On Dec 9, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Thomas Dalton
like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what
of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young
perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of
believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those
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
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.