Well, most of this has been hashed over before, but I thought I’d momentarily cease my thread voyeurism to ask for a bit of clarification on something. Magnum’s Mustache posted the following amidst much more:
I’m almost certain I’m not catching this. Are you saying that their claim that “I love to look at the human body” is a lie? Because it most assuredly is not. Why do you think their image collections can run into the hundreds of thousands of images? Not only do they find the human body visually pleasing, but the juvenile one in particular.
Some people find obesity attractive, some people a particular racial physiognomy, some people a particular gender, some people a particular physique. It doesn’t require lying to make a statement of that sort. I personally hit puberty (or maybe “noticed” would be a better word) during Nadia Comaneci’s balance beam routine during the '76 Olympics, leaving me with a marked preference for the pixie gymnast physique (not to mention a fondness for the sport).
Insofar as the “art of nude youth” being a ‘scam’, I think that’s an innacurate perception. Can the idea of nude youth as art be utilised to take advantage of someone? Certainly, as can practically anything else I can think of (Miss Cleo, anyone?). But juvenile nudity has been the subject of artistic endeavours for thousands of years. To dismiss the entire concept as a scam simply because it can be used in that capacity is a rather unfair characterisation. Several of the most respected photographers around the world have explored it in their work. In addition to Sturges and Mann mentioned in JET’s posts, you might check out David Hamilton (uncomfortably erotic for many Americans, but beyond doubt a master with a camera–see Twenty-five Years of an Artist), Fabrio Cabral from Brazil, or Shinoyama Kishin from Japan. How people can look at such material and only see lecherous smut is beyond me. I do not envy them their point of view.