<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.
[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).
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. <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...
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?
<strong>Americans are very "closed minded and repressed"...
E PLURIBUS UNIX
------------------------------------
</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.
<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?
<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]" />
[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.
<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.
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.
<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]" />
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).
<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.
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. May as well be a still life. Same effect in the end
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.
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.
<strong>he he, i knew i made that last post too long. </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.
Comments
<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.
<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.
[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>
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.
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...
<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?
<strong>Americans are very "closed minded and repressed"...
E PLURIBUS UNIX
------------------------------------
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.
<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?
<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]" />
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>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.
[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
<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]" />
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.
<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.
<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.
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.
<strong>he he, i knew i made that last post too long.
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.