life as a sexual predator. He lost his license to practice, and his life as he knew it.

In a rash of paranoia every professional with similar pictures on their computer hard drives made a mad dash to have them "permanently" removed. As a Computer Tech my business was overwhelmed for about a month. Then one day it was over. The doctor was in prison. Out of sight, out of mind. The panic was over, as was the outrage over this governments knee-jerk reaction to something so innocent.

Tomorrow when this story is no longer news, everything will be back to normal, and the powers that be will say, "We dodged the bullet again," because only we can demand that the government listen to the people as a whole, not just the faith based radicals.

ok...it's not mortons salt that depicted the little girl with a dog pulling down the backside of her bottoms, it was coppertone tanning lotion...ask your parents or grandparents, they'll remember. I grew up close to a beach with huge billboards that advertised coppertone lotion with the little girl and doggie...by the way, in Florida, a minor can be photographed in the nude as long as there no act of sex or sexual content within the photo...just ask Joe Francis famous "girls gone wild" videographer...its all crazy

I do not see that as sexual at all. Seriously, for me it is just an image of a young girl. Kids run around naked. All natural. No big deal!

yes, "sexual" is subjective.
and although her pose here serves a function, it also unfortunately mirrors many obviously sexualized magazine covers.

As an artist I see it only as an artwork that is natural and beautiful. The problem it is not in the artwork but on what is going on in other people head. They will perceive it according with their culture and education or lack of it for that matter.

it would be one thing if all she was wearing was a lacy thong or some silk stockings with her ass in our face...
thats more pornographic.
somebody study art here!
sally man or egon schiele!
its not pornography!

i say this isnt abuse, if it was it wouldnt b eon the cover of a magazine

"child protection campaigner claim that all nude images of children are sexual and should be banned," eh? Sounds like SOMEone needs to get his or her mind out of the gutter.

but she is not showing anything or doing anything sexual so considerably it is not porno

This issue is seemingly way deeper than art v. porn. Remember that saying that you were taught in grade school "One man's trash is another man's treasure?" Each person's perspective on a situation is different than the next. A person perspective is created though life teachings and experiences (basically everything that make one's self a unique self). Because everyone has a different perspective, it is possible that this particular battle of perspectives may never be won by one side. There will always be a person who thinks it's art and a person who thinks it's porn.

Art ? yes and quite interesting art at that.
porn ? um . .no. the girl isnt being forced to do anything sexual and she isnt revealing anything sexual.
my only consern would be how she felt after sitting buke naked on a lumpy clam for at least an hour not moving an inch.

2) if we are going to prosecute people for what they are thinking in their heads when they see a picture, why aren't we prosecuting viewers of violence?

Think about this:

1) we prosecute people because they look at a picture, their lives are destroyed, the rest of us have to support them while they are in prison and when they leave prison it's nothing but misery for them and the people in the community they 'try' to inhabit.

So, for the 'crime' of viewing an arguably distasteful picture, we all are made to suffer and our stupidly punitive system only compounds the problems for the "perp" and society alike. Brilliant! Welcome to planet STUPID!

Sure, we don't want to encourage nor enable the 'kiddy-porn' creators to violate or exploit children. We all agree on that, but how to go about it is another thing.

Now, how about somebody answer my question?

How / why is it that Morton's Salt used that image as just a cute picture for decades and now it's pornographic? Or was it always pornographic and all our grandparents sick bastards?

Who da hell cares about Art? Everything in this world, EVERYTHING has to have respect. YOU CANNOT PICTURE a NAKED CHILD, even LESS PUBLISH IT!!!!

This is not the classic white-black-asian kids pictured having fun, this is a Little Girl posing. A little girl that has nothing to do in a "Waterfall"

The Picture is terrible anyway.

The American laws on this subject are pretty crazy as well. Many don't know it, but all of us who have read this story could be found guilty of child pornography - as soon as you click, your browser downloads the picture onto your hard drive, which constitutes endorsing kiddie porn. In a variety of cases, courts have shown that downloading nude photos of kids, even in a variety of non-sexual contexts (such as this obviously artistic one), does not constitute free speech.

How crazy is that?

Is it art? Sure, why not, everything is art after PoMo.

Is it porn? That's tough to say. The girl isn't doing anything sexual. She's naked, but she's a child. How many pictures of naked infants do you see in popular magazines? Do we ban those too, because someone might get off on it?
Some people consider teen celebrity magazines to be porn, remember that movie 'Happyness'? Should magazines made for young teens be banned because pedophiles get sexually aroused by them? Where do you draw the line?

Unfortunately, whether this picture is socially acceptable or not, there will always be pedophiles.

Oh for pete's sake! It is "just" a painting! The only thing incorrect is that the magazine's management decided to put it on the cover..full well knowing the controversy that would insue...or was it a clever PR move to sell more magazines? Regardless, the nude as subject for paintings has been one since man first began to paint on cave walls.

Anyone notice Morton's Salt doesn't use the picture of the little girl in a bathing suit with the dog pulling her bottom down?

How / why is it that Morton's Salt used that image as just a cute picture for decades and now it's pornographic? Or was it always pornographic and all our grandparents sick bastards?

If a society defines "civility" and mental health on someone's perception of the mind of people who suffer from "arrested development" - what does that say about that society - or the "allegedly" healthy policy and decision makers in that society?

Is it better for the healthy minded to inform those less fortunate, or for the unfortunate to impose it's dysfunctional view on the majority?

If the "dysfunctional" view is imposed on the majority by the policy and decision makers - are they the "dysfunctional" suffering from "arrested development"?

If I see something different than you, am I guilty of your thoughts?

Shallow thinkers?

Art.

If I was a parent, I'd simply discuss how this would be a controversy. Let the child know. What is there to hide.

I think artists find a way to be original to express themselves. Or so I would think cause I feel that way atleast. It's the attention, to leap from the rest and be recognized.

See this piece as something else other than art, nobody can help you. See past what the society tells you to see, maybe then you'd appreciate it.

This clearly is not pornographic. It is a repersentation of youth. Art is not pornography. It never has been and I hope it never will be. It is not like the child is being raped or having any sexual contact in this picture. And honestly I think it is a nice peice. If someone can't look past the nudity then don't observe this peice. Becuase people take it the wrong way, controversey such as these are started. Becuase the media has put out the image that "Everyone who paints anyone or thing naked is a pervert or rapist." When acctually it is just art. the human body should be respected as art, but of course women and men these days show off there bodys as if they are peices of meat to be eaten up. This peice should honestly be left alone. No crime has been comitted.

I think it's an incredibly sad state of affairs when people feel the need to sexualise an image which to 99.999(etc..)% of the population would just see as a cute kid: it's a natural human reaction to respond positively to kids, and painting is great too right, so what's the problem?

Imagine this was a naked adult; the only possible argument (that I can think of) could be that some people might be offended by it. I challenge you to think of someone who could be 'offended' by this picture?

If somebody's brain is wired to be aroused by this image, the that's a real problem. Just showing the image, however, is not going to TURN anyone into a Paedophile, and to argue that seeing an image like this would make a paedphile go out and snatch a kid, is to say that we shouldn't have naked babies on nappy (diaper) boxes, or really images of kids anywhere; and who would really want to go that far?

Also, J_Jammer, your "I hope pedophiles get off on this picture" comment was either incredibly poorly thought out, or else it's the more likely answer.

Aussie down!

It's a thin line between indecency and art but I'm pretty sure this falls on the side of art with plenty clearance. The problem is the next one will be closer to the edge and the one after that closer still until we actually cross that line.

Naked kid aside, it's a pretty bad advert.

well Im more shocked with the Ozzy PM being very nasty & calling her innocent little body "disgusting" ...I mean, thats just not very nice is it?

If an American citizen was caught with this same picture, but not on a magazine just a photo, they would face charges and possible go to jail.

I hope pedophiles get off on this picture.

Free porn for them.

I also hope that a man takes children and draws them in such a fashion as this and people who back this back him for doing the same exact thing. Except he'll be selling to clients of a specific need.

It won't be pornography, considering people have already deemed this kind of wonderful creation as art for the public viewing.

I hope to see every single one of you standing up for such a man when he emerges.

Or are you tasting bare feet?

I think it's a lovely picture. Nothing bad about it. Some people need to lighten up.

One big non-issue.

There's nothing bad about this painting, it's only "disgusting", if you're a disgusting person.
It's a classical stimulus painted in the impressionistic strategy. I'm curious to know why this magazine chose this to be the cover, knowing how sensitive the mass media is.

This is ridiculous. The picture doesn't seem to be sexualising the girl in any way, and I doubt very much that Art Monthly Australia put made it their cover picture for the 'sex appeal' (at least I sincerely hope not).

I actually find the over-sensitive readiness of the press and Rudd to sexualise anything like this more disturbing.

Jesus christ. The world's gone crazy! This is just a little naked girl, no sexual content or context, and those who get so worked up about it and think there's something sexual about this are saying more about their state of mind than the image itself. It's just an innocent photo, taken entirely consensually by a mother.

Argh, this drives me nuts! There is clearly something very wrong with Kevin Rudd et al. Where is this craziness going to end? Will parents' houses be searched, their photo albums raided and photos of their kids in the bath confiscated? If so, my parents are going to be in big trouble. We've even got the obligatory 'naked-on-the-rug-in-front-of-the-fire-with-cute-little-bums' shot. Cos we were KIDS! And kids run around naked. And its OK!

It's a shame that we even have to debate this stuff as thought there is a real issue.

shameful what causes controversy these days...

so boring!

First - kristianbrodie - Australia is not part of Britain... But the country does encompass the worst parts of both Britain and the U.S.

Porn is porn, looked at by people who look at porn.
This is not porn, nor will many people be looking at it like it is porn. If they do, so be it. Some people look at feet, shellfish and other wierd things but we don't ban pictures of those. Maybe the problem should be addressed at the source - social responsibility and education.

Its not sexual and its so true that nothing is innocent any more. It is crazy that a teacher is unable to comfort an upset child because of the fact that it could appear like molestation. Sure, it is questionable that a child of 6 can understand the connotations of such a photo of themselves, however I believe that intention is what sullies things. How many people have old baby photos of themselves or their siblings in the bath etc...parents could be taken to court for pornography charges if we took it that far.
There is such a razor fine line but sometimes people just go overboard. If it were an illustration of a child, no one would bat an eyelid and take it for granted that it was art, even if a real child posed for it

This isn't sexual. Clearly not.

Getting worked up about this sort of thing is a favourite pastime of the British press it seems. All this acheives is a paranoid and hysterical atmosphere surrounding anything to do with children. Nothing is innocent any more.