Would such pictures be wrong because it is sexually using an underage person? If so do you consider the above pieces of art to be sexual simply because they contain nudity?

I do consider that art you posted to be sexual art. I don't consider it to be pornographic though. You see, the pictures that that man took are wrong because he was using underage little girls to pose nude. I don't believe that pictures of underage nude girls could be classified as art.

Nude photographs can be very artistic, even ones depicting sexual activity. And even if there is sexual activity, it can be non-sexual and it can definitely be non-pornographic. The human body is beautiful and a fantastic thing to include in art.

Art is expression and depth. It is made to evoke emotion and feeling - it is made to stimulate thought and creativity. Pornography is made to arouse and stimulate someone sexually.

The fact that these girls were underage doesn't change any of that. Assuming these children were not forced to pose, abused, sexually assaulted, or raped - I don't see the issue.

I've heard arguments that people can get off on it, and therefore it isn't art, or it's sexual, or it's pornography. Well - I know people who can get off on Michelangelo's David. Is that now considered pornography too?

Were the intentions of the photographer pure? Who knows? I can't tell you for sure. Children are symbolic of quite a bit - innocence, purity, possibility. He may very well have been trying to capture that. On the other hand, he may have been taking them to arouse himself later.

People seem to hold the value that I can take pictures of my friend naked, lying on his bed, with the photograph being in black and white, and it's artistic. Suddenly, if someone finds it arousing - it's disgusting. It's smut. It's pornography.

So I guess what it really comes down to is the intention of those involved in the creation of the work. If I were to take a picture of two partners engaged in sexual activity to capture love and emotion, it's artistic. If I were to take a picture of two partners engaged in sexual activity because I thought it was hot - it's pornography. In this case, it suffices to say: To each his own.

Unless of course you're stopping someone from enjoying art in a museum because of nudity. That's just idiotic.

I guess there's no room to reason with you if you find things sexual so easily that you think David is sexual. The art I posted was not sexual in nature as there is no intercourse taking place and it is not meant to cause arousal. I could post examples of drawings that are meant to arouse to give context, but then I would likely be in violation of the rules.

Why should pictures that have nuder underage people in them be excluded from being art?

I said that I consider it to be sexual as in showing the sexual organs, not as in pornographic.

If it's pictures/paintings of nude adults, then it's okay. It's art. But pictures/paintings of nude minors can no way be classified as art. When children are involved, it's just wrong. He could have taken pictures of minors to show their adolescence without having them pose nude. It's inappropriate to take pictures of nude minors and display them to the public, even if he wanted them to be for an artistic puropse. When he's displaying them to the public, he's exposing them to any kind of abuse. People might put them on pornographic websites and such. Minors are too young to make those kind of decisions, they're still exploring their own sexuality. What he did wasn't even legal and he could be charged for child abuse, no matter what his intention was.

At this age children are starting to develop sexually but are still very unsure of who they are. Psychologists say they are way too young to make an informed decision about posing nude and that their parents should not make it for them.

'Sexual organs' are not always sexual for example when a breast is taken out to feed a child or when genitals are uncovered in order to urinate. Sexuality does not directly follow from nudity.

You can not base your actions on what pedophiles might do with the pictures, becuase if that's the case then you'll need to get rid of pretty much every picture of children that is publicly accessible.

We should only consider the actual action that took place and if it was abusive or harmed the child then it should be considered bad. This in no way happens form the children being nude, being photographed, or having these photos shown. Because they did not actually do anything sexual in the photos it is not important that they likely do not fully understand sexual matters.

And no these pictures are legal in many countries as they should be because they are art. The Australian authorities even realized that they were way out of bounds in this case and dropped the case against him.

Well that's good.

Believe it or not there are some people that can look at a nude photograph and see it for art as opposed to a lustful thing. To me, thats when the line is crossed. If an image provokes lust, then to me it becomes pornographic. The human body is an awesome sculpture so appreciate it!

So if someone looks at something meant to be art and sees pornography, THEY are the vulgar, indecent ones? Good line of thought, there.

No offense to Gleabs, of course. I know you didn't see them as pornography but as inappropriate due to age.