Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Ok, so it's not really blurry since child pornography has a fixed meaning:
18 U.S. Code § 2256 - Definitions for chapter
(11)the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
[note, am omitting a huge chunk of the definition focusing on the remaining portion relevant to the topic which involves 'fine art']
The following article raised an interesting question,
Why is it OK for us to enjoy Caravaggio's paedophile art? – Telegraph Blogs
Paraphrasing, why is it okay to enjoy Renaissance art depicting naked minors but not modern versions? The above article shows one such Renaissance painting of St. John the Baptist by Caravaggio who used an alledgedly prepubescent male assistant. The painting is indeed of a naked youth, but lacks any graphic depiction of the genitalia. But another work mentioned does not. The "Victorious Cupid" which is actually a popular theme in modern hentai art (humans with angelic type wings ala Cupid.)
Googling the modern artist who got in trouble, Ovenden et al., his work is indeed of prepubescent girls both nude and non-nude. As an aside, that Google shows these is curious in and of itself if they're considered by some jurisdictions to be child pornography. Some seem to be photograph-art, others, drawn-art. Will skip my personal opinion no photograph is ever 'art' and crack on.
The history of fine art includes lots and lots of naked people. Men and women, minor boys and girls. It's impossible to discuss art and not eventually come upon some naked person because when people are the subject of the artwork, the beauty of the natural naked human form can't be beat. And it'd be difficult to depict that beauty if every nude deliberately covered the genitals, breasts, or buttocks. Of course, the genitals and such are part of the appreciated beauty. Though I'd say a woman in what seems to be called a micro-bikini is more attractive than the same woman in the same pose completely nude, but that's me.
The overriding question then is is how we define child pornography hypocritical? While a painting or drawing isn't considered child pornography by US Federal Law, sometimes that's exactly what it is. Especially modern versions. Maybe not in the legal sense, but certainly that was the intent. And can an artist's personal tastes like Ovenden make their works less acceptable than if someone without pedophilic inclinations made them? Ovenden didn't get in trouble for the art but for charges he had illegal sexual interactions with his subjects. But so did Caravaggio, and his works are hanging in Rome's finest cathedrals. Laws change over time of course, as do moral standards (point made in the article,) but fine art doesn't (beyond evolution of the various techniques and styles.) If Caravaggio paints a naked boy he had sex with, shouldn't that painting be regarded the same way Ovenden's works are? Or are we making allowances for how 'people used to be' vs how they're supposed to be now?
18 U.S. Code § 2256 - Definitions for chapter
(11)the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
[note, am omitting a huge chunk of the definition focusing on the remaining portion relevant to the topic which involves 'fine art']
The following article raised an interesting question,
Why is it OK for us to enjoy Caravaggio's paedophile art? – Telegraph Blogs
Paraphrasing, why is it okay to enjoy Renaissance art depicting naked minors but not modern versions? The above article shows one such Renaissance painting of St. John the Baptist by Caravaggio who used an alledgedly prepubescent male assistant. The painting is indeed of a naked youth, but lacks any graphic depiction of the genitalia. But another work mentioned does not. The "Victorious Cupid" which is actually a popular theme in modern hentai art (humans with angelic type wings ala Cupid.)
Googling the modern artist who got in trouble, Ovenden et al., his work is indeed of prepubescent girls both nude and non-nude. As an aside, that Google shows these is curious in and of itself if they're considered by some jurisdictions to be child pornography. Some seem to be photograph-art, others, drawn-art. Will skip my personal opinion no photograph is ever 'art' and crack on.
The history of fine art includes lots and lots of naked people. Men and women, minor boys and girls. It's impossible to discuss art and not eventually come upon some naked person because when people are the subject of the artwork, the beauty of the natural naked human form can't be beat. And it'd be difficult to depict that beauty if every nude deliberately covered the genitals, breasts, or buttocks. Of course, the genitals and such are part of the appreciated beauty. Though I'd say a woman in what seems to be called a micro-bikini is more attractive than the same woman in the same pose completely nude, but that's me.
The overriding question then is is how we define child pornography hypocritical? While a painting or drawing isn't considered child pornography by US Federal Law, sometimes that's exactly what it is. Especially modern versions. Maybe not in the legal sense, but certainly that was the intent. And can an artist's personal tastes like Ovenden make their works less acceptable than if someone without pedophilic inclinations made them? Ovenden didn't get in trouble for the art but for charges he had illegal sexual interactions with his subjects. But so did Caravaggio, and his works are hanging in Rome's finest cathedrals. Laws change over time of course, as do moral standards (point made in the article,) but fine art doesn't (beyond evolution of the various techniques and styles.) If Caravaggio paints a naked boy he had sex with, shouldn't that painting be regarded the same way Ovenden's works are? Or are we making allowances for how 'people used to be' vs how they're supposed to be now?
