Is Salon.com Promoting Kiddy-Porn?

[glurx]

<a href="http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2002/01/18/sturges/index_np.html" target="_blank">Ick</a>

[Brad]

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Sometime there can be fine line between porn and what some people like to call "art" but I think this crosses that line.

"Ick" is right.

edit: removed some hateful comments.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>

[CosmoNut]

The jury's out here.

[Artman @_@]

Jock Sturges is a photographer.
Nothing more and nothing less. It's his subjects that irk people. Young females in the passage between youth and maturity. Physically, allegorically and in some images sexually. But there is no pornography represented in his work and all the models are consented by their parents.

Most of the models in his work are very comfortable in their nudity. Many are nudists in Europe where their parents do the same. They are comfortable in their nudity whereas in other places it's considered "dirty".

This attitude reflects our screwed up perceptions of what is art and what is porn in a country (US) that uses sexual innuendo constantly and exploitatively.

My opinion. You won't see Jock Sturges books on my shelf or coffee table but I respect his work.

[FERRO]

I remember seeing Sturges book at a local book store and was very surprised it was there... in public, I opened it up and took a casual look thru it... most of the pictures in it are "questionable" only under the pre-created "everything that it even related to the nude human body is bad complex"... the back of the book claimed the "safety" of the children was paramount...but it was the question of the implication of material such as this on the human mind and its (hormonally) variable morality is of a concern to me... some people have "hormonal and psychological addictions and weaknesses to anything sexually related" and the implication or draw of material like this can be a pre-lude to pedophilia and thus under the implication of its effects on society at large I could not support even this new breed of art/ultra soft kiddy....art? due to its implications...

I think this type of "kiddy art?" is a "loop hole" for pediphiles... several sites on the internet have sprung up recently that have altered the way the shoot children in order to comply with certain "artistic" requirements that protect them from being arrested and shut-down. although the actual photographing in jock sturges books may be safe to those being photographed (On the back of the book is a long list of people with info on how to contact them - who he has used in his photography and a disclaimer of the methods and context of the photoshoots) the regulars of his book are those individuals in nudist camps that seek nudism as a life-style., often children are photgraphed with there mothers along side... in total agreement to being photographed

I would call material like this a "legal gateway drug" to pedophilia...

But I would also mention that the television has also had its part in furthering the danger to children by using children on tv in adult roles and adult contexts, what I mean by that is I have seen many commercials and movies, etc. on tv lately that involve children in situations or activities actually out of there possibilty that can involve them "if only" in a fictitous context into a real life context... in reality or incite a person to believe "its OK" for them to be placed under that context or situation that may lead to the abuse and great danger to child population at large because of the false reality shown on tv, If our media continues to support this type of false child projections into the adult world the problem of child abuse and pedophilia, kidnapping for purposes of, rape, etc. will only grow...

I am not supporting this type of photography, but I must note even under the best of conditions and care, it is not the book itself that concerns me... it is the effects of it...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
------------------------------------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall17.jpeg

[The Toolboi]

It aint that bad. Yes, theres fine line there, but I think that he just barely crosses into art. Hes attempting to portray beauty, thus it is portrasying something, even if the material is questionable.

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>I would call material like this a "legal gateway drug" to pedophilia...</strong><hr></blockquote>

As Rock and Roll music is to the degeneration of society... :rolleyes:

Some of your points are valid, but honestly I think the Internet has become more of a "gateway" to the access to real sexual perversions and child pornography than with any of Sturges work in a bookstore.

Easy, anonymous access to a specific free newsgroup or pay web site...anywhere and anytime in your own home. Plus the sickos who lurk in teen chatrooms and such. :mad:

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

It is odd how we tolerate (encourage) the graphic and wholesale depiction of death, broken bodies, blood and guts on the news everyday, the inside of human bodies in hospital operations, arbitrary and gratuitous violence on TV, in newspapers, movies and videogames, all within easy access of child-viewing, yet the sight of a bare female breast or a picture of a nude teenager in a non-pornographic pose promotes pre-programmed outrage. Are we so entangled in repressed guilt?

If (Sturges') photograph is kiddie-porn, then that series of commercials aired by Calvin Klein on TV and billboards a few years back was far more "hard-core" and sexually suggestive. (Sex is the biggest handle employed by advertisers to sell product).

And, if Salon.com is "guilty of kiddie-porn", then the poster of this thread is equally so, by airing it on a public message board.

[FERRO]

Its strange how we see bands of adults burning hundeds of "Harry Potter" books while book like sturges are hardly ever mentioned... not to mention the implication or the actual influence the dark side of the internet can have on surfing kids... A large percentage of adults who let their children surf "freely" havent "a clue" of what the internet actual can be...

I first got on the internet when I was 17 or 18 with one of those newfangled "Webtvs"... And soon developed a addiction to free pornography... "A month later I brought it back to the store", becuase of its influence on my life...( I have often had to perform a "Failsafe" "against my will action" to save mself from things like this) I was staying up until the morning and sleeping during the day and hardly ever whent outside anymore... didnt even talk to my family members... I ate food in my room, etc...

About two months passed And I thought I had the strength to resist it this time and got one of those "New Webtvs" and later got the habit back again... lol...

then after I brought that one back, a month or two passed and I got my first job, A month or two after that I bought a computer... And got the problem again... Now I could download stuff...

I brought that computer back too... a month later...

I had been buying and selling/returning computers for a long time before I realized that a pattern was emerging and havent had a problem for three years... going into "Job Corps" was a big help for me to get away from my access to computers and to relinquish my sense of security and personal space, privacy... - "I didnt go in there to better myself, I just went to get away from a degenerative cycle (another failsafe action)", I am twenty two now and occasionally I run into a site that catches my eye but I know better now...

But not everyone has a "Failsafe - for my own good" instict like me and get really cuaght up in the addictive nature of internet porn...

Now I am addicted to AI and MacNN.. LOL...

really I sit up late night just looking for good topics in forums... I suppose this is a better addiction to have...

[quote] yet the sight of a bare female breast or a picture of a nude teenager in a non-pornographic pose promotes pre-programmed outrage <hr></blockquote>

I always found it so stupid that some people think that blocking channels from even being displayed on the television sets was the answer, I would say it was the ultimate form of introducing an unhealthy "desire" for the forbidden... Often these channel blockers display a large black screen with a message that only serves to illicite an newfound interest in the unknown...

Disclaimer: This topics thread title is no indication of the type of porn I was addicted to... No Kiddy Stuff!

E PLURIBUS UNIX
------------------------------------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall17.jpeg

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>

[NoahJ]

The content is not right. Just because the parents consented does not make it right. Not all parents (and this may suprise you) know what is best for their children. They try their level best to do what is right, but they are not always successful. What have these parents taught their kids? It is OK to pose nude for "artisitc purposes". For those who have no problem with nudity as art I am sure you agree. So posing for Playboy, Simply art? How about Hustler? Art is in the eye of the beholder and anyone can say that what they are doing is art and seek protection based on that. Naked children is not as bad as Hustler, but now they have that thought in their mind that since that is ok... Will all of them be that way, no. But this parent sponsored acceptance will go further towards letting them know it is ok rather than not ok...

Ok, now you can all tell me how closed minded and repressed I am...

[RyanTheGreat]

I dont see how nudity is such a huge issue. From what I read, these photographs were not sexual at all. Why do we have such a phobia aginst nakedness?

[FERRO]

Americans are very "closed minded and repressed"...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
------------------------------------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall17.jpeg

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If (Sturges') photograph is kiddie-porn, then that series of commercials aired by Calvin Klein on TV and billboards a few years back was far more "hard-core" and sexually suggestive. (Sex is the biggest handle employed by advertisers to sell product).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Those don't even compare. If we just catalogue the two the difference is clear. Picture of nude young girl cleverly covered up or cropped. Picture of model with shirt off in suggestive setting.

I wouldn't call the CK one "far more "hard-core" and sexually suggestive". You're just trying to mitigate what this photographer is doing by painting something else as worse. If you remember CK got slammed for it. So it wan't okay then.

The sexualization of children is not a good trend. Sure children can (are?) sexual. Little girls grow up and want to wear belly shirts and short skirts. Little boys get the idea early on that the want to put something in something they just don't know what or where.

Adults don't need to help this process along by snapping nude sexual pics of kids even if the kids don't care. We don't need more men beating off to little girl pics. Although I'm not convinced that porn is the gateway drug to pedophilia. Just leave the kids alone and don't turn them in to sex objects for adults.

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>Its strange how we see bands of adults burning hundeds of "Harry Potter" books while book like sturges are hardly ever mentioned... not to mention the implication or the actual influence the dark side of the internet can have on surfing kids... A large percentage of adults who let their children surf "freely" havent "a clue" of what the internet actual can be...</strong><hr></blockquote>

FERRO you should be commended for your actions. You are one of a majority of people who been through this and have "come back". I myself when first on the Internet was "addicted" to this behavior...but only for a while. Most porn bores me...prefer the real thing.

But I have seen others who become glued to their computer and seem to sink deeper into this netherworld. I still think it is a very small minority who really never seem to want to come back to reality. I had one person I knew who got caught...after sending his computer to a repair shop and the technician found these files of an illegal nature. He contacted the police and he was sent to jail. He actually in all aspects a pretty decent, intelligent guy.

As far as the overall display of Sturges books in stores...if I ever saw them, they were in the Art/Photography section and sealed. If you saw one open and out on display that's the bookstore's fault for not knowing that his work should be placed away from minors or people easily offended by this form of art. Not, let's say next to the Harry Potter section... :rolleyes:

[Belle]

I worry more about people who find these pictures inappropriate than the children posing. Clearly they're seeing something in these pictures most do not.

And if this is seen as a "loophole" for paedophiles, surely that's better than the real issue of child pornography - that children are abused and forced to pose for pictures, and often perform sexual acts on their abusers.

If paedophiles want to masturbate over these images then let them. At least it keeps them from abusing kids, or inciting others to by accessing images on the internet.

I can't believe some people would deprive us of the beautiful photographs of Sally Mann and Tierney Gearon because they find images of nudity "disgusting", even if those pictured are children.

Oh, and if you find these photographs disgusting, here's a tip:

DON'T GO TO STURGES' EXHIBITION.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>I had one person I knew who got caught...after sending his computer to a repair shop and the technician found these files of an illegal nature. He contacted the police and he was sent to jail. He actually in all aspects a pretty decent, intelligent guy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just borrowed a notebook from the computer guy here at work. He was telling me about how most everyone leaves porn on the notebooks after they return them. Right on the Desktop. The computers are for "home use" and these people are allowed to do "whatever" with them but you'd think they'd delete the porn before they return it?

The computer guy just reformats and reinstalls all notebooks that he gets back without even looking.

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>The computer guy just reformats and reinstalls all notebooks that he gets back without even looking.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that is the only way of removing any traces of files/data. Even if one believes that just dragging, dropping and deleting files will remove all traces (especially on a Windows OS) are very wrong. I don't know what Macs leave behind. I've heard too that there are apps that'll do a clean sweep of all data if needed...there's an application for everything. Just as the FBI has them to find and recover deleted files and data.

[BuonRotto]

I don't see anything explicit or distasteful about Sturges' work ,with what little I have seen of it before. It is a matter of taste, but nudity is not a Bad Thing™ inherently.

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I worry more about people who find these pictures inappropriate than the children posing. Clearly they're seeing something in these pictures most do not.

[Snip]

Oh, and if you find these photographs disgusting, here's a tip:

DON'T GO TO STURGES' EXHIBITION.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nice job of turning those concerned into the real problem. Obvioulsy because we don't like to see young, teenage girls who are not of majority age shown nude for the world to ogle we are abviously much more of a problem than the fact that such things exist and are called art.

And as for your tip. I won't be attending one of his exhibits. But the questions was put out so I and others put in our $0.02 worth. I guess that makes us drooling perverts who are "seeing something in these pictures most do not." :eek: I always preferred the term concerned parent actually.

[alcimedes]

[quote]
Nice job of turning those concerned into the real problem. Obvioulsy because we don't like to see young, teenage girls who are not of majority age shown nude for the world to ogle we are abviously much more of a problem than the fact that such things exist and are called art.
<hr></blockquote>

dude, stfu. you think that suddenly when a girl turns 18 she's magically transformed from a child to an adult? maybe legally, but realistically that's a load of crap.

you've been socialized to think that 18 is the first age where it's ok to look at a girl and think she's hot. at 17, you're a pervert. 18, now it's all good.

there are dozens of cultures where people get married and start having children when they're in their teens. in fact, if you want to take a purly scientific look at womenhood vs. childhood you'd use something like a girl having her period to try and distinguish between the two.

man, people are so afraid of being labeled a pervert that they're ready to torch anyone who does something that might not be totall PC.

get a life.

concerned parent doesn't mean you're right, or that you base your concern on anything logically sound.

if you lived 100 years ago, you'd probably be just as sure that a 16 year old was getting a little old to still be single.

you are a product of your socialization. just chill out. sheesh. :rolleyes:

[BuonRotto]

Not a bad point about the 18 "cut-off" age. Again, nudity isn't pornography.

[glurx]

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>I don't see anything explicit or distasteful about Sturges' work ,with what little I have seen of it before. It is a matter of taste, but nudity is not a Bad Thing™ inherently.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nudity is fine as is any form of porn where the performers are all adults and freely consent to whatever is being done.

I don't think producing sexually suggestive images of minor children for the entertainment of "adults" is OK.

[BuonRotto]

[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong>I don't think producing sexually suggestive images of minor children for the entertainment of "adults" is OK.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, like I said, I haven't seen any images of his are "sexually suggestive."

Otherwise, I agree with you. Yes, producing sexually suggestive images of children for the entertainment of adults is not OK.

[glurx]

<a href="http://www.dazereader.com/jocksturges.htm" target="_blank">Some backround</a>.

[quote] Jock Sturges has long been a lightning rod for controversy for his distinctive brand of nude photography. Sturges shoots much of his work around nudist beaches in France and northern California, and his most frequent subjects have been adolescent girls. The photos have an undeniably erotic quality, unlike some types of nude photography that treat the human body more as abstract form. However, Sturges aims to draw out the models' own sense of burgeoning sexuality in a straightforward, personal, non-voyeuristic way. Sturges uses a large-format camera to create extremely detailed, finegrained images, while his strong feel for sunlight bathes his models and settings with a shimmering quality. In his writings, Sturges prides himself on the bonds of trust, friendship and collaboration between the photographer, the models and their families. Many of his photographs depict several generations naked together.

Some critics have condemned his work as thinly disguised underage pornography hiding behind the mantle of fine art. To be fair, the market for Sturges's books certainly includes a great many adult males who like looking at naked teenage girls and who have little use for the photographs' artistic qualities. Sturges and his defenders sometimes disingenuously proclaim the "innocence" of his pictures of nude adolescents. In a more legitimate line of argument, Sturges criticizes the arbitrary division of people and their bodies into sexualized adults (over 18) and supposedly asexual children (under 18). The question really is: Should tasteful, non-exploitative erotic photography of adolescents be allowed? Is such a thing even possible? The photography of Jock Sturges presents a powerful case for the affirmative.

Not surprisingly, Sturges has faced legal threats throughout his career. In April 1990, FBI agents raided his studio, confiscated his equipment and work, and charged him with child pornography. Both the art world and the naturist communities publicly came to his defense. After more than a year of investigation, a grand jury threw out the case against Sturges. An expensive lawsuit eventually got Sturges his work and equipment back, though some had been damaged beyond repair.

In the mid 1990s, his work came under attack again, this time from christian conservatives led by Operation Rescue (led by Randall Terry, best known for anti-abortion protests) and Focus on the Family (led by James Dobson). Protesters picketed major bookstores around the country for carrying books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton and others which included photographs of nude adolescents. At some stores, protesters committed civil disobedience by openly vandalizing the books. And in two cases (both in the South), they managed to convince prosecutors to indict Barnes & Noble bookstores on child pornography and obscenity charges. Again, Sturges received strong public support from artistic and civil libertarian organizations. Sturges himself aggressively defended his work in a series of talks and interviews.

Jock Sturges received a BA in Perceptual Psychology and Photography from Marlboro College, and an MFA from the San Francisco Art Institute. His published collections include: The Last Day of Summer (1991), Radiant Identities (1994), Jock Sturges (1996), and Jock Sturges: New Work 1997-2000 (2000).
<hr></blockquote>

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
dude, stfu. you think that suddenly when a girl turns 18 she's magically transformed from a child to an adult? maybe legally, but realistically that's a load of crap.

you've been socialized to think that 18 is the first age where it's ok to look at a girl and think she's hot. at 17, you're a pervert. 18, now it's all good.

there are dozens of cultures where people get married and start having children when they're in their teens. in fact, if you want to take a purly scientific look at womenhood vs. childhood you'd use something like a girl having her period to try and distinguish between the two.<hr></blockquote>

There is a thing called the rule of law when it comes to determining how young is too young. Just how old are the models he is using? 17? 16? 15? 14? How young do you go before the girl is too young for you? Obviously 17 is not, so 16 must not be a magical turning point. So if 16 is not then 15 must not be either. So 14 then? 13? 12? Where does it cut off befor eit is not right? You have to draw a line in the sand somwhere. I tend to draw the line fo rtings like this at 18 as that is the legal line setup by society. Nothing wrong with obeying the law and all....

[quote]man, people are so afraid of being labeled a pervert that they're ready to torch anyone who does something that might not be totall PC.

get a life.<hr></blockquote>

I did not "torch" anyone. I was however feeling a bit singed by Belle's rather inflammatory post. And PC has nothing to do with it. I beleive I made my opinion clear in my prevoius posts.

[quote]concerned parent doesn't mean you're right, or that you base your concern on anything logically sound.

if you lived 100 years ago, you'd probably be just as sure that a 16 year old was getting a little old to still be single.

you are a product of your socialization. just chill out. sheesh. :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

Well thank you for showing that you agreed with me on some points whether you know/like it or not. In my previous post I beleive I clearly stated that: "Not all parents (and this may suprise you) know what is best for their children. They try their level best to do what is right, but they are not always successful." I am just a parent, and this is just my opinion based on how I was raised and my own moral opinions. And I am not living 100 years ago, so your statement means nothing now. Some girls are mentally and physically ready to be married at 16 and some are ready later. With parents permission on both sides they can be married. Legally. Same with this photography, they can legally be photgraphed nude with parents permission as art. I have no problem with a mature young woman being married to a mature young man. That can instill morals, and responsibility that can help them move foreward in life and raise their family. A 15 year old being photgraphed in the nude does nothing for the girl. I challenge you to show me any benefits...

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Nice job of turning those concerned into the real problem. Obvioulsy because we don't like to see young, teenage girls who are not of majority age shown nude for the world to ogle we are abviously much more of a problem than the fact that such things exist and are called art.

And as for your tip. I won't be attending one of his exhibits. But the questions was put out so I and others put in our $0.02 worth. I guess that makes us drooling perverts who are "seeing something in these pictures most do not." :eek: I always preferred the term concerned parent actually.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it not justifiable to turn things round? I'm not suggesting that people who are concerned are the "problem". I already said the problem is people who abuse children. But if some people accuse Sturges' of being a pervert (and by association those who view his images), then surely the greater concern is that these people see something sexual - in it's most primitive sense - rather than pictures depicting sexuality?

I can understand your position of concern as a parent, but exactly what is it about these pictures that troubles you in that regard?

[Anarchangel]

[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>Americans are very "closed minded and repressed"...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
------------------------------------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall17.jpeg</strong><hr></blockquote>

As an American, I have to agree with you.

I've looked at the works of Sturges and David Hamilton before. I don't think they are really sexual in nature. They are highly-technical photographs, lovingly developed into works of art. I don't see the sexuality of these pictures, merely the technique.

I am not a normal american. I have tried as hard as I can to explore everything the world and internet (by inheritence) has to offer. I have found shocking things and frightening things, and things of great beauty.

[glurx]

<a href="http://www.david-hamilton.net/" target="_blank">David Hamilton markets "erotic" pictures of "young girls".</a> He too is sleazy.

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong><a href="http://www.david-hamilton.net/" target="_blank">David Hamilton markets "erotic" pictures of "young girls".</a> He too is sleazy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you'd also ban all books that explore burgeoning sexuality in adolescents? Surely they're "sleazy" too?

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong><a href="http://www.david-hamilton.net/" target="_blank">David Hamilton markets "erotic" pictures of "young girls".</a> He too is sleazy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is still going on here? Glurx, you are either so suppressed intellectually or you are one of the few (excluding the religious or politically correct) that Just don't get it.

This is art. Representational, figurative or whatever. Only because it uses real people (young or whatever) without clothing you believe that what you see and interpret is pornography?

Bullshit. Again, both of these artists are photographers and their subjects are nude. They are represented in a manner that does not exploit or in any way have the models been told to do anything pornographic in any nature.

If you don't like it then fine, go away. Would you be more uncomfortable if they were paintings? Think not (then again, maybe so). But since it is real people in situations suggested through what the artist wanted (pretty normal ones at that, from the artist's point of view) you squirm and fidget?

Get some real culture. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[alcimedes]

[quote] A 15 year old being photgraphed in the nude does nothing for the girl. I challenge you to show me any benefits...<hr></blockquote>

i'd like to know what any art is supposed to do for the subject, other than get them paid. art is not intended for the subject, it's intended for the viewer.

now whatever the images do for you is your problem. i really don't see anything wrong with them. it's a captured image of innocent sensuality. it's like kids dancing. they're fun to watch because they aren't self concious about it.

i just don't get this huge crusade in the U.S. against sex/nudity/eroticism.

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>i'd like to know what any art is supposed to do for the subject, other than get them paid. art is not intended for the subject, it's intended for the viewer.

now whatever the images do for you is your problem. i really don't see anything wrong with them. it's a captured image of innocent sensuality. it's like kids dancing. they're fun to watch because they aren't self concious about it.

i just don't get this huge crusade in the U.S. against sex/nudity/eroticism.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And as for the rest of my post?

To answer your, what does art do for the subject, question. I think that art should give an insight into who and what the subject is viewed as by the artist in question. These pictures are telling the subject what about themselves? I am interested if you have an answer for that.

Also I disagree that it is like watching children dance. Children dancing is an innocent thing. Taking pictures of young teenage girls that are nude as the "artist" and his supporters say it in a more PC way: "The photos have an undeniably erotic quality, unlike some types of nude photography that treat the human body more as abstract form. However, Sturges aims to draw out the models' own sense of burgeoning sexuality in a straightforward, personal, non-voyeuristic way." This is just not the same thing. How often do you ask a young teenage girl to strip and pose for you? (yes I know that these are done of nudists sometimes) Kids dance, and this a wonderful form of art in itself. This, however, is just a way for people to look at nude pictures of young teens under the auspices of art. Can you not get the same feeling of the innocence of youth while they have clothes on?

It reminds me somewhat of the people who only read Playboy for the articles. Sure there are good article in there, but that is not all they look at the magazine for and anyone who tells you different if full of it. Sure, these pictures of young girls are well photographed, but to say that they are nothing more than art is BS.

[alcimedes]

ok, i'll cover your whole post this time. i was a bit pressed for time before.

[quote]There is a thing called the rule of law when it comes to determining how young is too young. Just how old are the models he is using? 17? 16? 15? 14? How young do you go before the girl is too young for you? Obviously 17 is not, so 16 must not be a magical turning point. So if 16 is not then 15 must not be either. So 14 then? 13? 12? Where does it cut off befor eit is not right? You have to draw a line in the sand somwhere. I tend to draw the line for tings [sic] like this at 18 as that is the legal line set up by society. Nothing wrong with obeying the law and all....<hr></blockquote>

what you are saying is that the criteria you use to judge whether or not someone is a woman or a girl are completely unbased on any specific criteria. Everyone falls into the same category across the board, no matter what. (with a few exceptions for the mentally deficient). so you base your view of adulthood on a strictly legal basis.

what do you think about countries where the legal age of adulthood is under 18? or over 18? if these models are photographed where 16 is an adult, are the images OK then? if they were 18, but filmed in a country where you weren't legally an adult until 19, would they be OK then?

i fail to see how your criteria of "18 is ok" makes sense. it's based on U.S. law, and that's it? what if the laws change? it is riddled with holes and has no logical basis.

if you can explain to me the fundamental difference between a girl one day before, and one day after her 18th birthday that makes her an adult, i'd love to hear it. even our own court system has a hard time defining where adulthood sets in.

kids have been tried for murder as adults as young as 13 (perhaps lower, i don't recall offhand), are we to thefore say some girls could be considered adults at 13 as well? are kids only adult-like in our legal system when they've done something wrong? i don't get the whole 18 is ok bit.

[quote]A 15 year old being photgraphed in the nude does nothing for the girl. I challenge you to show me any benefits...<hr></blockquote>

i'll touch on this again, just for kicks. a girl could feel proud of her beauty. she could learn to not be ashamed of her body. she could have a positive self image. learn assertiveness. many benefits can come from being a model in a professional photographer's works. quite frankly, giving young women a positive self image of who they are and how they look could easily be considered a significant beneft.

along the same lines, you have yet to explain what harm comes to the model for being in the pictures. you want me to justify what good is likely to come of it, i'd like you to explain to me what harm you feel is likely to come of it.

[quote]This, however, is just a way for people to look at nude pictures of young teens under the auspices of art.<hr></blockquote>

this is your opinion. are you saying that if a handful of people look at these pictures for a sexual high, the images in and of themselves have no artistic value?

what about an artist who loves to depict feet. think someone who has a foot fetish nullifies all of the art in the pictures because they get off on those pictures of feet?

what about a women nude? (18+) is it not art if a women is nude because some men and women are sexually aroused by it? what if that wasn't the artist's intention? does the veiwer who doesn't appreciate the artistic value of a piece dictate whether or not something is art?

and finally

[quote]Can you not get the same feeling of the innocence of youth while they have clothes on?<hr></blockquote>

quite simply put, no. people wear clothes for many reasons, one of the most significant of which is to hide how they look. people tend to have an inherent shame of their bodies and how they look. a subject with clothes on represents something totally different than a subject who is nude.

-alcimedes

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>Taking pictures of young teenage girls that are nude as the "artist" and his supporters say it in a more PC way: "The photos have an undeniably erotic quality, unlike some types of nude photography that treat the human body more as abstract form.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Whatever, you are still using examples of the extreme (pornography) to explain Sturges or Hamilton's work!

It is not pornography, it is artistic representation. If you can't look at their work without comparing it with pornography then you have no point in discussing it.

If one does keep doing this then all art with nudity is pornography! If a painting with nudity "turns you on" then what? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[seb]

Well, I haven't looked at Sturges' work, but I've seen enough Brittany Spears to think he's not a lone wolf in this thing.

What about how companies use the sexuality of Brittany to appeal to young boys and NSync to appeal to young girls?

Is that any better? I love music, but aren't the Brittany Spears and NSync's of the world more exploitative and sexually influential than the Jack Sturges' of the world?

Which is worse:

11 year old students raping girls at school because they are inundated with sexual messages in the media(happened here in New York last week).

or

An adult looking at a semi nude teenager (under the guise of art) and getting uncomfortable (or possibly even getting excited).

No right answers. Just a question.

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>It reminds me somewhat of the people who only read Playboy for the articles. Sure there are good article in there, but that is not all they look at the magazine for and anyone who tells you different if full of it. Sure, these pictures of young girls are well photographed, but to say that they are nothing more than art is BS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are you are saying that a man who buys a copy of Playboy is, in most cases, buying it to look at the pictures in an attempt to feel aroused?

And if that same man buys a book of Sturges' photographs? Should he be immediately branded a pervert? Or is it possible that he can look at that book and see the pictures as something very different from pornography?

Have you seen the work of Sally Mann and Tierney Gearon? They're wonderful. Some of Gearon's work (the notorious peeing in the snow photo for example) is also very funny. The children in those pictures are a lot younger than Sturges'. Do you also find those objectionable?

I have photographs right here, in an envelope on my desk, that were sent by a friend back west. There are two or three of her daughter (3 years old) and son (1) playing in the bath. Am I a pervert for having these? Am I a sleazy peddler of pornography if I show them to my colleagues at work?

The problem here, if there is one, is with the viewer of these images, not the photographer.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Anarchangel:
<strong>
I've looked at the works of Sturges and David Hamilton before. I don't think they are really sexual in nature. They are highly-technical photographs, lovingly developed into works of art. I don't see the sexuality of these pictures, merely the technique.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yea. It's all about technique. The subject matter is not important. :rolleyes: May as well be a still life. Same effect in the end :rolleyes:

[NoahJ]

I feel iI have made the point I set out to make. All the questions I have been aske were answered in my previous posts if you were to go back and read them again. If you feel they were not covered ask again and I will find the time to answer them again. I don't feel like copying and pasting from prevous posts right now.

[The Toolboi]

And soon developed a addiction to free pornography... "A month later I brought it back to the store", becuase of its influence on my life...

No offence dude, but you got problems ;)

Not all parents (and this may suprise you) know what is best for their children.
No, thatsd true, but you know what? Thinking that you do, or more importantly enforcing your views on another is... just... wrong. You may not agree with the choices of others, but its neither your place to critisize or otherwize. Now in some cases there are exceptions (as are clearly laid out in the law) but if its nice and leagle then its fine.

Those don't even compare. If we just catalogue the two the difference is clear. Picture of nude young girl cleverly covered up or cropped. Picture of model with shirt off in suggestive setting.


Or lets see it another way:
A picture showing a passage from two very different worlds presented as a work of art, or an explicitly sexual add there to entice you into buying their product.

Obvioulsy because we don't like to see young, teenage girls who are not of majority age shown nude for the world to ogle we are abviously much more of a problem than the fact that such things exist and are called art.

If your ogling it then you have problems. The idea is that its not their as something to ogle, but rather as somethihng to be appreciated as a form of art.

What I think most of you are missing in this case is that there is a definate art in this, and that as a point these pictures are being shown not to appease some perverts sexual desire, but to express to the world an image of beauty.

[alcimedes]

he he, i knew i made that last post too long. :D

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>he he, i knew i made that last post too long. :D </strong><hr></blockquote>

I appreciate the reasoned discussion you made, and that you made them without the personal attacks to say that I am somehow a pervert because I don't agree with your view. That seems to be the popular argument here today. :(

[alcimedes]

he he, just like i don't understand some of your arguments, i also don't understand attacking a person because you don't like what they say. :D

still waiting for a reply though, unless you really think that you've already answered what i said. in which case i'll have to go reread your post for a third time. ;)

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:

what you are saying is that the criteria you use to judge whether or not someone is a woman or a girl are completely unbased on any specific criteria. Everyone falls into the same category across the board, no matter what. (with a few exceptions for the mentally deficient). so you base your view of adulthood on a strictly legal basis.

what do you think about countries where the legal age of adulthood is under 18? or over 18? if these models are photographed where 16 is an adult, are the images OK then? if they were 18, but filmed in a country where you weren't legally an adult until 19, would they be OK then?

i fail to see how your criteria of "18 is ok" makes sense. it's based on U.S. law, and that's it? what if the laws change? it is riddled with holes and has no logical basis.
<hr></blockquote>
Not exactly what I said. Not everyone falls into the same category no matter what as far as those who may be ready to be married earlier on or not which was one point you made in your argument. But as far as taking a young teen and sanpping a nude picture of her to put in a book that strangers will eye either as art or as a book full of nude minors I don't feel is right. (Personally I don't like pornography either, but this is not the subject. That may help you in your own eyes understand and then paste a new label on me that way.) What I am saying is that there has to be a way to cut off or draw a line in the sand, and the way that I personally have chosen is the age factor. Pre 18 is legally a minor child and therefore not right to sell nude pictures of to people. parents permission or not.

Going further off of your statment about laws and ages and other countries, if it is ok in some countries for kiddie porn (not what I am saying this is but heck, everyone else had their chance to phenominalize things, now its my turn) to be sold to people and that form of pronography was only OK if the parents gave permission and the child was ok with it would you feel it was a problem. Why or why not?

[quote]
if you can explain to me the fundamental difference between a girl one day before, and one day after her 18th birthday that makes her an adult, i'd love to hear it. even our own court system has a hard time defining where adulthood sets in.
<hr></blockquote>
You know very well that there is no one day where some one becomes an adult. It is a process and there are plenty of 20 somethings out there that have no business calling themselves adults and some 14 year olds that could run a household and hold down a job with no problems. It is more dependant on the person than the age. Teh eage factor was put into place though for the sake of universality (not sure if this is really the word I am looking for) to give a general age at which a person is no longer a child and becomes responsible for their own actions. Which leads us to you next question...

[quote]
kids have been tried for murder as adults as young as 13 (perhaps lower, i don't recall offhand), are we to thefore say some girls could be considered adults at 13 as well? are kids only adult-like in our legal system when they've done something wrong? i don't get the whole 18 is ok bit.
<hr></blockquote>
This is a whole other topic in some respects but I can see your tie in. How can we try a child as an adult. Part of this I think comes down to my point of some parents do not know what is best for their child and so laws were put in place that if said child breaks law A he can be tried as an adult under statute B. Because there were many cases where the chile was remanded to his/her parents authority and they did nothing to curb the sociopathic behavior and the child committed the same crime or worse becuase of it. This is a societal way of forcing responsibility for ones actions even if their parents are not willing to do so. It has its merits and its pitfalls. Once again, you are applying a semi-static ruler and saying if someone measures up to this then they are A even if it may not always be the case. Just as with the move to adulthood, if you are 18 you are an adult.

[quote]
i'll touch on this again, just for kicks. a girl could feel proud of her beauty. she could learn to not be ashamed of her body. she could have a positive self image. learn assertiveness. many benefits can come from being a model in a professional photographer's works. quite frankly, giving young women a positive self image of who they are and how they look could easily be considered a significant beneft.

along the same lines, you have yet to explain what harm comes to the model for being in the pictures. you want me to justify what good is likely to come of it, i'd like you to explain to me what harm you feel is likely to come of it.
<hr></blockquote>

That all sounds nice but the reality is that some will get the self-assertiveness and some will just devalue themselves in that if they do not show their naked selves then they are somehow holding back and not worth as much to the person who may be their future relationships down the road. Another point I made before was:

Naked children is not as bad as Hustler, but now they have that thought in their mind that since that is ok... Will all of them be that way, no. But this parent sponsored acceptance will go further towards letting them know it is ok rather than not ok...

That was bit vague now that I read it again. My basic intent here was to say that being childrent they may not be able to tell the difference between an "art" shoot and a porn shoot. Heck, not all porn magazines show the actual sex, some are just the naked body exploited. They may feel that what they are doing is the same as porn and since mommy and daddy say it is ok, shoot, "Lets go pose for Hustler, playboy and swank. It's no different." when there is a difference.

[quote]
this is your opinion. are you saying that if a handful of people look at these pictures for a sexual high, the images in and of themselves have no artistic value?

what about an artist who loves to depict feet. think someone who has a foot fetish nullifies all of the art in the pictures because they get off on those pictures of feet?

what about a women nude? (18+) is it not art if a women is nude because some men and women are sexually aroused by it? what if that wasn't the artist's intention? does the veiwer who doesn't appreciate the artistic value of a piece dictate whether or not something is art?
<hr></blockquote>
Argument for the sake of arguing. Obviously people have different things that push their buttons. Feet, necks, bellybuttons, fatness, lips, eyes, whatever. Some things just are, there is nohing wrong with them but in the eyes of some people it is just a huge turn on. So good for them they can get a thrill reading the shoe ads. Oh happy day. It is not the same as doing this with a book full of young, underage, nude females. There is not any comaprison, I will not draw that line as it does not exist.

[quote]
quite simply put, no. people wear clothes for many reasons, one of the most significant of which is to hide how they look. people tend to have an inherent shame of their bodies and how they look. a subject with clothes on represents something totally different than a subject who is nude.
<hr></blockquote>

Sorry to hear that. For me there is more to beauty than that. If you need to see their nude behind to see their true beauty then you are missing the bigger picture by a long shot. All the nudity does is add the erotic sexual undertones that only pull away from the actual beaty that many see otherwise. This is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it, but it does not make me a bad person as you opinion does not make you a bad person. I just happen to disagree with you about what you think.

And Belle, I am not going to go down the road you are trying so hard to pave. If I have a problem with underage girls being shot nude for a photo book then that is all. There is nothing sick or perverted there, it is just my moral decision. I am not imposing it on you, I am merely telling you how I feel. For you to project your thoughts as the only right ones and anyone who disagrees:

I worry more about people who find these pictures inappropriate than the children posing. Clearly they're seeing something in these pictures most do not.

BS. Plain and simple. It is a moral choice and has nothing to do with seeing something that is not there. There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage. That is wrong by what I beleive. How does that worry you? Are morals that much of a problem for you? ( I am goading here but your assertion is really disturbing. ) To say that thsoe who are more conservative than you are the real problem is to ignore the issue I think. Sure you would not be hearing complaints about it, but even if we kept quiet about it nothing happens to these girls, or any other girls because of it. Where is this hidden danger you fear so. Be realistic if you reply.

This is probably my last post as I have better things to do than be called a pervert because I don't think a young girl should be pictured nude for everyone in the world to view. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

-Edit to fix quotes

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>

[BuonRotto]

How many people here object to the paintings of Degas?

BTW, "erotic" is not the same as "pornographic" either.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[Artman @_@]

Thought I'd throw in the legalities with all this...

There are very specific guidelines called the Dost Factors, they come from a 1986 case:
U.S. vs. Dost, and were later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit U.S.Court of Appeals.
The Dost factors are used to help determine if an image contains factors such as
"lascivious exhibition of the genitalia or pubic area" as referred to in
<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html" target="_blank">United States Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 Section 2256</a>,
or other factors which constitute child pornography.

The Dost Factors:

The Dost factors were articulated in order to provide a more concrete test
for determining whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a
"lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" under 18 U.S.C.
2256(2)(E):

1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's
genitalia or pubic area;

2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e.,
in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;

3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate
attire, considering the age of the child;

4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;

5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to
engage in sexual activity;

6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual
response in the viewer.

636 F. Supp. at 832. The court readily admitted that this list is not
exhaustive as other factors may be relevant in particular cases.

So, in my opinion, Sturges and Hamilton's photos do not violate these factors at all (#'s 5 and 6 are a little vague though...).

To each their own. If you don't like them then don't look at them.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>If you don't like them then don't look at them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If only that were all there was to it.

[NoahJ]

[quote]4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
<hr></blockquote>

So #4 has nothing to do with it then? Just 5 and 6?

[Scott_H]

What about #3? I know _I'm_ the one with the probem. _I_ must have a sick mind for thinking this but doesn't it suggest her hands are tied behind her back? Must be me. I'm the sick-o. :confused:

I guess suggesting bondage (and rape?) of young nude girls is art? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>What about #3? I know _I'm_ the one with the probem. _I_ must have a sick mind for thinking this but doesn't it suggest her hands are tied behind her back? Must be me. I'm the sick-o. :confused:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it's you. Perv. :p

Seriously, though, I think this shows why this argument will never be resolved either in this thread or out in the big bad world. It's all much to subjective.

I find pictures of Conan O'Brien highly offensive, but I doubt they'll ever be banned. :(
[quote]<strong>I guess suggesting bondage (and rape?) of young nude girls is art? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again this is a question of what is "acceptable" to people.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Again this is a question of what is "acceptable" to people.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree. But that surprises no one I am sure. :p

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>And Belle, I am not going to go down the road you are trying so hard to pave. If I have a problem with underage girls being shot nude for a photo book then that is all. There is nothing sick or perverted there, it is just my moral decision. I am not imposing it on you, I am merely telling you how I feel. For you to project your thoughts as the only right ones and anyone who disagrees:</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, I was being deliberately provocative, and it is a moral decision. The reason? People tried to have Sturges' exhibition shut down. Sturges, Mann, et al have been branded "perverts". People who go to see the exhibitions or buy the books branded perverts. The vast majority don't go along to be titillated, and yet many objectors see these images as "disgusting". And I most certainly wasn't "project[ing] [my] thoughts as the only right ones"! Just stating an opinion, as you are. My moral right. And here's where I have the real (personal) issue...
[quote]<strong>BS. Plain and simple. It is a moral choice and has nothing to do with seeing something that is not there. There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage. That is wrong by what I beleive. How does that worry you? Are morals that much of a problem for you? ( I am goading here but your assertion is really disturbing. ) To say that thsoe who are more conservative than you are the real problem is to ignore the issue I think. Sure you would not be hearing complaints about it, but even if we kept quiet about it nothing happens to these girls, or any other girls because of it. Where is this hidden danger you fear so. Be realistic if you reply.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See my post above. The important thing here is that the subjects of an image are not harmed, and those likely to be affected by viewing the image are not harmed.

Everyone has a right to a moral opinion, I have no objection to that.

The hidden danger I fear? Censorship.

I asked a question earlier that nobody (unless I missed it?) responded to - should we also ban books which depict teenage sexuality?

[Edit: Woah. Hold up, forgot something. :)

[quote]<strong>There is a girl, she is nude, she is underage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
She's a girl. No objection there. She is nude. No problem there. She is underage... hmm... underage for what, and by what standard?]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

[NoahJ]

[quote]I asked a question earlier that nobody (unless I missed it?) responded to - should we also ban books which depict teenage sexuality?
<hr></blockquote>

Depict as in through words? Depict as in through pictures. What are the circumstances? There are more factors involved than your questions ask. And I cannot answer and hit all the main topics and clearly defend my point right now. Suffice it to say the answer is no. Except when it is inappropriate. Then the answer is yes. That subjective enough for you?

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>Depict as in through words? Depict as in through pictures. What are the circumstances? There are more factors involved than your questions ask.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apologies. I meant specifically novels, considered to be part of the (ick) "arts".
[quote]<strong>And I cannot answer and hit all the main topics and clearly defend my point right now.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No problem. I am trying to keep my posts shorter than some people in this thread, though. :)
[quote]<strong>Suffice it to say the answer is no. Except when it is inappropriate. Then the answer is yes. That subjective enough for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. Which is, as I said before, the problem. :)

[Scott_H]

So bondage and rape of young girls is a matter of subjectivity? Hum? I'll go ask my friend that came very close to that what she thinks.

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>So bondage and rape of young girls is a matter of subjectivity? Hum? I'll go ask my friend that came very close to that what she thinks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I didn't want to respond in detail to your previous post because I'd hoped you'd bring the word "rape" out of those enclosing parentheses.

I've already said in more than one post that the important issue is that nobody is harmed in the creation of these images, or by viewing the images. In fact I said as much in the paragraph after the one containing the word "subjective". See?

The teenagers in Sturges' images were consenting participants. They weren't forced to pose, and most certainly weren't forced to perform sexual acts.

This is where people are subjective. I don't care that some people find them distasteful, I only care if they do some harm. Nobody has given any reasonable argument that they do. Who is being hurt? Who are we trying to protect? Not rhetorical, I'd like to know.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

[pusherman]

I was priviledged to study photography under Jaclyn Cori, a personal friend of Sally Mann. In the class we had the opportunity to view and discuss a good bit of Mann's work. Simply put, it is stunning. The pictures that she takes are not only gorgeous photographs, but also depict the subjects (her children) in an incredibly loving light. The fact that the children are are sometimes nude is a small part of the work. However, it's the one part that's made her truly famous (infamous?) as tightwad conservatives immediately think "NAKED KIDS = PORNOGRAPHY." It's sad that something that's truly innocent in its subject matter is distorted into child pornography. And yes, I do think that the people who sexualize Sally Mann's work are the ones who are sick.

I'm not familiar enough with Jock Sturges work to have a weil informed opinion (I wish other people in this thread would realize the same). However, in concept, it's important to realize the distinction between nudity, sexuality, eroticism, and pornography. In no way is the work that I have seen of Sturges pornographic, in that it is not exploitative; it is not meant to titilate or arouse. It is quite easy to distinguish. I've no problem discerning between a pornographic magazine and a book of nude photography, even if that photography is erotic. Frankly I don't think I could "get off" on artistic nudity if I wanted to. Maybe I'm not perverted enough. :p :

"A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recongnize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty." - David Hamilton

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Not at all. I didn't want to respond in detail to your previous post because I'd hoped you'd bring the word "rape" out of those enclosing parentheses.

I've already said in more than one post that the important issue is that nobody is harmed in the creation of these images, or by viewing the images. In fact I said as much in the paragraph after the one containing the word "subjective". See?

The teenagers in Sturges' images were consenting participants. They weren't forced to pose, and most certainly weren't forced to perform sexual acts.

This is where people are subjective. I don't care that some people find them distasteful, I only care if they do some harm. Nobody has given any reasonable argument that they do. Who is being hurt? Who are we trying to protect? Not rhetorical, I'd like to know.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay so as long as this girl is okay with it and no one gets hurt then it's okay? Right? So if she wanted to do ... I don't know ... a *** shot would that be okay. How about her ******* a guy off? Is that okay? You can't get hurt by it. She may do it with her little boy friend. So why not shoot it under good lighting and use B&W film. Then it's art!

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Okay so as long as this girl is okay with it and no one gets hurt then it's okay? Right? So if she wanted to do ... I don't know ... a *** shot would that be okay. How about her ******* a guy off? Is that okay? You can't get hurt by it. She may do it with her little boy friend. So why not shoot it under good lighting and use B&W film. Then it's art!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Holy crap. This is why I asked NoahJ to define "underage". Some things are illegal if you're underage, some are not. Performing sex acts underage is illegal, so I guess we'd question the motivation of someone who'd photograph such actions. Being naked isn't a crime in the appropriate place (Sturges' pictures were of nudists on a nudist beach), and taking pictures of consenting people without clothes on isn't illegal.

The concern we should all have is protecting the subjects of the photographs. Seems the law does this adequately in this case.

[Edit: I think you'd also have a difficult time in proving images of sex acts are something beyond an attempt at titillation.]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

[Scott_H]

Well who's to say? Maybe the law is wrong. Of the girls is 17 years and 364 days does that make it "wrong". You're so close minded. If she's okay with it why do you care? No one's getting hurt.

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Well who's to say? Maybe the law is wrong. Of the girls is 17 years and 364 days does that make it "wrong". You're so close minded. If she's okay with it why do you care? No one's getting hurt.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I stated that the law as it stands is in place to protect those who are "underage". I didn't say the law is correct, and I most certainly didn't offer a personal opinion about whether it would be "wrong" or not.

[BuonRotto]

I could have stared at that photo for amillion years and NEVER would I have seen bondage implied in it.

I suppose we should paint those fig leaves and loin cloths back into the Last Judgement. That Michelangelo was such a horny boy! Oh, but thsoe are old and he's dead so it's different.

OK, seriously (well, the first sentence was serious too), I'm not going to defend thse guys absolutely. I certainly thought some of Mapplethorpe's images (and like so many contemporary artists these days going more for the "shock" than for the "new" or expressive) were pornographic. These guys could be doing that too as I do not know their work that well. But I've yet to come across any images like that from them.

Would it help if these were paintings and not photos?

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>As far as I'm concerned, the issue isn't the subject matter of the picture, it's who was harmed in the taking of the picture, and who could be harmed viewing the picture.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Humorless joke next (Just kidding NoahJ)

NoahJ + Sturges photo = boner/harmed?

I don't get it. The only way a photo could "harm" me would be a paper cut...or eat it. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Belle]

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>

Humorless joke next (Just kidding NoahJ)

NoahJ + Sturges photo = boner/harmed?

I don't get it. The only way a photo could "harm" me would be a paper cut...or eat it. :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think NoahJ is now entitled to harm you.

Harmed in the taking of the photograph - forced to participate.

Harmed in the viewing of the photograph..? I guess that's a large part of what is being discussed here. Are people going to be seriously disturbed by viewing the images? Are kids going to think it's a fun idea to get naked in front of the local "friendly" photographer? Will some people see the pictures and get an urge to have sex with underage children?

We're never going to get anywhere with this thread, because it's all subjective, all about personal views.

I find Sturges' images acceptable, I think probably because they're in no way sexually provocative. Clearly they're over the line in NoahJ's case. And Scott H., though he's arguing rather vociferously for the other side stated earlier that the kids should be left alone to be kids. Because people have different limits, there's no way to argue either side successfully, just discuss 'til you're going round in circles... or insulting poor NoahJ.

Interestingly, though, Scott H. brings up a related point that in fact Sturges has argued for some years - that it seems a bit ludicrous that some things suddenly become "acceptable" at a certain age. As Sturges put it, "a knife drops", and you're 17, or you're 18, and suddenly things are okay that weren't yesterday, yet you're the same person. We have to have a cut-off point somewhere, and there's no chance in the world that anyone is ever going to agree on what's acceptable before that point.

[Amorya]

[quote]A 15 year old being photgraphed in the nude does nothing for the girl. I challenge you to show me any benefits...<hr></blockquote>

This is taken from an interview with Sturges, at <a href="http://www.sexuality.org/l/davids/cnstur.html" target="_blank">http://www.sexuality.org/l/davids/cnstur.html</a>

[quote]Steinberg: Do they like posing?

Sturges: They adore it. Are you kidding?

Steinberg: What do they like about it?

Sturges: They like being taken seriously as people. After they've been in the process for a while, they realize they get all the pictures that we do -- the families get a copy of every photograph that I take -- and they begin to really enjoy being thought of as beautiful. We live in an age where anonymity is growing in magnitude like a bomb going off. As media stars become increasingly powerful, the rest of us are increasingly ciphers. The distance between the lives [of celebrities] and our lives is growing all the time. Children feel absolutely invisible, unnoticed, and as if they can make no difference. The more of the world we see in the media, the more aware we are of how insignificant any one of us is.

Kids feel this, even if they can't articulate it in quite that way. Time and again, when interviewed about being photographed, they talk about the photography as a way of becoming less anonymous. They like the admiration; they like the thought that somebody thinks that they can be art.

Now, there's [also] what happens after the photographs are made. It's not hard for me to imagine that there are some [people] who will buy my book, buy my photographs, look at them and have "impure thoughts." There are people out there who buy shoe ads, Saran Wrap, and all manner of things, who have impure thoughts. I can't really do anything about those people, except hope that, if they attend to my work closely enough, they'll ultimately come to realize that these are real people.

What pedophiles and people who have sexual desires on children lose sight of to a terrible, terrible degree -- a devastating degree -- is that their victims are real people who will suffer forever whatever abuses are perpetrated on them. If I'm able to make pictures of children that are so real, as you follow the children growing up over the years, perhaps there will be something cautionary in that visual example. The truth is that every pedophile's victim eventually grows up and becomes an adult who will turn around and that's when they get caught.<hr></blockquote>

Amorya

[Scott_H]

Maybe this girl will be "harmed" when she finds out her photo, however artful, is/will be plastered on every kiddie porn site on the net. Something she may not have considered when she when she was seduced into allowing the photo under the idea of seeming more adult than she is? An outcome that she may not have considered at her young age.

[The Toolboi]

Ive got a question for you guys, a painting of a nude model, is that pornography?

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>

Humorless joke next (Just kidding NoahJ)

NoahJ + Sturges photo = boner/harmed?

I don't get it. The only way a photo could "harm" me would be a paper cut...or eat it. :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Humorless joke? Not only was it humorless it was not a joke. It was an insult of the worst kind. :(

The harm is not to you, the harm is to the person being photographed. Although i suppose the erosion of moral fiber that occurs when you are desensitized to these types of photos could be called harm as well.

I don't know if participating in this thread is worthwhle. I really dislike personal attacks and that one was way off base. I have attempted to be fair and to represent my point without bringing these sad attempts at homor into them. Unless I was responding to what I saw as an extreme statement meant to elicit a response of equal extremity.

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>Humorless joke? Not only was it humorless it was not a joke. It was an insult of the worst kind. :( </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry NoahJ. I really meant nothing at all. But the thought ran through my mind and as I was typing the post. It happens.

Still though I sense there is something that irks you about these photos. I know not what. It's your problem.

Again. Apologies. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />

[alcimedes]

scott h., why do you think all of these terrible perverse things will happen to girls who pose nude? where is this surity coming from?

i have no idea why this girl would suddenly be transformed into a wanton slut because she had a professional photographer take pictures of her and her mom and grandmother naked.

that leap just isn't happneing for me.

[Scott_H]

When did I say that something would happen to the girl? I'd bet that image is making the rounds of the kiddie porn sites. I couldn't tell you though because I wouldn't know where to find that shit. This is the only <a href="http://home.ican.net/%7Eotiss/gallery/gallery.html" target="_blank">kitty port</a> I know.

[tonton]

I've decided to post this in another thread, because i't sway off topic, although it quotes a post here...

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>

[tonton]

This is such a serious topic, with some very serious opinions. Personally, I stand firmly with Artman @_@ and Belle on this one.

The fact is that almost nowhere except in the US would this form of art be considered even remotely pornographic.

As a side note, I see two factors contributing to the uncharacteristic controversialization of this subject (as well as many others, such as abortion and the death penalty) in the US. One is a sickening trend to equate conservativism with a feeling of righteousness. This is evident whenever Rush Limbaugh or certain members of these forums make a misguided attempt to use the word "liberal" as an insult.

The other factor I see, though much less obvious, is America's litigious nature, which has led many to stand on the conservative side with issues which are in a grey area of the law. According to glurx's reference, for instance, Barnes and Noble were indicted in a few states in the South for selling Sturges' books. Had these stores been run by Scott H., they may have saved a few dollars on legal expenses. A stretch? Maybe so, but it's just a theory. Regardless, the US stands alone as one of the most intolerant of Western countries in the area of innocuous nudity.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>Had these stores been run by Scott H., they may have saved a few dollars on legal expenses.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you know how I would run a book store <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[tonton]

Scott, I was implying that you may have chosen not to sell Sturges' books based on your principles, and the company therefore might not have been indicted.

[pusherman]

If anyone has Showtime, check out the movie they're showing lately called "Dirty Pictures." It's based on the story of Dennis Barrie, the director of the CAC in Cincinnati, who was put on trial in 1990 for showing a retrospective of Robert Mapplethorpe's work. The movie itself is somewhat banal but it's worth it to see the interviews with Fran Leibowvitz, Salmon Rushdie, and most interestingly, Jessie McBride, who appeared naked in a Mapplethorpe picture as a young boy. It was interesting to see what he has to say about the experience, now that he's an adult.

[BuonRotto]

I don't have Showtime. :( And I do think that some of Mapplethorpe's images go the "shock" and simply lewd.

[Simple Ranger]

I haven't been closely following this thread, so I won't comment on specific points. However, to the individuals in opposition of Sturges' work, I would say that the best way to fight speech, in the legal sense of the word, is with more speech, not censorship.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>...some of Mapplethorpe's images go the "shock" and simply lewd.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Mr 10 1/2 scared me straight that's for sure. ;)

[tonton]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

Mr 10 1/2 scared me straight that's for sure. ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh... I would avoid using those exact words to describe the effect the photo had on me. ;D

[Anarchangel]

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>I don't have Showtime. :( And I do think that some of Mapplethorpe's images go the "shock" and simply lewd.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yet he took some of my favourite pictures of flowers and other still-life objects.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Anarchangel:
<strong>

Yet he took some of my favourite pictures of flowers and other still-life objects.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just looked for my Mapplethorpe books and could only find the flowers one.

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>I just looked for my Mapplethorpe books and could only find the flowers one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.mapplethorpe.org/flowers.html" target="_blank">Website has some...</a>

Art should always illicit one thing...a response. If it doesn't then it's not Art.

[Scott_H]

I'm just saying I can't find the other ones. I thought they'd be on the shelf but maybe I'll find them later.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>Art should always illicit one thing...a response. If it doesn't then it's not Art.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hope you don't think that's all it should do.

[Artman @_@]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

I hope you don't think that's all it should do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Response as in an emotional, inspirational or critical one. Being very broad here, but look at what this thread is all about. Sturges and others get exactly what they wanted. Good or bad it gets there work noticed. And it will never make them change their medium or methods to provoke a response. Or further their artistic goals.

[Scott_H]

I would think that after elephant dung virgin marys and whatnot we'd be beyond the whole "reaction" bullshit. "Oh well it caused such a reaction it must be art" yawn.

[Artman @_@]

You don't know your Art History I guess....and I'm tired of this whole subject and typing so expect this to be misspelled and rambling.

Sigh...for example in 1875 Thomas Eakins painted "The Gross Clinic" and it was to be exhibited to the public. But the curators thought it was too explicit in it's depiction of surgery (a relatively new form of preventive medical procedure of that time). So they hid the portrait in the back of the exhibit with a cloth draped over it. Here's the painting:

http://jeffline.tju.edu/CWIS/Eakins/eakins_images/full_gross.jpg

Scary, huh? It doesn't matter what art is made of, how it is presented or whom it may offend. If it garners ANY response it should be considered an expression of the person who did it or an artist's reflection of society and culture itself. Again, if you don't like it then DON'T LOOK AT IT.

The virgin mary in dung, graffitti, Marcel Duchamp's Toilet ( Fountain, submitted by Marcel Duchamp to an art show held by the Society for Independent Artists in 1917. Although one of its directors, Duchamp wasn't fond of those responsible for the exhibition and submitted this as a prank under the name "R. Mutt." Even though he paid the six dollar entry fee, Duchamp's "readymade" Fountain did not make it into the show) and even ****ing Thomas Kinkaide are Art whether you or anyone likes it or not.

[BuonRotto]

I think art has to express an idea. No idea, no art. Just craft.

I liked Wynton Marsalis's definition of music: music is organized sound. I like to apply that logic to all art forms: art requires organization. Art cannot communicate, cannot express without some kind of organization -- logic. It might be obtuse or entirely personal, but it must be consistent with its concept.