Art Goes On Trial

[Sophus]

The pedophile thread reminded me of this. A while back the remarkable German hyper-realist (and an artist who has had a huge influence on me) Otto Lohmüller was put on trial by the Eurothought police. Why? He does portraits of those in and outside of his community but primarily he focuses on nude portraits of young boys, between the ages of 8-16 years of age. For anyone unfamiliar with him, there is absolutely nothing erotic or sexual about his paintings, and yet people are not only comparing, but calling his work pornography. Nude depictions are nothing new to art. Mr. Lohmüller's models, parents and critiques all approved of what he was doing. I thought it was only America that was so offended by the human body but apparently the influence is rubbing off on European nations as well.

Now, Lohmüller won his case and is still painting. Here was his response on the matter:

I distance myself completely from the American prudish and destructive moralist, who consider paintings of nude boys, as in this particular case, to be porno-graphic. But compliant, America-loving German organizations, who twist words, put the most distasteful and evil child abuse crimes into the same pot with inoffensive pictures of nude children, in order to manipulate notions of ‘Violence’ and ‘Pornography’. In this way they incite people. And the media with their love of sleazy headlines work along the same lines.

I am sickened and outraged at this. But don't let me influence you... what are your thoughts on this?

[Squid]

There is a vast difference between art and porn.  It's sad that people don't know the difference.

[SSY]

There is a vast difference between art and porn.  It's sad that people don't know the difference.

Agreed, its all about the context.

[curiosityandthecat]

There is a vast difference between art and porn.  It's sad that people don't know the difference.

Bingo.

Not porn: Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" (she was 12-13 at the time of the film's release)
Not porn: Thora Birch in "American Beauty" (16 during filming)
Not porn: Jock Sturges' photography
Not porn: Lewis Carroll's photography
Not porn: Sally Mann's photography
Not porn: David Hamilton's photography and films
Not porn: 12chan (this one I think really pushes it, even though, by law, it's not considered pornography)

Interestingly, there was a court ruling not too long ago that created child pornography (that is, artistic productions with no real-life antecedent) are not illegal. The court's reasoning was that without a perpetrator or a victim, there is no crime (or something along those lines but with more legal jargon). So, digitally rendered images or drawings of child pornography are not illegal.   Seems questionable, but that's the legal system for ya.

[Wraitchel]

I'm a great fan of the human form in art. i love Lucian Freud, in particular...one of the greatest painters ever to pick up a brush. Some of his paintings have certainly aroused the easily offended. Good for Freud!

[DennisK]

I don't know what to think.  I'm a self proclaimed artist (art major) myself and I appreciate the body form very much.  The nude body has been synonymous with art for a very long time.  It seems to me it could be a slippery slope when calling paintings of nude children "art" these days.  It may open a door for pedophiles in some way.  At the very least, pedophiles would probably be interested in Lohmüller's art which is sickening by itself.

[Whitney]

It may open a door for pedophiles in some way.  At the very least, pedophiles would probably be interested in Lohmüller's art which is sickening by itself.

No more than they'd be interested in home movies and parent taken photos of nude children.  Every day lots of parents take video and photos of their kids in the bath or running around naked just because they are doing something funny.  We don't think of that as inappropriate but it could be used inappropriately in the wrong hands.

[Ninteen45]

Not porn: Thora Birch in "American Beauty" (16 during filming)

If I'm correct, the Legal age in GB is 16 for sexual Intercourse. But I'm not sure about pornography and age here...

And laetusatheos has a good point. The context could be: "Liik at what my son is doing" But can easily be turned into somthing else.

[thirteen31]

He does portraits of those in and outside of his community but primarily he focuses on nude portraits of young boys, between the ages of 8-16 years of age. For anyone unfamiliar with him, there is absolutely nothing erotic or sexual about his paintings, and yet people are not only comparing, but calling his work pornography. Nude depictions are nothing new to art. Mr. Lohmüller's models, parents and critiques all approved of what he was doing. I thought it was only America that was so offended by the human body but apparently the influence is rubbing off on European nations as well...what are your thoughts on this?

I was wondering if you could offer more information on the artist, is there a site that you can link here? Where is Mr. Lohmüller from? Just out of curiosity, is any of the artist's work available to view online?

And one more thing, I honestly don't know, but is 'eurothought police' the Council of Europe?

[Whitney]

Because I'm a bit paranoid...please don't post anything the Ameri-thought-police would jump on.

[Wraitchel]

http://www.otolo.eu/Index2.htm Here is a link to Otto L's boy gallery. Look at Gallery 1

Having looked at the work, I say that there is no way to know what is in Otto L.'s mind. There is also no way to know what unhealthy passions it may arouse in pedophiles of that particular type. What I see is an artist who admires the fragility and even delicacy of a boy on the brink of puberty. It is a very beautiful stage, and all too brief. I'm glad he is doing these paintings. I do not feel responsible for the effect it has on perverts. They do not need his paintings to be what they are. If they don't jerk off to one of his paintings, then they'll do it to a picture from a magazine. For the rest of us, though, we are reminded of something important and thought-provoking when we see this body of work. I don't think his work is the least bit pornographic.

Nobody but a prude would think twice about these paintings if they were of girls.Here's one by Edward Munch:

[DennisK]

It may open a door for pedophiles in some way.  At the very least, pedophiles would probably be interested in Lohmüller's art which is sickening by itself.

No more than they'd be interested in home movies and parent taken photos of nude children.  Every day lots of parents take video and photos of their kids in the bath or running around naked just because they are doing something funny.  We don't think of that as inappropriate but it could be used inappropriately in the wrong hands.

You're right.  I just can help my urge to be PC on this issue.

[thirteen31]

I appreciate the link, at this point though, I have only looked at Gallery One on Otto's site.

I didn't find this to be pornographic at all, but I haven't taken the proper time to absorb the whole site yet - which I probably will after I finish this. What charges did Euro thought police bring against him?

(Umm, I'm not sure if anyone had answered this, but what is the euro thought police? The Council of Europe? )

[curiosityandthecat]

No more than they'd be interested in home movies and parent taken photos of nude children.  Every day lots of parents take video and photos of their kids in the bath or running around naked just because they are doing something funny.  We don't think of that as inappropriate but it could be used inappropriately in the wrong hands.

This sort of came up in a class I was taking a few years ago when we were talking about how to spot abuse, inappropriate parental behavior, that sort of thing. The issue of pedophile parents came up, which led to a conversation about pedophilia in general, in which someone mentioned diaper ads on television: naked little babies running all over the place. To a well-adjusted (dare I say normal) person, just like you said, something funny. But, one can't help but wonder if commercials for Huggies aren't like free porn for some pedophiles. (I'm not sure about the average age pedos usually go for, but I'd imagine there have to be some that are attracted to children of that age.)

If I'm correct, the Legal age in GB is 16 for sexual Intercourse. But I'm not sure about pornography and age here...

Porn age in the US is 18. Traci Lords became a kind of porn-industry legend (and pariah) when she lied and started filming at 16 with a fake ID. My point about Birch in American Beauty is that she was topless, but it isn't considered porn, therefore her being 16 didn't matter.  

[Wechtlein Uns]

There seems to be a bigger issue at work here...