On Dec 9, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of people" believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those people believe that.
My definition of "erotic" would require there to be a sexual element. Nudity is not automatically sexual, there would need to be something about the pose which could be reasonably associated with sex.
Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the chest? C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose.
In the US, that doesn't matter, if it's representing sexuality (not sex acts).... *but* it's also art.
The "shatter" is what really brings the work together, uniting the awkward image of a young girl in a sexualized pose beyond her years, with the shatter effect conveying a sense of damage, a sense of something about innocence being permanently broken. Centering the shatter on her genital area further drives the point home about how we hold (as western society) the concept of "virginity" to be focused on the genitals, rather than the mind.
In the US, we protect art.
I'm not sure why people are so scared, or fearful, of artwork that depicts a shattering of innocence, of permanently damaging young girls.
I have my suspicions.
-Bop