Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
Why SHOULD anyone have to explain why art depicting nude figures isn't pornographic? I don't get it at all. Isn't it obvious to any thinking person that nudity =/= pornography?

And sycld, I don't think it's even fair to say that those paintings "eroticise" adolescents, especially not "overtly" and "unabashedly". So yeah, even if coqauvin isn't willing to contend that claim, I am.
Well, I suppose that is your opinion. Still, these depicitions of naked youths and others like them have been enough to make Caravaggio's sexuality (as well as that of his patrons') a topic of academic debate.

EDIT: Frankly, I don't see what the art has to do with the issue of hitting minors with kiddie porn charges for taking nude/sexual pictures. Seems totally unrelated to me.
I suppose I wanted to open this discussion beyond merely these laws about child pornography and all touch upon our prudish sensibilities regarding this topic, regarding anything that might be sexual with young children in it as "child pornography," but I guess I failed in that by not providing a strong enough first post.