How young is too young to pose nude in the name of art?

In the name of art why should there be a barrier, many religious buildings are decorated with naked people including children.

We are all born naked!

The '18' law applies to some states and is certainly not universal, and it applies to pornography... not normal nudity!

There is nothing wrong with innocent nudity, nudist clubs are full of healthy happy naked people of all ages, and it is the least sexual environment you could be in!

Those who think any depiction of a nude under 18 is wrong have a very sad jaundiced view of normal society.

Once again NUDITY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY, does everybody understand that now?

There are two criteria here - what is legal, and what is socially acceptable. Both depend on where the photography is being done.

In the US, photographing a nude model who is less than 18 years of age is asking for a world of legal trouble. In some parts of Europe, the legal threshold is younger.

The issue often is that an individual who has not achieved legal majority (however that is defined by local law) is unable to give informed consent to being photographed nude. And in the absence of informed consent, the presumption is that the act of photography was a form of abuse.

By the way, it is at least legally possible for a parent or legal guardian to give consent on behalf of an underage child. However, while that may avoid the legal presumption of abuse, it doesn't change the perception of the public, and public perception can lead to legal problems that are equally onerous. Therefore, my opinion is that it would be unwise to photograph a nude child even with consent of the parent.

The line is very thin here in America when family's are branded by the Government as Kiddie P0rn takers because they took pics of their own kids in the bathtub, the back yard, even some beaches, naked.... Fathers have been approached in public parks because they have a camera and are taking pics of kids playing, their OWN kids..!

The naked baby pics on the Bear Skin Rug are now a no no too... and far too many one hour photo people think it is their duty now to turn in the people dropping off the film that has naked kids.

Our Government, local and in DC have gone off the hook on what is acceptable and what is not. However, lil girl beauty pageants seem strong. Lets make lil Mary (or Jon-Benet Ramsey) look like a 21 year old with make up, eye liner and shadow, cute lil sexy dress, tights or such then have her dance around on stage in front of a bunch of adults.. HUH..??!!

Then there are movies like Blue Lagoon and others, where child nudity is plastered on the big screen. But this was in the name of art, but who really gets to name art.. art..??!

The moment the 'art' is on a public wall, especially if for sale, it could be called - exploitation of a minor - and with any kind of nudity involved you or the photographer COULD be up for charges of child pornography.

I would approach this one like it was a live bomb, ticking or a hive of African bees and it was a hot July day.. 18 and older is quite safe.. 16 to 18 "may" give you some lee way in SOME states..Anyone under 16 and me thinks you could be playing with a very live wire that could come back to haunt you in a very bad way.

However, if two 14 year olds took pics of each other, what would people say..? But, get an adult in this and they would be branded for life as a sex offender, even if no sex took place. Our laws are crazy and very skued, be careful with this one..

Bob - Tucson

18

I would think it would depend on the medium, the artist/model relationship, and what the posing is.

Anything commercial would probably need to be 18+

Photography would probably need to be either very young or over 18.

Painting and similar artwork is where it would get sketchy (d'oh!)

If it is REALLY artistic...there is no line.

For real, art is art and there is no boundaries. I mean...it's only a naked body...something so beautiful and so natural. No one questions the use of anthropologists when they film naked Amazon children.

It's not the picture that is gross...it's the use and intention that a person installs.

Child pornography, on the other hand, should be punished to the fullest extend. It is disgusting and terrible.

nicely.. relies upon what form of artwork. all of us has seen those little toddler's wearing wings or in plant pots they are many times nude. even though this is in easy terms a distinctive venture than your physique being post in an artwork gallery or a mag. i do no longer think of you could incredibly positioned an age on it because of the fact there is categories of nude artwork

oh, these answers are going to get opinionated!

i really think it depends what context the photographs are taken in/for/of. if it's provocative or suggestive, it's completely different to an artistic nude of a young person.

as to what age, again, it depends.

depends where you live...........

in most of europe the nude is like air or water just part of life - what does age have to do with it??

i have never understood why people outside southern europe make the body so taboo and make such a fuss about it - im sure they will tell you what they think as to ages and stuff.........personally i say stuff them if they let pedophiles influence the way they live - i sure dont.................each to their own...........

the nude was part of art long before america was discovered..........check out the masters works

the name of art has nothing to do with it

if you re under 18 can it

you need to be at an age where the law appreciates that you are responsible for your own actions

so unless you are 18

u keep your clothes on honey