<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">
I don't get it. The only way a photo could "harm" me would be a paper cut...or eat it. </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.
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>
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.
I don't get it. The only way a photo could "harm" me would be a paper cut...or eat it. </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.
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.
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/~otiss/gallery/gallery.html" target="_blank">kitty port</a> I know.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
<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">
<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.
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.
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
<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.
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.
<strong>Humorless joke? Not only was it humorless it was not a joke. It was an insult of the worst kind.
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]" />
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.
<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">
<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.
<strong>I don't have Showtime.
Yet he took some of my favourite pictures of flowers and other still-life objects.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.