Remove this painting?

[Rhiannon]

Parents could consent if the model is under-age. Here the model was a neighbour who posed for a number of paintings.

If that's what it was, I don't think there is a problem. If grooming or actual abuse/assault is involved, that is a different matter. The reason photographs of naked children are regarded as illegal porn is not that there is anything wrong with the images themselves, but that it encourages and supports, or is directly the cause of, child exploitation and abuse.

Parents can't consent to something sexual on behalf of the child and that is the question that has to be asked about the sitter here. How did he get her to pose like that? How aware is she of how her pose will be interpreted? What effect did it have on her?

And does this painting have the same effect on predators as photographs of naked children?

[Udayana]

Why would photographs be different to paintings in that regard though?

I think in principle they could be treated the same, also literature (eg. Nabokov, Nin, and more ), but in practice as these are less in demand, more effort to produce, distribute and so on, and can be produced by anyone without any need for a real child, mean that they are not seen as a major problem. Have any such cases made it to court?

[Udayana]

Parents can't consent to something sexual on behalf of the child and that is the question that has to be asked about the sitter here. How did he get her to pose like that? How aware is she of how her pose will be interpreted? What effect did it have on her?

Don't really think that sitting around in underwear or even naked is "sexual". Now, of-course there is lots we would like to ask of Therese - but we can/will never know. That is part of it as "art".

And does this painting have the same effect on predators as photographs of naked children?

I don't know. What is the evidence that photographs do? I think we assume that photographs do from the correlation that convicted paedophiles usually have large collections of such images and with activity in porn and trafficking industries.

[Nearly Sane]

I think in principle they could be treated the same, also literature (eg. Nabokov, Nin, and more ), but in practice as these are less in demand, more effort to produce, distribute and so on, and can be produced by anyone without any need for a real child, mean that they are not seen as a major problem. Have any such cases made it to court?

Interesting point about literature, I suppose in that case we have no evidence of the person being real at all. Though if again there could be a  case where someone uses the literature as evidence of abuse. I think though I may well be wrong that this was sort of used in terms of the prosecution of Graham Ovenden that Shaker covered. And again I may be wrong but I think his paintings were considered as a basis of prosecution for child pornography.

I also suspect that the difference between photography or filming and painting and literature in terms of prosecution is the ease of proof. Which then prompts me to wonder what about virtual child porn that takes a lot of effort to create, involves no actual individual?

[Udayana]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ovenden

So he was prosecuted for photographs and pseudo-photographs -but the case was thrown out.

In 2009 Ovenden was charged with 16 counts of creating "indecent" photographs or pseudo-photographs (i.e., artistic renderings which appear to be photographs) of children, and two counts of possessing 121 "indecent" photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. The 121 images are all versions or stages of the 16 works and had been deleted from Ovenden's computer at the time his home was raided in 2006. The images were subsequently undeleted by police. The prosecution argued that these images are "indecent" and that there can be no defence of creating or possessing "indecent" photographs or pseudo-photographs for artistic purposes. The defence argued that the works 121 images were temporary stages toward the creation of the 16 works, that those works constitute art and in no event were any of the works created with criminal intent. The Crown has not alleged that the images at issue depict any actual children.

His eventual conviction was for indecency and indecent assault on children - some of whom had posed for him.

Interesting point about virtual porn, - could be quite disruptive.
 

[Rhiannon]

Don't really think that sitting around in underwear or even naked is "sexual". Now, of-course there is lots we would like to ask of Therese - but we can/will never know. That is part of it as "art".

I don't know. What is the evidence that photographs do? I think we assume that photographs do from the correlation that convicted paedophiles usually have large collections of such images and with activity in porn and trafficking industries.

When I was five I was asked to take part in a PE lesson in just my knickers, and a man came and watched us with my teacher. Trust me, that felt exploitative - I can remember wanting to go for a pee desperately because it felt so uncomfortable. And I was five.

So look at this picture and consider that Therese will have been asked to pose, just so, arms here, leg here, skirt here, showing a flash of white petticoat...and it's not even the underwear that's the issue.

I think the idea in the Washington Post article that part of this painting's value is that it gets us to consider how to respond to it responsibly is a good one.

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ovenden

So he was prosecuted for photographs and pseudo-photographs -but the case was thrown out.

His eventual conviction was for indecency and indecent assault on children - some of whom had posed for him.

Interesting point about virtual porn, - could be quite disruptive.

Hadn't realised it got as far as being a case to prosecute for pornography but again I think the paintings were used in the actual case as evidence.


I think the virtual porn question is problematic but it highlights the idea that if no actual child is used in the making of the porn does that effectively make it 'victimless' and that has the corollary that if a someone who couldn't consent, and I agree with Rhiannon that a parent cannot give consent here, is used in a painting then that is surely the same as a  photograph or video?

And that triggers off the question about various films where children are involved in adult situations,not necessarily sexual, which are consented to by their parents. Jodie Foster springs to mind.

[Rhiannon]

And now we are getting into Minipops territory, and those beauty pageants for four year olds that are popular stateside.

A few years ago I watched a programme on the Beeb about a seaside landlady who takes in a group of deprived youngsters aged 11 or so from London every year for a holiday. It was one of the sweetest and most uplifting programmes I've watched - until the workers who accompanied the children got some of the boys to perform that scene from The Full Monty for the Talent Night. Only down to their boxers, but wtf? I mean, Wtf? I think it was on probably before I'd even had my kids and some of the debates that have been had around the sexualisation of children hadn't happened then, but even so. Wtf?

[Udayana]

Sorry, I'm lost now. Not sure what it is you want.

[Nearly Sane]

Reading your last post, Rhiannon, and it almost reads like a description of some Brass Eye parody. Skin crawling.


I think the main thing I an taking from the discussion here,which I have really enjoyed, is that the This is ART idea has pretty much no value to justify things.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, I'm lost now. Not sure what it is you want.

Not sure anyone is wanting anything. I think posters are just using the forum here to talk about the thoughts and questions the painting prompts without looking to either make or argue against a specific point. I can understand that it's an unusual approach for here.

[Rhiannon]

Agree with your last two posts, NS, it has been enjoyable, and no, I don't 'want' anything, there are points that raise more questions and thoughts leading to ideas but no answers.

[Nearly Sane]

I am enjoyably even less certain than when I started reading the thread. At first the idea of censoring the picture seemed understandable but wrong, now I dunno - the idea of having the sitter deliberately pose is creeping me out, and yet I still can think that the person could be entirely fictional, and not understand if that makes a real difference.


I am currently the apocryphal  Bulgarian footballer who scored the goal in the confused muddy goalmouth stramash, Fuctivanov

[Owlswing]

(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )

No, you're doing what you do a lot on here and what you do incredibly well - Devil's Advocate!

[Nearly Sane]

(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )

No, you're doing what you do a lot on here and what you do incredibly well - Devil's Advocate!

Not really, I do on occasion but I am honestly struggling with what I think here and enjoying that go

[Robbie]

When I was five I was asked to take part in a PE lesson in just my knickers, and a man came and watched us with my teacher. Trust me, that felt exploitative - I can remember wanting to go for a pee desperately because it felt so uncomfortable. And I was five.

So look at this picture and consider that Therese will have been asked to pose, just so, arms here, leg here, skirt here, showing a flash of white petticoat...and it's not even the underwear that's the issue.

I think the idea in the Washington Post article that part of this painting's value is that it gets us to consider how to respond to it responsibly is a good one.

That used to be quite the thing, wearing PE knickers instead of shorts. I never did it, nor would I, but you even used to see girls playing netball like that sometimes.

[Owlswing]

A question about both pictures. I have looked them again and I wonder if either picture was of live models.

[Rhiannon]

That used to be quite the thing, wearing PE knickers instead of shorts. I never did it, nor would I, but you even used to see girls playing netball like that sometimes.

I'm talking about 5 yr olds, in their underwear, no sports kit, nothing on the top half, being 'inspected' by a man as we did PE. I'm assuming that it was dodgy as I've never heard anyone else say 'do you remember getting your kit off for the PE inspection', ever.   

Cant even think why I mentioned this as relevant now. Will go back and have a look.

ETA -  oh that's right - underwear and whether it is sexual or not.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

When I was five I was asked to take part in a PE lesson in just my knickers, and a man came and watched us with my teacher. Trust me, that felt exploitative - I can remember wanting to go for a pee desperately because it felt so uncomfortable. And I was five.

I have to say that sounds "wrong". As I recall, when I was at Primary School back in the late sixties, we were sent to a doctor who performed some tests on us, but it was nothing too intimate,  we were all, boys and girls,  told to wear PE kit.

Some years later, as teenagers, we were obliged to down our trousers and underpants for a middle aged Indian female doctor to look at our testicles as we coughed. At the time we thought it a bit of a laugh, but in retrospect  they could have sent us a male doctor instead.

[Robbie]

So many 'school doctors' are female GPs but I do believe an effort should be made to recruit a few more males (though....). Adults do need to be sensitive to how kids feel too.  I certainly didn't like queuing for the school medical examination in my underwear - with blazer over the top as we were in a corridor!  Nor standing there undressed, being examined with two staff members present.

Regarding children in underwear, I gather that ordinary underwear (eg white pants) is something that paedophiles find extremely attractive. In the days when children modelled underwear for catalogues, paeds got a lot out of looking at the pictures. Probably because they appeared so natural and innocent.

It's horrible and very sad, a small child in vest and pants would not signify anything to most of us.

[Robbie]

And now we are getting into Minipops territory, and those beauty pageants for four year olds that are popular stateside.

A few years ago I watched a programme on the Beeb about a seaside landlady who takes in a group of deprived youngsters aged 11 or so from London every year for a holiday. It was one of the sweetest and most uplifting programmes I've watched - until the workers who accompanied the children got some of the boys to perform that scene from The Full Monty for the Talent Night. Only down to their boxers, but wtf? I mean, Wtf? I think it was on probably before I'd even had my kids and some of the debates that have been had around the sexualisation of children hadn't happened then, but even so. Wtf?

An extra from me, I meant to respond to this in my last post.

I too think those kiddy beauty pageants are horrible with little girls all made up and posing.
However what you said about those little boys doing 'The Full Monty' is horrendous!  IIRC that film was only approximately 20 years ago, I've not seen it but those who have said it was very funny - for adults though! It's difficult to imagine the adults caring for those kids thought it was appropriate to get them to do it.

[Udayana]

Ah, I see what the problem is... strong emotions about the horrors of child abuse spread out, jumping through association, raising emotions of fear and disgust about activities which may or may not be related, likely entirely "innocent".

It's due to a confusion of the symbolic with actuality.  As an analogy, we know that poaching of elephants occurs because of the demand for ivory. So we ban export/import of ivory, then we ban trade in ivory, then we ban stocks of ivory, then we ban possession of ivory artefacts.. in the end we are burning ancient ivory artworks and possibly looking on neolithic carvings on mammoth tusks in disgust. In actuality, there is nothing wrong with ivory, it is just material from dead animals and entirely suitable for artwork. What is wrong is the murder of elephants - the causes of which we seem to have forgotten to address.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I think that it's precisely the question of what is symbolic as opposed to actuality that is being discussed in the questions about whether the medium used is significant, whether there is a sitter or not, what the circumstances of any sitting is.


Also I think that the ivory example is a false analogy  with an added slippery slope argument where you link the extreme opinion to be what comes from any other position. The analogy seems false to me because the question is whether this in some way validates looking at children sexually. As Rhiannon has pointed out it is only one picture but it is something that might be seen to give it more credit than an ad in a magazine because of the kudos that is attached to art.

[jeremyp]

To be clear, the issue isn't the content but that someone wanted to paint the content, a man in a position of power.

How do you know it was a man in a position of power?

I think it is important that in this debate there is no suggestion that the girl shouldn't have been doing what she was - of course she should, she is at the age of awakening and it is important that both girls and boys feel empowered to explore their sexuality as they grow and not repress it. But she should have been free to do so in private, and this is where the exploitation becomes hideous. And out is important that the exploitation is discussed and not swept away into a museum store cupboard.

In all probability, the subject of the painting was a model. Would it make a difference if the model was really under age in some sense or merely painted to look under age?

To me the painting has no sexual overtones whatever. It's just a girl reclining. Should artists be banned from painting pubescent girls just in case some people see a sexual connotation?

[Nearly Sane]

How do you know it was a man in a position of power?
In all probability, the subject of the painting was a model. Would it make a difference if the model was really under age in some sense or merely painted to look under age?

To me the painting has no sexual overtones whatever. It's just a girl reclining. Should artists be banned from painting pubescent girls just in case some people see a sexual connotation?

He's an adult, and yes, the sitter was a pubescent neighbour.