29 Comment

  • How about a NSFW on this one for sure!

  • Exploitive? Not sure how I feel about this one – the human body is a work of art, and the photos are touching but I got a visceral reaction, like, what’s this naked boy’s picture doing on the internet??

  • This is horseshit! WTF??? Art my ass–naked autistic boy in bathtub= child pornography. TAKE THIS SHIT DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

  • A powerful picture. maybe it should have been hidden “after the jump” so people don’t have to see it on the front page at work?

  • Agree with comments 1,2,3 and 5

  • Seriously. That’s not appropriate.

  • Please get that down now.

  • Please don’t post child pornography on your site- even if some one claims it is “art” – the kid’s privates are partially visible. Do you really want people getting fired for reading your website?

  • Nudity in art, like sex should be with consenting adults. To distribute a picture of a naked, special needs child is in the same category as rape. POP you are aiding a crime.

  • I agree. Please take this down. It is exploitive. How someone can call this art, I have no idea. If this were a physically abled boy or girl, it would be labeled child pornography. But, as the kid has autism it’s suddenly art?? Uh uh, no way.

  • Prince Of Petworth


    This column is done by a guest editor. I have placed the picture after the jump. I hope that Matt will respond to some of the objections and explain why he selected the photo. I apologize to those who were offended when the photo was on the front page.

  • I really hope you have a good lawyer. This is so disturbing – that someone would take such a photo, call it “art” and put it on the internet under such a guise.

  • I hope this blog burns.

  • Prince Of Petworth

    I have decided to take the photo down because I do not want to offend people. I think debate of this sort can be useful and interesting but I agree that PoP is not the proper venue for this particular debate given its nature as a neighborhood blog. Again, I do apologize to those that were offended.

    However, to Mr. Zuckerman, if you ever care to meet in person to discuss this matter I would be happy to do so. Please email me directly.

  • When did the teabaggers start posting on here? I turned to these ridiculous comments and thought I was on the Glenn Beck website.

  • Gotta say, it was pretty poor judgement (by whomever) to post a nude picture of a mentally challenged young boy on the inter-tubes! Thanks for taking it down. I also had an immediate visceral reaction to it and wished I hadn’t seen it.

    @Anonymous 3:30
    that doesn’t make us wild-eyed right wing Limbaugh facists. It just not in good taste and it’s borderline illegal. Maybe not even borderline. I’m no lawyer.

    • World Press Photo is an international foundation that’s been in existence for more than 50 years to recognize and support photojournalism. The photo at issue was one of a series about the daily life of this autistic 13 year old child, and the series won first place in the Daily Life category.

      The idea that this photo somehow qualifies as child pornography is as ridiculous as saying that the award-winning Vietnam era photo of the naked child fleeing the napalming of her village was child porn. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrangBang.jpg) Could someone somewhere get off on such a photo? Yes, and someone somewhere gets off on photos of kids eating birthday cake.

      Photojournalism tells a story through photographs. Maybe the posters here should consider what is going on in their own heads if the story they got from that photo was prurient.

      • Thanks for a little sanity. I wholeheartedly echo this:

        “Maybe the posters here should consider what is going on in their own heads if the story they got from that photo was prurient.”

        … and I’d like to add this:
        Even if the posters who identified this as “child pornography” don’t personally find it arousing, it’s disturbing that a) they immediately thought someone might and b) they immediately think censorship is appropriate if that’s the case.

        I’m a little disappointed that the blog caved to the sensationalist trolls who have been brainwashed (and I don’t use that term lightly) to fear… to find the danger, to look for the negative, to censor/silence/avoid… and even litigate, as it didn’t take long for someone to mention the law, did it?

        It’s a powerful photograph. It accomplishes exactly the task it was assigned to do, hence the award. I’m sorry THAT got lost in the shuffle. THAT was the point, you artless fools.

  • Having said that: “I hope this blog burns”?????
    Jeesh, Zuckerman. Poor judgement, honest mistake, quickly remedied… let’s just let it go. Obviously, you’re a fan and frequent poster here, so let’s just let it drift.

  • Looks like “Matt” had eleven some odd photos to pick from. I do wonder what about that particular pic caught his eye.

    Point of order, who is Gihan Tubbeh and why do we care?

  • Wow, what a Rorschach test this was.

  • No, I mean Rorschach: “look at this ink blot, and tell me what you see?”

    • I’m pretty sure almost everyone who commented saw a naked, developmentally disabled adolescent. That part didn’t really seem to be up for debate. However what is and is not considered art by the readers of this blog and what is and is not acceptable as content seemed more like the issue at hand, which is why I’d consider it a litmus test rather than a Rorschach test. But, perhaps both were at play.

  • I don’t suggest that objectively, a child in a bathtub was seen by some people and not by others. It’s the subjective interpretation of a graphic image that is of interest in Rorschach testing.

  • People, please calm down. It’s this kind of reaction and mentality that gets people arrested when the guy at Motofoto decides he’d better report those shots of a kid in a bathtub…

    We can’t cripple our ability to make distinctions, understand contexts. A naked boy in a bathtub is not necessarily out of line by definition (though I can understand worrying about workplace problems). It’s actually not my favorite image in the series, but certainly seeing the whole series should put to rest many people’s concerns.

    World Press Photo, based in the Netherlands, is the most prestigious competition in the world for news photography, photojournalism, and documentary photography. They wade through many, many thousands of images, all by top professional photographers, to arrive at the winners. They are not particularly interested in art, except in the sense of a photographer’s style and vision contributing to the story or subject matter.

    The daily life category, in which this series won first place, is one of the most competitive of all. The photographer should be very proud, the judges (all experts in the field) clearly thought she handled the issue with a combination of intellect, aesthetic, and originality.

    We would do well to figure out a way to appreciate (or at least get our minds around) that before getting hysterical. I have a young daughter, I understand protecting kids. But let’s not be knee-jerk puritans.

  • @ Bill C,

    You wrote:
    We can’t cripple our ability to make distinctions, understand contexts.

    I disagree. Apparently, we can.

  • Hey PoP – I think the comments section was hijacked by an interest group. I don’t see many familiar handles among the critics. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t offended.

Comments are closed.