Assignment #3

The decision on which side to choose in this never-ending debate about the innocence of children and artistic interpretations, is way to hard. If we look at this issue from the perspective of demoralising children and misusing innocence, then the final choice is easy, children, especially young girls, SHOULD NOT be used in any creative way, for advertising or art puposes.

There are many arguements found through all the sources provided, that suggest that there are a few loopholes in this fairly one sided debate. Melinda Tankard Reist, in her blog she uses examples from other blogs that give reason to believe that these images are inappropriate when selling consumer goods, for advertising, or selling themselves, yet it is fine when being used for "artistic" purposes.

But the definition of "art" itself, is really unstable. That is why it's art. Anyone can create something, in any medium from painting to sculpture, to photography, with a justifiable reason, which classifies it as an "artwork".

If the same advertisments where painted or scultpted, it would be socially acceptable. The defintion of a photograph is what makes this debate so overwhelming. A photograph can be anything, it can be for documenting or for a creative purpose, but for many, seeing a real human child in a picture, they see that child as a person, not as an artwork, or an idea. They personify the image and give it an emotion, which then brings out a humanitarian side of society to protect the innocent and those who cannot defend themselves.

Photographs of this nature, similar to Bill Hensons work, are designed with a concept in mind, just like an art piece. The thought process is long and well maintained. They are not designed to demoralise or "demonise". The photographs are a fantastic use of the medium. They criticise everything that is wrong with modern culture and the fashion industry.