When I was 4 to 6 I lived in Colorado. I didn�t care to much for clothes so when it was warm I usually took them of. My parents where, of course, scared of being arrested. In Norway, having a christian state religion (and in fact in most of the world), this seems crazy. Even at my brothers house in a strict muslim part of Indonesia small children were running around naked.
As a nude child is considered to be innocent in my culture I could very easily have file such a picture in a PAW. I even did in the PUG, but you only saw his back.
Now, is there a rule saying that I should follow some moral standards more than others? Should the photographed person cover their body, their breasts, their heads, or should we not make images of human beings at all, like some traditions dictate.
For me sitting here it is difficult to know which standard to choose. On the internet you have to rely on peoples ability to make their own decisions, I cannot make them for them. When in doubt, I can warn them, but that was done in this case, so I can�t understand the reactions.
DagT
P� 13. jul. 2004 kl. 23.03 skrev Tom C:
I don't think nudity is as much the issue... I personally think the human body is a great work of art, but IMO, most images of nudes are not designed with that in mind.
By in large I guess what I'd like to express is that there's a whole plethora of images and subject matter that could be discussed that is likely offensive to no one. Surely we can find something within that selection, instead of choosing what will offend some.
Tom C.
From: Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Also consider that nude human bodies during all times have been one of the major motives for all kinds of art. Sculptures, paintings, drawings... and photography. Not everyone agrees that nudity is the limit to enforce.
--
anders
-------------------------
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!
