Great tones and composition!!!1

Very nice. Tones are lovely. The crop works for me.

I fear that in Belgium You could be in serious trouble distributing this kind of photo's.

Sorry I edited this comment a few days after I posted it. As I see the reactions beneath, my reaction was actually a warning that such things were coming. And after the big bang (back in 1996) in Belgium (the Dutroux affaire about child abuse and murder)this kind of photography is beyond the line I keep for myself.

To Ivan, I'm very sorry that you feel this way. I will never feel that a naked child photographed like this is pornography. I hope that you don't feel this way, because that was not my intention. I felt that any clothing on this child will make it just as every other photograph and I feel that the lack of clothing shows the childs vulnerability.

/ Marcus

Beautiful art image with nice tone and composition.Congrats.

A truly, beautiful and peaceful portrait of this young lady. I love the tones an composition.

nice work. like the idea. how about a lil more cropping?

great pic, tone, composition, texture, all of that. Horrible subject matter. There is no reason that a child should be photographed in the nude. There is no artistic quality to child nudity (in my opinion) because of the age of the child. Children are not in the position to make a quantifiable determination if they want to appear nude or not.

I am not saying that you exploited her, or that your intentions were anything but artistic and pure. But a child cannot make that evaluation him/herself and therefore, should not be put in that situation.

That being said, I dont like the cropped version at all. The original version shows the sence of "alone" that I think was an important part of the original expression.

To Umair,

The reason that I use the squared image is first of all that is what comes out of my camera, but I also felt that the calmness that a square does to a picture improves the feeling of this photo. But I like your crop aswell.

Thanks for your comment and analyze.

/ Marcus

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't see the nudity in this picture. Ok, she is showing her breast, but come on. I don't know what country you are coming from, but here in Sweden 7-year-old girls don't have to wear a bikini-top when swimming. On the other hand I agree with you that young children don't understand the consequenses of a photo, but I can't see the pornographic in this picture.

/ Marcus

Get a life dude.....the parents of this kid should feel ashamed. Nothing but child porn!!!

Marcus, your right, part of the difference is a cultural difference. I have lived in Europe and I understand that there are very different moral values between Europe and America. I have tied not to let that influence my opinion, but it may have.

Second, I never said the picture is pornographic. That is the second time you responded to a posting using the word pornographic when the original posting did not imply that. Ivan and I never used the word pornographic, and while I can't speak for Ivan (who was from Denmark, interestingly enough) I dont believe the picture is pornographic.

However, I do feel that children of that age cannot make the informed decision as to whether they should apear in the nude or not. I don't know how you know this child, or what your relationship with her is. Like I said in my last post, I am not implying or insinuating ANY wrong doing on your part. I am sure every ethical consideration was taken into account when you took and posted this picture. However, given the age of the child, I believe you left out the most important ethical consideration...her age! She should not have to be put in the situation where her picture is posted on an international website with her top off. I am sorry, but that is how I feel. The posibility that someone could manipulate this photo for exploitive purposes is to great a risk for a child to understand and appreciate.

Children are children and should remain children for as long as possible!

Brian, I know that you haven't used such strong language as I did, but I assume that you are thinking of child pornography when refarring to this picture. I still agree with your main thoughts that any child don't understands the feelings such photos can have on other people. However when I posted this image I really didn't thought that this image would have such impact on someones feelings. And I just saw the naked body as an extra "touch" (bad choice of words, but I don't speak english as a primary language) that made the child more lonely.

Keith, I feel very sorry for you that you can't see a very nice image of a young child, but as soon as you see some naked skin you just yell child pornography. I really hope that you lightens up and starts to enjoy good art when you see one and not just start to shout without analyzing the image. Maybe easy for me to say that this image is great 'cause I have taken it, but I feel that I'm not lonley when saying so.

/ Marcus

Marcus, this is lovely. Shame on those who think this is exploitation. The feeling conveyed, the care and the affection that shine through, above all the natural-ness, all tell the story. Carry on. Brian Berry

Why pose this child as if she were an adult? I am not saying it is porn (i am not saying it isn't either), but i do not think this photo illustrates the subject.

One thing i am very certain of, more people woul be disturbed by this image if it were in color. I think you have illustrated the "instant art" apect of b/w photography well.

Marcus, quit playing the innocent SOB role. You know exactly what is wrong here. You crossed the line and any idiot can recognize it. Perhaps you should send your 8 year old daughter out to have partially nude shots made of her and have them published on the internet. Wouldn't that make you proud parent? This image needs to be trashed.

The differences in opinions I am reading here are clearly cultural clashes. I know because I have been exposed to them so many times. I was born and grew up in (catholic) South America, lived in Europe as a kid (Holland), and now live in the US. I can think of so many things that bring up differences in moral perceptions, but nudity of any form is par to none.

Cultural differences must be kept in mind in the Global Village. In some countries, any form of skin exposed has a strong sexual context and hence will be found morally questionable. Even photos of children wearing bathing suits here in the US would be considered exploitative in some places. Moral values are localized and it would be hard to come up with a globally acceptable set of guidelines delimiting the gray areas of this issue.

When I see pictures like this I try to understand the intent of the photographer, and whether I feel it has been conveyed in the photograph. As hard as I can try, I do not see anything exploitative in this photo. I see youth; I see vulnerability and perhaps a little sadness – maybe even loneliness. I see those attributes more than the proposed thoughtfulness. But I definitely do not see anything remotely questionable.

My two cents worth as the female speaking here. Yes, I am American, but American or not the one thing that makes this appear more "unsuitable" is that the child is in a studio posing without her clothing on. It's done in a matter that you force the viewer to see what she is looking at, which is her breasts. This is not a beautiful innocent child frolicking on the beach without her top on, this is not a kid in a backyard playing in the water...this is a studio shot intended to make you view her breasts which I find to be of complete distaste and something which even if I found my young sons in the same shot to be more of a shot to be aimed at adults for their pleasure..not artistic ability...but we all have our opinions, that is mine.

Well, not all females feel the same way I'd say! Come on!! Firstly, I see no evidence of nudity here - I cannot see below her arm, but perhaps I can only view a censored version of the photo?! And as another person said, young girls who have yet to develop breasts also needn't cover what is not there, surely?! I am saddened that we - as a society - are having to become more and more guarded in what we are seen to say and seen to do. Have we moved into a police state so slowly that no-one has really noticed yet? Back to the photo: I would say that there would only be a problem here if she was younger than 18, but also old enough to have begun to develop breasts. As she appears to be younger than this (and so not in this range), what is the problem??? This is my opinion, expressed for discussion: I do not try to force my opinion onto others...

I find this photo very sweet and innocent. Perhaps the people who find this as a child pornography and go mad kind of get turned on by this photo? Perhaps you are the ones who should not be allowed on the internet or to see a naked child. I think that's the case here, you get tuned on by this picture. And that's why you find it pornographic ;)

Thanks Pavel, You said exactly what I feel. / Marcus

My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs. and spread mayo on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn't seem to get food poisoning.

My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter AND I used to eat it raw sometimes too, but I can't remember getting E-coli.

Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake or quarry instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring - and dangerous).

The term "cell phone" would have conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system. We all took gym, not PE ... and risked permanent injury with a pair of high-top Ked's (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training athletic shoes with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors. I can't recall any injuries, but they must have happened because they tell us now much safer we are.

Flunking gym was not an option ... even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym.

Every year, someone taught the whole school a lesson by running in the halls with leather soles on linoleum tile and hitting a wet spot. How much better off we would be today if we only knew we could have sued the school system.

Speaking of school, we all said prayers and the pledge and staying in detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention. We must have had horribly damaged psyches.

Schools didn't offer 14-year-olds an abortion or condoms (we wouldn't have known what either was anyway), but they did give us a couple of baby aspirin and cough syrup if we started getting the sniffles. What an archaic health system we had then. Remember school nurses? Ours wore a hat and everything.

I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself. How retro!

I just can't recall how bored we were without computers, Play Station, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital cable stations. I must be repressing that memory as I try to rationalize the denial of the dangers that could have befallen us as we trekked off each day a mile down the road to some guy's vacant lot, built forts out of branches and pieces of plywood, made trails, and fought over who got to be the Lone Ranger.

What was that property owner thinking, letting us play on that lot? He should have been locked up for not putting up a fence around the property, complete with a self-closing gate and an infrared intruder alarm. Oh yeah ... and where was the Enadryl and sterilization kit when I got that bee sting? I could have been killed!

We played king of the hill on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites and, when we got hurt, Mom pulled out the 48 cent bottle of Mercurochrome and then we got our butt spanked. Now it's a trip to the emergency room, followed by a 10-day regimen of $200 worth of antibiotics, and then Mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving a horribly dangerous pile of gravel where it was such a threat.

We didn't act up at the neighbor's house either, because if we did, we got our butt spanked (physical abuse) there too ... and then we got our butt spanked again when we got home. Mom invited the door-to-door salesman inside for coffee, kids choked down the dust from the gravel driveway while playing with Tonka trucks (remember why Tonka trucks were made tough ... it wasn't so that they could take the rough Berber in the family room), and Dad drove a car with leaded gas. Our music had to be left inside when we went out to play, and I am sure that I nearly exhausted my imagination a couple of times when we went on two week vacations. I should probably sue the folks now for the danger they put us in when we all slept in campgrounds in the family tent.

Summers were spent behind the push lawnmower and I didn't even know that mowers came with motors until I was 13 and we got one without an automatic blade-stop or an auto-drive.

How sick were my parents? Of course they weren't the only psychos. I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his tricks on the front stoop until he fell off. Little did his Mom know that he could have owned our house! Instead she picked him up and swatted him for being such a goof. It was a neighborhood run amuck.

To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they were from a dysfunctional family. How could we possibly have known that we needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes? We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills, that we didn't even notice that the entire country wasn't taking Prozac!

How did we survive?

All to say, the times are a changin... sadly.

Jean

I think I agree with you Jean. Let's look at a bottom line here. Any nude photo here has the potential in this day of technology to be posted on less than upstanding web sites. More bluntly, it will be abused. For example, Leica, I've got to assume that some of your pictures have shown up in places you did not authorize. I assume that this childs parent understands this, as should any model who is portrayed here. That's all. The picture itself is beautiful and extremely well done.

Guys with the "horrible subject" oppinion,

are you saying the same when you see half or fully naked children portraits in the National Geographic, or in the news programs, that are very poor or sick african, indian, etc children? I bet "child abuse"etc. does not even cross your mind then. Or, i hope it does not. Cheers.

Beautiful portrait,by the way.

Eventually babies will be born with clothes on. As for the picture ... great composition and great lighting. Having the subject face the edge of the frame like this implies some sort of tension which is very visible with the facial expression.

And I have no problem whatever with the subject matter.

People really do need to start wearing looser undergarments. You would think they were born with clothes on.

It's unfortunate, but true, whether anybody likes it or not, that if the wrong person saw this on the wrong day, that the photographer could very likely end up arrested.

Personally, I think the photographer knew exactly what he was doing, and was deliberately pushing the envelope. Most of this entire conversation could have been avoided by raising her hand another inch to conceal her nipple and create a much more innocent image.

This is not an innocent snapshot. It was deliberately done to be provocative. Not necessarily erotic, but provocative, and that might be all it takes.

No, there is nothing wrong with the human body. I have no prudish feelings or on the other hand I am not excited by this image. It is a well lit, well composed, well exposed (no pun intended) image. The crop is bold and interesting.

The question is, do you want the discussion to be about your image or about whether you should be arrested? It's your choice and you knew it when you made this photograph.

I don't see a nude child as some have suggested, I see a child without a shirt on. What kind of mind assumes she is nude without seeing the larger picture? I have no way of knowing what is below the photo.

I don't see a child looking at her undeveloped breasts. That never occured to me until I read someone's comment. So I studied the image and she is looking at her arm. I see a child looking downward with a thoughtful look. What kind of mind assumes she is looking at her "breasts"?

I don't see pornography. I see a beautiful moment captured. What kind of mind assumes this is pornography?

I don't see an exploited child as some suggest. I see innocence illustrated. I see trust. I see love. What kind of mind assumes she is exploited and then recommends that her parent continue to exploit her.

I live in the Midwest of the USA. A region noted for it's morally conservative views. During the summer, at beaches, in yards, it is not uncommon to see girls of this age with out a shirt on.

I am concerned that so many comments used the word nude. One dictionary defined nude as: 1. Having no clothing; naked. 2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body.

This does not fit that definition. What kind of minds wants it to fit that definition.

Unfortunately, what I do see is that with many of the comments, a vitriolic tone. Some have voiced there concerns evenly and with control. But many have not and I wonder what kind of mind responds so quickly with such vitriol.

I venture to guess this child will one day, as a woman, look back at this image with pride and fondness.

I think that this is a wonderful picture. I don't agree with any of the people trying to make more of this than it actually is. It reminds me a bit of the work of Jock Sturges in that the model has a very natural expression. I hope that you continue making your art and are not discourged by people who feel being nude is bad. Clearly they don't see the beauty of the photograph... they simply see someone nude and don't like it.
On the side of the people who don't like the image. That is fine. You don't have to like it. I hope that they all continue to take picture of people in clothes.

There are a lot of nut jobs out there...thats who see's all the things you are asking. Laws are put in place to protect the defenseless, children being the most defenseless of them all. While you and I aren't sexually excited by this image and see it for the innocence that it is, please don't be naive enough to think that everyone see's it the same way. The subjectification of children is a hot button issue. Ask Sally Mann. Ask Jock Sturges. Because they are well known has not made them free of the hassles that come with the art that they have chosen to produce. This is a thin line that needs to be walked.

The fact remains, that as innocent as you and I see this image, the very real possibility exists that in the United States, that this photographer could possibly be arrested for making it.

This photo is so repulsive it should be removed from Photo.net immediatly. No one should exploit a young girl like that.

Its also bull siht that its a bad photo because people find it erotic. One has nothing to do with the other. ITs a bad photo because this is a youg child! period, end of story!

I hope this photographer never posts sucha horrible picture again!

The man above joined photonet today only in order to make this remark. He has rated nothing else. Take no notice of him. I am woman with two children and my opinion is that this is a very charming photo of a child. If anyone sees anything else in it, it is they that are sick.

Très belle image, mais pourquoi ce cadrage particulier?

Beautiful photo. Nasty debate. This business of the "web risks" is becoming an excuse for all sorts of sick people to masquerade as "concerned parents" and the like and raise issues that a sane person simply wouldn't think of at all. The idea that anybody can be arrested in the USA for making and posting such a photo is ludicrous. The USA are under risk but, as far as I understand from my friends, my readings and my trips, are still far from becoming Iran or the Talebans' Afghanistan. In Europe, thank God, the very idea of this photo being seen as "pornography" is simply ridiculous. I have had similar remarks concerning an even chaster photo of my daughter, and replied that, even if some sick bloke somewhere in the Net gets excited or misuses it, I don't really give a damn - I simply refuse to self-censor my whole existence for fear of "InterNet abuses". And then, what is this meek willingness to accept whatever fundamentalist excess may come from the sickest part of a Nation or of the international community? Isn't photography a form of art, or at least a form of information, and aren't art and information supposed to be free and to fight censorship, rather than tamely accept it?

In the US you can get arrested for many reasons. For making love, in "not approved" positions...*L* The moral of that country leaves much to be said! I don´t understand what the fuzz is all about regarding this pic?!

I'm not defending anything either way...simply stating the facts. The United States, whatever you feel about its "morals" usually start out with the best of intentions.

To me, it comes down to context, and where one draws the line. I personally would never post a photograph of a barechested girl this age, because I think some pedophiles might get a charge out of it and I wouldn't want to enable them. So the cost of posting this picture (a hopefully small number of perverts get illicit gratification) outweighs the benefit of posting it (a hopefully large number of non-perverts enjoy the photograph from an artistic perspective). I personally would not be comfortable posting any photographs of my children on the web, even fully clothed. Because they are this girl's age or younger, I'm just not ready for them to go out into the big bad world alone, no matter how beautiful I think they are.

Regarding context, I look at it this way. A barechested girl this age seems perfectly innocent in her family's backyard with her parents, siblings and a sprinkler or a pool, but what if her parents put her on a stage in the middle of Central Park with no shirt on, so that members of the general public can judge and comment on her beauty? That's not for me, and I think that is one reason people don't like this type of photograph on the internet. No need to get nasty about it, but you can answer for yourself whether the internet is more like a family's backyard or a stage in Central Park.

And to the person who waxed nostalgic about the glorious days of innocence gone by, think again. If you believe America had less hang-ups when you were a child, you're kidding yourself.

If someone is looking for pornography, they will find it. If there is someone out there looking for an image like this - with disturbing reasons - they will find it. The problem is not with the child, the photographer, or the image - it's the people who look at this photo and react inappropriately.

This is a beautiful photograph. The tones are wonderful and the girl looks innocent and thoughful. I can guarantee you that she couldn't care less if she had a shirt on. The bliss of childhood ignorance and the wonderful lack of physical shame.. that's what makes this such a wonderful image. It's not disgusting. It's not erotic. It is a picture of a child. In my experience this is how many children of that age spend their time.

If you're looking for 'dangerous' photos you'll find them - it's how you choose to see it. Open your minds, the overwhelming majority are not perverts or deviants.

This is a beautifull, artistic, well composed photo of a child! Nothing more than that! If someone get some strange ideas about it, should find some professional psyquic help. Marcus, don't change a thing! That's a great photo!

First I have to say thank you to all of you that visits this site and sees my picture. When I first took this image and posted it I thought that it was just a great photo and I would never have any idea what kind of impact it would have on people. I also wants to thank all of you who supports me. First I thought that mayby I was "sick", but I have understanded that most of you sees the picture the way my intention was. Therefore I will still keep my head up high and be proud of this image. Once again, thanks

Until I read this thread, I hadn't really understood the Satanic Panic of the 80s, when day-care workers were sent to prison on the flimsiest of pretexts and the most ludicrous charges; when self-appointed experts on ritual abuse coaxed terrible imaginery stories out of children, and got towns and states in an uproar over dangers that didn't exist.

I'm saddened by those who claim this photo is somehow wrong because it could provide fodder for pedophilia. As others have observed, there's lots of material on this site that could be used that way. I'm sure that somewhere, someone has masturbated while looking at the more adult photos, too. It changes nothing.

We're trying to protect ourselves by creating a culture of fear, where even the most absurd possibility of danger is reason to abstain. We're imprisoning ourselves in the cells that should be built for child molesters, who will commit their crimes regardless of what we do or don't.

One more thing: I have to wonder if the majority of the people decrying this photo have spent much time around naked children and nudity in general. Having done so myself, both in art classes and while changing the diapers and giving baths to my niece and nephew, I have a very clear feeling on when nudity is sexual and when it's not. The nudity in this photo is not, and pleading the danger of child molesters seems like a dodge for dealing with one's own discomfort with a lack of that clarity.

I think this image is quite beautiful. I don't quite understand how one may assume she is nude if she is not wearing a shirt. She still even possesses the quite androgenous body of a young child. Her genitalia aren't exposed, nor is she behaving in a way that is sexually suggestive. By the way, how do you know she's looking at her own "breasts?" I can barely see past her eyelids.

I wish someone had done an image like this of me when I was young so that I could enjoy it and treasure it now...but I lost the ability to appreciate the joys of innocence as a child due to going through puberty at the age of six and a half.

Marcus do not despair on another image the photographer was queried on taking a picture of a sleeping child!!!!! http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1760206

Obscenity is in the mind of the beholder.

Lenny Bruce in the early sixties used to comment "which would you prefer your child to see ? Two people making love OR a war movie with people having limbs blown off, people in distress etc.

The war movie of course is not real and the kids really enjoy it! Love hurts?!

Marcus you got hi jacked. I'm just trying to say it is a nice image and I do not agree with the idea that the image is horrible.

However I would not like a child of mine to read the above if she was the subject of the image. It would certainly confuse and probably be hurtful to her, that would be my prime concern at the end of the day.

Louis

I love this photo and wish i had taken it. I especially love the composition and the warmth of the flesh tones. I see zero sexuality here - at first glance wasn't even certain if this was a boy or girl! The child is not looking at her breast. Her eyes are closed. Her arms are folded, she's closed up at the moment - the composition of her body in the corner heightens this. To me the photo shows that tension - in her nudity she is open like a baby and yet on the other hand she's trying to control her world. The pornography argument is just silly.

You said "I felt that any clothing on this child will make it just as every other photograph and I feel that the lack of clothing shows the childs vulnerability."

You are correct, and that's where I have a problem - it seems her vulnerability was taken advantage of while your own image is hidden under a veiled blur. Sorry.

One word- Beautiful.

I like it. Nothing 'erotic' here at all. One thing though. At first I mistook her arms for a thick towel or something- maybe her arms need more distinction?

Two comments to the people who feel this is too sexual: 1) a photographer in the UK was in the news because she had a picture of HER baby daughter naked on the beach glowering at the camera. It was a GREAT shot. Showed perfect grumpy baby face. The last thing you noticed was 'nakedness'. The news made it into a story because they were bored. Most people I knew just thought it was a good cute baby pic.

2. My sister, when she was young used to have short hair and swim topless. A kid asked her 'are you a boy or a girl' once, because she had no top on. At that age- a girls upper body is identical to a boys. Boys topless are fine. What is wrong with this?

(And she looks like she's half asleep, not staring at absence of breasts...)

oh, and I'm female. In case that's not obvious by my name... ;)

the subject and how you thought is really good, but it's not nice to cut the hands and her hair,you could take the photo a little bit downer and a little to right....

First, get your facts straight! I signed up for photo.net today and saw this picture and was compelled to write. I did not sign up specifically to write about this picture.

Second you have 2 children, and see nothing wrong with this photo. Will someone please call child services! Moreover, just like you are expressing your opinion, I have expressed mine. To say that you should not take my opinion into account because I am a new member is crazy. How do you know what my photo background is? Maybe I am a professional photographer? Maybe I am a law school professor, specialising in 1st ammendment issues? would my opinion be more valid to you then? If I were a member for 5 years and had rated hundreds of photos would you all of a sudden think my opinion was better? Or is it your belief that your opinion is the only opinion that counts? I think the latter is the real answer. Its a classic liberal point of view, you either agree with me or you are wrong. Thats your philosophy Daniela, right? Well guess what sweatheart, I don't agree with you and your still wrong!!!

You can not minimilize my opinion by saying I have only been a member for 1 day. How about I minimilze your opinion by the fact that you have been a member for more than a year without posting any pictures? You like to comment, but not put yourself out there for review.

Do not ever minimalize someone's opinions. Its the most dangerous form of censorship out there.

Lastly, I agree with the posts that say this is not pornographic. I also agree with the posts that say this child should not be posing nude, because she is to young. She is what 10, 12? You do not pose nude at that age! There should be no debate on that point. All of you who say you should, I am waiting for pictures of your 10-12 year old to show up.

The conversation that you have here should not exist. Very soon it will be improper to tell that people are different if we keep going this way. Which one of you had even a slightst hint that this photo is sexual? What will liberals turn this world into??? Keep this up. The lighting is perfect. There is a little too much light on the forearm, but you can't win them all. Just a wonderful capture of beauty. Very subtle and quiet.

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the arms is to much burned out. If the girl would have a t-shirt on, that would probably be the first "error" every one would "complaint" about, but as you all know it seems that very few people sees that error...

Es ist Traurig, daß wir solch Ästhetische Bilder nicht ohne Misstrauen betrachten können. Ein Meisterhaftes Bild. Grüße aus Österreich. Klaus Sommer

A beautiful image without a doubt. I love the subtle tones, the unusual crop and positioning in the frame. And if the alarmists knew anything at all about differing cultural views or had even the slimmest knowledge of art history their strident protests would seem foolish and misguided. “I also agree with the posts that say this child should not be posing nude…There should be no debate on that point. All of you who say you should, I am waiting for pictures of your 10-12 year old to show up.” And to Mr. Schrib, (whose comment I quoted above) welcome to photo.net, now please take a look at the following work by Sally Mann and offer a thoughtful comment. Regards,

Is definitely pornography. Well done though. Not too obvious, yet just strong enough to attract desired attention. Even if not everyone admits to himself that this is pornography, somewhere deep inside he knows that it is. The girl's pose, face, her nudity - all that makes it pornography. And this is the major reason why it got so many comments in the first place. Some people who like to watch porno prefer to call it art this way they feel more noble. There is quite a lot of that on photo.net. Take a picture of a naked woman, put it on photo.net - and it ALMOST NEVER fails to produce a very successful photo ! What is the difference between an artistic nude and a pornography ? If you have some talent and take a nice picture of a naked woman it is a nude, if you happen to have less talent and it is just a naked women on the photo - do we have pornography then ? Or maby the artistic nude is just an aesthetically pleasing pornography and nothing more ? I think that is the case in vast majority of such cases here on photo.net. This photo, be the way, is good from aesthetical point of view, but the pornographic element inherent here, disqualifies it for me..

A great photo - love the slightly yellowed hint to it. The front arm is a little too hard to focus on, perhaps it would have been easier to get correct if she had crossed her arms the other way.

Also I think perhaps the crop is a little too tight - more space to both left and right would probably have helped this image.

We all want to protect our children...I have none biologically myself, but I have about 50 in Senegal which I and their families consider my children as well as theirs...The last thing I want is any one of them being hurt or exploited in any way...I spent a good deal of time taking photos of them. As with children everywhere in the world, in their opinion the world IS clothing optional. While I wouldn't strip down a kid for a photo shoot, I also wont dress them up if they choose nudity.

That said...I also choose not to post nude photos on photo.net, because 1. the torment from other users 2. the potential for misuse...like I said these kids are my large extended family, and the last thing I want is somebody who does see pornography in the images, to use them that way.

-Tabb

This is crazy. I cant believe this debate is still going on. Whats the argument here? that youngkids should be allowed to pose nude. Are you all kidding me here. This girl couldnt consent to entereing into a contract, she could not consent to having sex, she could not consent to having her picture taken in the first place, she could not consent to having that picture posted on the net. The reason children cant consnt is for their own protection. The cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions. Any parent that consented on behalf of their child in my opinion commited child abuse. What are you all thinking?

Why are you defending this picture? Its not art. Hear that again...IT IS NOT ART!!! Just because its a black and white photo does not de facto make it art. IT IS NOT ART!!! What it is is a picture of some nude child. Pure and simple. Its not porno, its not art, its a picture. Plain and simple. I am sorry but that is what it is. For all of you outthere that was just insulted by me saying its not art, TOUGH!!! Get over it. IT IS NOT ART!!! Ask yourself, would Ansel Adams have taken this picture? Sally Mann may have, but her crap isn't art either. Oh wait, Barnes and Nobles put her into a few calendars so its "ART" now, screw that! Those exhibits in the Brooklyn Museum of cow dung over a picture of the pope, that wasn't art either, but it was in a museum. Just because its a visual medium does not make it art. I mean really, if this picture were taken in color it would have been taken down already. How many of you bashed that photographer a few months ago that took a picture of his wife on the toilet with her panties around her knees and said that was disgusting and had no artistic merit. WELL SAME HERE!!! There is no artistic merit in a 10 year old girl with her shirt off. Heck, half the pictures of adults nude lack artistic merit also.

Stop the nonesence. Don't defend something just for the sake of defending it. Have a brain people, use some independant thinking! This picture is wrong! Defending it is wrong!

Brian "IT'S NOT ART" Markovitz, you really should never go to country where I live, because young girls more often than not neglect to cover their top in public places like swimming pools etc. And that would mightily offend you, right?

I don't think anybody from my country would ever think this photo is in any way sick. That's just your puritan American point of view. Of course, killing children in the name of national interests and showing explicit violence in movies is nothing that would bother you. And that is sick for me, for a change.

Marcus, keep up your excellent work, there is nothing wrong with this picture. Only minds of some are full of confusion about what is good and what is evil.

In defense of Marcus and in response to Brian Markowitz and others of like thinking, You make it sound like a black and white issue. I assure you it is far from that. Let me explain why.

From what you are implying anyone who is too young to give legal consent should not be displayed topless in a public photograph. Does this mean all the kids in the Huggies commercials on TV are being exploited pornographically? Obviously, our culture as a whole doesn’t think so, even if there are some pedophiles that are turned on by babies. There are probably some people who object to Huggies commercials, and you may be one of them. If that’s the case, you and the other 39 people can start a commune in Idaho and not be bothered by the depravations of society.

If you accept the premise that its OK for babies to be seen publicly without tops, then the issues immediately becomes gray instead of black and white. This means that at “some point” its not OK for a child to be seen without a top. Who decides at what age this point occurs? You? The Supreme Court? Maybe the context is important too? Who defines that?

Now, different people have different comfort levels about viewing a photo of a naked child of a certain age. That’s a different issue, a personal one and not an issue about pornography.

What I think you are saying is that you have decided at which age we need to protect the child from eyes of the pedophile. Gathering from the responses above, many responders don’t feel the child in this photo or the photo itself has crossed that line, even if you do. I personally do not want to live in a society that establishes such a high level of censorship so as to limit all expression that might be found sexual by some pervert somewhere. You get what I’m saying?

Need I remind you, we are now fighting a war against extremist terrorists who would like to censor all behavior among other things, based on a narrow set of religious beliefs.

I personally am not offended by nudity at any age in art. I do object to obvious sexploitation of anybody no matter what their age. The difference between what is art and what is sexual exploitation is another gray one. There will always be controversy about this. Personally, I feel the above photo is lovely and not exploitative in any way. You may think otherwise, but that is a personal difference that you are entitled to, and it is certainly not a black and white issue.

Steve Murray

beautiful shot. to the bunch of ***expletive *** expletive idiots who see inherent pornographic elements here, try to picture a child instead of a woman here. it's a child. a naked child. stop projecting and try to bath your child time to time. few more expletives.

Steve Murray, A nicely framed discussion. There are some startling views seen from both sides. The passion and anger expressed is palpable. This forum is best served by those that frame an argument in reason rather than emotion even when you feel the urge to spew - otherwise your seen as a nut.

Marcus, A lovely photo. Pushing her to the right side of the frame and leaving the void to the left defines your intent to isolate. I feel her aloneness. Her eyes are closed aren't they? It's peaceful.

Steve Murray, Reed and Maria. I want to stand in your corner.

Marcus, I think it's very peaceful and a lovely image.

First of all, to me, this is a wonderful photo, which conveys loneliness to me.

Then about the discussion... You see what you want to see. There are some pixels there and your mind/brain makes sense out of it. If someone sees only pornography it is their problem.

Brian Markowitz wrote "This girl couldnt consent to entereing into a contract, she could not consent to having sex, she could not consent to having her picture taken in the first place, she could not consent to having that picture posted on the net. The reason children cant consnt is for their own protection. The cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions. Any parent that consented on behalf of their child in my opinion commited child abuse. What are you all thinking?"

I think I'll wait till my kid is 18 years before 1) sending her to school 2) cutting her hair 3) giving her bath 4) giving her food 5) teaching her language 5) selecting dress for her...

No parent can decide what is good for their child. it is some third person's job... what a country!!!

Brian:

This is a democratic place, anyone can say what he/she thinks, but, as you said, people should use his brain! When you used your brain, did you, for a minute ever think you could be just not available, for lack of knowledge, to understand what should, or not be considered ART? How can you say that all nude photos are not artistic! You bet some are artistic, but not FOR YOU!Probably, Ansel Adams would not do this picture, nude wasn't his style, but, maybe, Edward Weston would do this picture, or something similar! Who do you think you are to afirm to a big comunity like Photo.net that this is not Art? I've been seeing your 6 photos and, if I were you, I would use my brain and would keep my mouth shut, while I tried to learn something about ART and PHOTOGRAPHY, watching some photos of REALLY GOOD PHOTOGRAPHERS around here, technically and artistically speaking! You told that the fact that a photo is B & W, doesn't, per se, turn it into art, and you're right! You proved it with your B & W photos, but, you need to learn a lot about ART and PHOTOGRAPHY untill you can SEE some art in a photo like this one. I'm not trying to impose to you or anyone else that this should be considered art, I consider it is, but that's just my point of view, what I'm trying to say is that, eventually, you should just say that you don't LIKE this photo!

I work in the Dutch youthcare and I've seen more cases of child abuse than I like. I know the circumstances and I know that this beautifull photo has nothing to do with child abuse. At all!! I agree with Borek completely, at this age children often play withouth shirts... I disagree with nude child photography where you can see too much but this is a photo wich could have easily been taken on a summer holliday..... Anyone who finds this photo not deacent has a sick mind......

“Ask yourself, would Ansel Adams have taken this picture? Sally Mann may have, but her crap isn't art either.”

Brian your lack of understanding of what is commonly recognized as valuable contributions to the world of art by the likes of people such as Sally Mann and your refusal to even acknowledge different social tolerances or differing perspectives should preclude you from further serious discussions about this piece.

Regards,

Mit Respekt " IHR SEID VERRÜCKT " Das Foto zeigt ein unschuldiges Kind und ihr Psychopathen beginnt eine Debatte über Pornographie. In euren kranken Hirnen keimen erst solche Gedanken. Wer in diesen Foto ein Sexualobjekt sieht sollte schleunigst einen Psychiater aufsuchen, denn ihr seid das Übel und nicht dieses Foto. Es wird mir echt Kotzübel wenn ich die Komentare dieser Heuchler lese.

Klaus Sommer (Kärnten, Österreich)

Do I think this is pornographic? No. Do I think the photo is well done technically? Yes. Do I think it portrays emotion? Yes. I see a child with her arms crossed, clearly not making eye contact. This tells me that the child is uncomfortable, and therefore makes me uneasy. The words used to describe her have been "lonely", "sad", "vulnerable", "closed-up." I disagree that her expression shows trust and love. I see "I don't want to be here" and that's what bothers me about the image.

I feel the need to respond to some of your omments. First, Nana, Your posted photos are great. Mine arent that good. Granted. Difference being, those were my first 3 rolls of film ever taken with a non p&s. For a first effort they werent so bad, and I have learned some great lessons from people who have taken the time and e-mailed me or posted comments or from reading other critiques. Those people know who they are and they have been thanked accordingly (when I get a new scanner I will post some more recent pictures that do show improvement).

Second, you pompous jerk, having talent does not give you the right to bash those of us who are learning. Moreover, your "critique" of my photos serves only to avoid the true issue. Wheteher this picture is wrong becasue of the subject matter. THE PICTURE HERE IS NOT ART!!! Its not. You know know it, you are just blindly sticking up for a fellow photographer. I mean how dare someone say a photo is not art. Blasphamy!!! But its not. I can see the attempt at art, but it failed. The idea of issolation, vulnerability, etc. is there. But the choice of subject makes it wrong and eliminates it from the realm or art.

Steve, You made a valid point about the Huggies commercials. However, you missed the mark when you added the word pornographic. I never said the photo was pornographic. I never said it was obscene. I just said its wrong. In this country, infants are usually seen with just diapers on. Heck, most grandparents have shown picture of the grandkids taking the first bath. That is not an issue. However, those same grandparents would not show the same picture of their pre-pubescent granddaughter. No television ad exec would show a pre-teen girl frolicing topless, like they would a toddler. It cetainly is a matter of drawing the line at someone's age. But that does not grey the line as you claim. ITs a bright line. If you have to question if you crossed it, you did! (ask the good fokes at Abercrombie and Fitch's ad agency where the line is...after last winter's catalogue, they will tell you...by the way they are on the unemployment line if you want to find them.)

Also Steve, this is not an issue of censorship. I am VERY anti-censordhip. I have written papers against censorship in all forms, including the Robert Maplethorppe exhibit. This issue is about exploitation and protection of the youth. Censorship would be if I said this child could not view pictures of the sort. What I said is this child should not BE IN this sort of picture.

And Steven, your comment about the terrorists in the middle east, If you are comparing my views to those animals, then we have sepperate issues to discuss.

The last person I wanted to comment back to is Stephen. I ask you this, If I show this picture to 100 people on the street, how many are going to call it art and forgive the use of ayoung child as the photo's subject matter? I will hazard to guess not many. You claim I have a lack of understanding of what art is. I disagree. I just don't think that anything you put on film is automatically "art." As Nana pointed out, the few pictures I have posted suck. Are they art? No! Is this art? No! To say that expressing my view disqualifies me from further serious discussions, well atleast I am attempting to point out serious issues with this photo. You make no attempt at justifying your position. Why? You can't. No one has said WHY this piece is art. No one has posted any defense as to the artistic nature of this picture, other than to reitereate the rhetoric that its art. Oh, so its Art for Art's sake? Whatever. Spouting out predetermined rhetoriic and personally insulting anyone who disagrees with you...you have really added to this serious discussion about this piece.

This is a fine photo. I don't see anything the least bit sexual or "graphic" about it. Frankly, how do we know it isn't a boy with long hair?

I find it absolutely incredible that this photo has provoked such a debate! It's a very beautiful image that any right-minded photographer would have been proud to have taken. End of story as far as I'm concerned!

I can't thank you enough for saying that you like this picture. It's that kind of argument that makes me continuing taking photos.

And to Brian. I understand what you are coming from. You have asked many times what is art and what is not? I'm not an art-student, but art for me is when an artist wants to say something and uses some kind of media to express his/hers feeling. I have said several times what kind of feelings I wanted to produce here and I feel that I have succeeded in that. And that is art for me.

Imagine she is dressed! My comment to that photo would be: What this girl is expressing by crossing her arms is that she doesnt want to be there. If art is about expressing something, what this girl is expressing IMHO is: I DONT LIKE IT! This said, I see nudity as a way to reach freedom and I think art plays a very important role to open new ways to achieve social evolution. Art can educate perceptions, values and, at the end, behaviours. And one last thing, we, the rest of the world, should learn in this respect from north europeans. Manuel

Great image Marcus, soft and tender. Bernt (From the civilised side of the Atlantic).

Marcus, I looked at your other photos, the one of the girl dressed in the woods (i even think its the same girl) portrays the same emotion and the same ideas. Why did you have to take it to the unnecessary step of having pose in a studio nude? You already achieved your goal. This one was to far.

ITs like in law, when you cross exam a witness -- you can ask the witness, so you were mad at the victim, you went and you bought a gun, you loaded the gun, you hid the gun in your pocket, you staked out the victim by waiting under her window, and you broke into her house when she came home, and you shot her four times in the chest. After asking all of that, do you need to ask the question, so you meant to kill her? what if the guy says no, I didnt mean to kill her, I was trying to empty the gun! Well there goes your murder case. You asked one to many questions. The jury already had it. You took one to many pictures. I had that image you were trying to portray with the picture of the girl in the woods. She is in almost the identical pose, just clothed. You didnt need to shoot the nude of her to portray that image.

There is no need to define or defend this image as art. It simply is an image. Without context the label “art” has no meaning. Of course if you really want to know what I consider to be the “artistic merits” of this image, well, I stand by what I wrote before: “A beautiful image…I love the subtle tones, the unusual crop and positioning (of the subject) in the frame.”

But I don’t think “art” is the real issue here. The real problem according to you is this:

“…the choice of subject makes it wrong…”

So let’s have a discussion about what really matters to you and not worry about a silly label.

The bottom line is that you have an issue with this type of image because your social and cultural beliefs only allow you to view this image in one way. Which is fine, you have the right to define what you’re comfortable with as narrowly or as broadly as you choose. But what I object to, and what causes me to dismiss your comments, is when you equate anyone who disagrees with you as a child abuser.

“Any parent that consented on behalf of their child in my opinion commited(sic) child abuse.”

These are your words. Did I misinterpret them? Because as read them I see no appreciation or even the slightest recognition of the fact that many cultures hold different views about what is and what isn’t appropriate dress and age.

For me, the subject matter doesn’t make me uncomfortable and more importantly I feel no need to defend that position to a person who dismisses all other views out of hand. Take a minute and re-read all the comments. Not surprisingly, given the multicultural nature of this group, you’ll see that the majority of people commenting here are complimentary towards the image and subject matter. You don’t have to like this image, you can even say how you don’t understand how other people can. But you don’t get to accuse anyone who does like it of condoning child abuse, at least not if you expect to be taken seriously by people on a forum intended to foster discussion on photography. So ask yourself this are you here to share and learn or are you only here to spout off closed-minded opinions and disparage others who dare to disagree? Figure that out then re-join the discussion.

Regards,

Art hmmmmmmmm. I find art is like a mirror and what and how you think about a piece of art will tell us a lot about ones self. This is just an image of a very young child (7 years old), thats it. What we see in our minds of this photo is who we have become. It is obvious that as an adult we no longer see as children and that is sad to some extent. The erotic nature in this picture is all in the minds of the people who view this. This is a girl who has nothing to cover up, she is way to young. This is not a nude, it is a child without a shirt. Again where does your mind lead you.

A saying comes to mind for these people who see this as an inappropriate picture and or a nude/porno pic. "Me thinkest thou protesteth too much"

You did misinterpret my quote. You interpreted the quote to mean that I have "accuse[ed] anyone who does like it of condoning child abuse." No, that is not what I said. You go back and re-read it. What I DID said is that the parents who consented to this picture being taken and posted have, in my opinion, committed child abuse. Nothing more was said about those who like the picture. I disagree with those who like it, but that is their right to like something, and I can't tell someone to like, or dislike it. What I have been against all along is those that have defended the choice of subject matter.

There can be no defense to someone who takes a nude picture of a preteen girl and posts it on the internet. There is no justification for such a posting. The subject matter of this picture is inappropriate. I never said the picture is obscene or pornographic, I have always claimed the picture is WRONG! You do not show a girl this age topless.

I have lived in England and I am familiar with their moral views. I am quite sure that under English maral views, this picture would be wrong too. I have never been to Sweeden, but if you tell me that Swedish morals would permit this subject matter, then that is a clash of cultures. However, you do not post a Swedish picture on an American website, and think that the picture won't be subject to American cultural bias.

Moreover, the scariest part of this image is when you click the copyright info tab on the top of the picture you get this statement: "Does this photo have the model release form if needed? No" Now that is a scary thought that there was no model release for this picture.

Children can not consent to anything for a reason. They lack the understanding and experience to make informed decisions. I highly doubt that this child was able to make the informed decision for herself of whether she should pose nude and whether the subsequent picture should apear on the internet. Now, put yourself in her shoes. Lets say she didn't want this done, and her parents told her to do it, is it not child abuse? Lets say she wanted the picture taken/posted, should that matter? She is what 10, 11, ok 12? Can a 10 or even a 12 year old child understand and apprecite the decision to take a naked picture and have it posted on the internet? I don't think so, and therefore, to allow the picture to be taken/posted still constitutes child abuse. To like the picture constitutes bad taste. To defend the choice of subject matter constitutes bad judgment.

Lastly, I don't dismiss all other views out of hand. I have given credit to valid points, and have pointed out weeknesses in other peoples arguments. Unlike some people who have posted, I have not dismissed anyone's ideas or views. I have not judged anyones opinions based on the body of their work, or the length of time that they have been members of this forum (as was done to both me and Gregg Schrib.) What I do dismiss is so called blind loyalty. Defending this picture and its "artistic merit" simply because how dare someone deny that a picture has artistic merit. Such broad openmindness is worse than closemindedness.

I have posted this image at a Swedish site, but that site is very small (20.000 members) and there are people there aswell that don't like this image. I don't know if the cultural differences between USA and Sweden are that very big in this matter.

You said something about the copyright and the reason that I havn't written any is because I don't know what to write there. You can call me what ever you like, but I'm not a professionell photographer but only an amateur. But I will see on other postings and make a copyright statement on the images I have. Thanks for remainding.

The reason that I posted it on photo.net is not because it's an American site, but this is the site that must have the most viewers all over the world. And I really don't care where the servers are placed, because I know that people all over the world will see my work.

I know that you are "angry" with the folks that let her photo be taken with the top off, but I think it's very sad that one can not take a photo of a young girl without any top on and instantly start to think about her future and what viewers might do with the picture.

You are right that the girl in this photo is the same as the photo - Autumn. And you said that you got the same fealing when you saw that image. But the thoughts with that image is that she is taking on a glove that by mistake have the same pattern and color as the skarf. That's why she is looking down.

I have a question for you. If she would cover the nipple with her hand, would the photo be okay for you then? Since I don't understand what makes people disslike the type of photo I have taken here I would be very glad if you tell me what you dislike with this picture. In that way I can become a better photographer when knowing how other people think about my photo. That's the main reason that I share my work. And I assume that that is the main reason that people are commenting images.

The overwhellming majority of people who have bothered to post do not feel the way I do. This is America, where every citizen has 10 opinions on each subject and their right to voice all of them. My rantings are just one opinion on the subject. Some agreed, some say I went to far.

In my opinion, this picture should not be taken at all. Plain and simple. I feel you could have gotten the same emotion from the Autumn picture. Same picture, but use this pose. See how you can evoke the same image? Why cross the line? I just hope this young girl will see the "art" in the picture when she grows up.

Marcus, you obviously know photography. Your other pics are great. This picture just suffers because of the subject matter. But hey if people didnt try to cross the line, would there still be a line to cross?

Also, don't take my comments personally. Like I said early on, I am sure you did not have any wrong intentions, I am sure you did not do anything inappropriate, I jsut think your final image, unintentionally, crossed the line.

My dear Marcus, it's incredible how many dirty minds are allowed to pollute your photo. Perhaps if they are allowed to go to an European beach they start to act like something from Al Queda and put veils over everybody. In Oslo (Norway) you could find a garden plentiful of statues of children made in the early 20 century and nobody said “Pornography!!”. The Spanish painter Sorolla in the early century also made his magnificent paintings of children bathing in the beach and nobody said “Pornography!!!” only the Spanish government put the painting in stamps for the Royal Post. To find that an almost human can feel pornography in a naked child it’s a symptom that “he” not the photographer, it’s sexual attracted by a naked child and a sick man.

Congrats Marcus for a so wonderful photograph that perfectly expresses what the world should be. Best from Spain, Luis.

Congrat Marcus.....Best regards again from Spain. Frederic

Nice picture!!! Congrats again from Spain...

Beautiful picture!

Queen Victoria of England had all her chair legs wrapped in cloths - nobody should think of something indecent by looking at them. If a chair leg reminds me of something dirty - is this the carpenter's fault? If someone sees breasts and complete nudity in this photo, whose fault is this? The photographer's?

this discussion is very sad. that it can arouse from a picture of a child (sic! nothing else!) shows how sick most people in western societies especially in the usa became. they really lost the grip to reality and any common sense.

Brian M. Your comments just show how immature you are. With every comment you amuse me more and more. Your reality and an outlok on life are so narrow and altered it saddens me. You state one false assumption after another and when people prove you wrong you insult them. Shame on you. If you see this photo as pornographic you obviously have to look into your own head.

There is a fair element of truth in what Brian says.

I am not saying i am uncomfortable with this photograph. I also not for it. But like I said, apart from abusing Brian, no one here really has come with a sensible and rational argument.

and like Gregg Schrib pointed out, how many of those supporting the "art" in this photo would post a similar one of their daughters ??

now please don't flame me with what i see in this picture is a reflection of my other dark half and other such similar nonsense.

A lot gets passed off as "art". I have to say this photograph is one of those.

and Brian.. Its good to see someone standing up for what they feel and not worrying about being ostracised for not accepting a photograph as "art".

The "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are" maxim particularly appplies to that picture and the comments I could read above...

More than thoughful I feel this little girl is in expectation ... expecting though may be ...

is the empty space in her back representing the baby age which is over and past behind her?

This is not a photo taken at the beach or around the pool. It is not a vaction snapshot or a chance capture. You had to set this shot up in advance. You had to ask her to take off her shirt. I am not going to render my opinon of this photo. I just wanted to put it into perspective for the purpose of these posts. Good or bad you created it and posted it for any to see. How would it be recieved if it was on the cover of newsweek magazine. How about the art display case at her school? Do you think she would mind? Did/does she have a choice?

The pic is wonderfully done. I think if we could leave behind every bad thing people have ever done in the past, this would be a wonderful pic of innocence.

These unfortunatly are the days when people have children torn from homes for taking pics of their children playing in the tub, or babies nursing.

Somewhere there is a middle ground. Maybe. I think the most interesting part of this photo is the social commentary it has caused.

I'm amazed. I even feel sullied by adding to the conversation. I would love to suggest that the critics here have not had and raised kids, but I'm afraid some of them probably have. There is absolutely no moral negativity in this photo. Those who see it are pulling it out of themselves.

WHAT A COMMENTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ABOUT A NICE PHOTO. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

AND TO REED ALL THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS, IT MAKE ME SICK. WHAT A WORLD. ITS UNBELEAVEBLE : WE ARE 2003 !!!!!!!!!!!!

I all wish you a happy Christmas and lots of wisdom in 2004. With love.,

Loft/Portugal

Only a sick mind would think this photo is pornographic. (and there are plenty of those out there) It is a beautiful photo and well done.

That some bozos get any sexual idea in connection with this innocent photo is terribly sad. What has the world come to? Will all children be forbidden outdoors soon?

Marcus, this is a very nice photo, keep up the good work and don't pay any attention to the maniacs.

I have to thank you all one more time. I couldn't ever in my wildest dreams think that this photo would cause so hard feelings on somebody. And Digitri I have to congratulate you for being the 100:th person that has commented this image :)

/ Marcus

I will not quote by name (if you need to know who said it, read the posts). Civilized society, pornographic, child abuse, censorship, closed minds, open minds. It's how you see it. In defense of the Photographer - nice photo. I like the crop and extra space on the left it really adds to the image. The choice of black and white is good as I like all portrait's to be in B&W.

In defense of "This is not art" - I also never saw the word pornographic come from him (but there was alot of reading and I might have missed it). His problem is with "nude" young girl. His opinion is his own (and maybe shared by many others), but it is still his opinion. It might have been stated wrong on his part, but blame can not be laid upon him for that. If he does not see this as art, then he does not see this as art. I have seen many pictures that people call art, and I would not. The ARTIST that took the picture of the cambell's soup cans said "This is art because I am an artist", well said. I on the other hand think it is a picture of soup cans. The arguement of art or not is a mute point because it is opinion, not fact.

Now, saying anything bad about people of America because of the views of some, or many, is not a very educated, or civilized way of speaking. Comparing someone to the ways of the Al Quida (spelling?) because of their opinion on this picture is very childish.

No matter how much we discuss this picture as "ART", "Pornography", "Nudity", will not change the fact that we are not talking about what was asked of us, "us" including novice, and pro alike. There are several message boards that you can go to to vent your anger/frustration/lack of intelligence. Instead, discuss and give views on what WAS asked. Lighting, color, focus, crop, and all that. I have been taking pictures for a while, I'm a novice, and an American. I do not find this picture to be obscene. I find it to be very good. I see it as art because of what was wanting to be acheved, and actually acheiving it.

I do however want to add that "This is not art" is 100% right about one thing that he said. If a photo of a nude female (older than 20) is placed on this site, be it a good photo or a badly shot one, it almost ALWAYS get's good reviews even when it is out of focus, badly lit, horribly cropped, and just plain bad. Color would not have changed this picture unless you view color better than B&W. Would age have had an impact on the picture?? No. It could have been acheived with an older model also. Did the Photographer acheive what he wanted by using the model of this age?? In my opinion, yes. Could it have been better?? Everything can be better.

Beautiful picture. - Phantom

I don't know if you will see this comment, but this stupid puritan people what was writing comments about this picture just forget it it is very beautiful picture light is perfect and all your pictures are beautiful I am europian and this stupid puritan americans and canadians have no feeling they see just themselfs forget them I wish you good luck with your future work

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.

To tell you the truth, at first sight I found it disturbing to have a little child posing in the nude, so you can't blame the viewers if they give you a harsh reaction about it, it's because in the past few years we've witness a terrifying child pornography on the web, although looking closely at the picture, admiring how the whole process came to, you'll find the picture is quite amazing, if they gave some little time to go through your gallery, to understand your art, they'll definitely find it as beautiful as I see it. And your crop is great, the squar give it a nice frame :) ..keep up the great work!

I just read every letter, that one fellow who feels this isn't "art" is correct! This is a beautiful photograph by a fine photographer and some of those letters were just plain foolish. Oh, that same fellow who declared this work not be "art" is also not only 'foolish' but can't take a picture to save his life, he is a very poor "photographer". Not really 'art' but it could hang in any fine art museum in the world with pride. Sherrie

Have you appalled doubters ever thought about why a majority seem to dislike your opinion? Fundamentalists of the world rejoice! for you have a thing to frown at.

...

The paradox is that it joins the hardline christians in the US with the Shia Muslims. Whatever... this picture is a splendid mirror to something within ourselves and our upbringing.

Aesthetically this is a very well-done photograph. Nice composition, lighting, etc. I dislike the cropping.

Artistically you have achieved something often difficult to achieve: positive and negative passion from those who view it. That is clearly evidenced by the comments on this picture.

However, professionally you have done something entirely inappropriate: you used a child as a model and posed them in an entirely improper fashion. You titled this piece "Thoughtful", but the subject matter isn't the girl's thoughtful expression - it is the exposure of her prepubescent nipple. You intentionally chose this viewpoint - and God forbid, possibly directed the child to make sure it was visible - just for the sake of provoking argument (or worse yet, achieving perverse pleasure.)

Children cannot determine whether such imagery is appropriate or not (in fact most adults can't, when children are involved), therefore a professional photographer should never seek such poses from a child model of this age.

While the argument of "is this art" is sometimes a good one to have, when it is truly debatable and involves a real life nude child such as this, such art should be destroyed. You should remove this submission from the website.

Too bad that all of this had to be said. I saw this from another photo posted recently that caused me to look at the entire portfolio. There are many excellant photos there; however the instant that I saw this one I became uneasy with it. I have a daughter and small granddaughters that I too would not want photographed in this manner. I, myself have taken a couple of photos of them that I had to rethink after actually seeing the photo. To me this would be a sweeter and more innocent photo if cropped just below her chin.

jason,

would you recommend then that museums remove any 'old' paintings that have nude children in them?

It is the eye of the beholder!

Nude children in art is nothing new, it is our society that focuses on the negative that has become the problem. We see the negative 'talk shows' and news about child abuse and take that as the norm when they are really the exception. The good is almost never on those shows, only if something is bad.

I was just at the LACMA museum and there were plenty of nude children in oil paintings; should I tell them that it is terrible to show that and have them remove it? they would think I was nuts.

However, it does seem the child was posed to show off her nipple(to create this disccssion---as it's funny that one hand is covering one nipple yet just below the other on the other side), if you can call it that...it doesn't look like a full nipple...maybe even a bit blurred. There is no difference between this and young boys of the same age with their shirts off. Would you require all young boys to keep their shirts on? lol

Back to the photo, she has a lovely face and nice, flowing long hair.

Beautiful shot!

And to all those crying pornography: chill. If this were a boy of similar age, in a similar pose, no one would have said a word.

Marcus, this is an awesome picture!

I hope that the negative attention you have recieved as a result of this isn't hurting you feelings. This picture represents thoughtfulness and lonliness and is not anything else. I believe that a picture, when looked at, should not be judged at face value, but at the intent of the picture. That being said, I think the intent of the picture, correct me if I'm wrong, is a lonely young girl with her arms crossed, eyes closed and her head resting. I think this is a great picture, and hope the insults to either you or the photo don't hurt your feelings.

Ok so I have read everyones comments, and opinions now heres mine....

ITS ART PEOPLE GET IT STRAIGHT!! Ok yes here in America, a child posing like this is illegal cause shes not 18, and to those of us who are not from the contry htis pic was taken..why are you criticizing somthing that is righ tin annother country? Who are you to tell someone that lives in a country centuaries older than ours that their culture is wrong... George Bush?

If the parents of the child felt that this was a bad picture or idea would they have allowed it? Definatly not, but art is art. Is she having sex? masturbating? touching her self innapropraitly? is someone touching her? NOO!!!.

SHE IS STANDING THERE ALONE it shows that she is innocent, lik eall children. do not say children do not know what they are doing at age 7either...how did you feel when people told you tha twhen you were that age?

I stand by the artist/photographer when I say this is a truely artful photograph.

Ok this is an image of a nude child? YES! Is it illegal in the USA? NO! Has anyone here read the laws on child pornography? It does not sound like it.

You can photograph a fully nude child, but you can not have a fully nude 18 year old in a sexual pose, posing as a child.

There are a couple artist that you should refer to, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann. Both were questioned by the FBI and both were not convicted because what they did was perfectly legal.

As long as the child is not posed in a sexual fashion it is ok.

People are people and most of them are prudes or pervs.

To the posters, It has been said that "Those who is most against something, deep down desires it". Or somthing along those lines. ;-)

I think this is a beautiful image and would be fine sharing it with the world.

But to the photographer, this is a sick world and people will get off on this. And a busy body nobody can cause you a lot of trouble.

EDIT: I reall need to add more, you people but the crap out of me.

HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE WARING? WATCHING ON TV? A photograph of a nude child is the least of our worries.

My wife and I both agree that this is a good image. Did you capture the Idea you wanted? I think so. The jaw has a certian tensness to it that seems a bit uncomfortable. The forhead and tention in the eye lids is thoughtful. The eyes have the look of seeing the emptyness between the body and arms. The arms have a motion to them as if to release into thought. As Stated by others the lighting on the arms is a bit much but it does darken the empty space in the arms. The lighting on the face is wonderful with almost a drawn quality. For a next atempt you might try playing with shadows on the lower half and the background as if the light were comming through a screened window or door. I like B&W photos as I draw with gray tones. If this image were any softer I would think it were drawn.

I am new to this site and this was the first picture I saw. I was looking for artistic nudes for a study on the diferance between art and porn. I have seen at many photos of children in verious states of dress most have been crude atempts at makeing art of nude children. Little if any consistancy in content and subject matter. The lack of objects in this image is refreshing. I once saw a painting of a child jesus that looked much like this (or was it a charcoal?) that use a girl for the model. There is a boy in the town I live in that looks just like the child and at first I thought this was a boy but the general thought is that this is a girl. I had to realy study the facal features to tell that this was indeed a girl.

Overall I would say this is a good photo. But it would look better as a pencil work.

Hi Marcus.

Amazingly this post is still going strong. When reviewing the debate this time, I remembered Hans Christian Andersen's wonderful "The Snowqueen", I read to my daughter recently.

An evil "troll," "actually the devil himself," makes a magic mirror that has the power to distort the appearance of things reflected in it. It fails to reflect all the good and beautiful aspects of people and things while it magnifies all the bad and ugly aspects so that they look even worse than they really are. The devil teaches a "devil school," and the devil and his pupils delight in taking the mirror throughout the world to distort everyone and everything. They enjoy how the mirror makes the loveliest landscapes look like "boiled spinach." They then want to carry the mirror into heaven with the idea of making fools of the angels and God, but the higher they lift it, the more the mirror grins and shakes with delight. It shakes so much that it slips from their grasp and falls back to earth where it shatters into billions of pieces, some no larger than a grain of sand. These splinters are blown around and get into people's hearts and eyes, making their hearts frozen like blocks of ice and their eyes like the troll-mirror itself, only seeing the bad and ugly in people and things.

Hopefully enough people will see the beauty in this image that the trolls will fail to spoil it.

Best regards, Anders

This has certainly gotten many emotional responses, just what every photographer strives for. Whether a striking landscape or a cute puppy, every good photo causes some sort of emotional response, no matter how profound or slight. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this portrait, I think because I see it as a portrait. Nearly anything can be turned into something that it wasn't intended to be. While a foot doctor would look at a photo of a woman's feet in heels and think of the damage that she's doing to her arches, someone with that certain fetish, might have a different reaction. Do we therefore, call such a photo porn? Good work.