| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2004 10:48:43 AM · #1 |
"Police were called to a fashionable art gallery last night when concerns were raised over an exhibition featuring photos of an artist's naked daughter.
Scotland Yard was alerted after visitors to the exhibition at the Spitz gallery in London complained they considered the images, showing the girl as a baby, a toddler, and a five-year-old, to be pornographic.
The doors of the gallery at Spitalfields Market in east London were closed and the windows covered while the gallery took advice from officers. The artist, American Betsy Schneider, was amazed. She said: "The aim of these pictures is not to provoke or to shock. The idea is to show time, change and growth." Schneider's Photo in Question
Although I don't necessarily see the image as porn, I find it inappropriate and distasteful. The poor child appears to be unkempt and neglected. Furthermore showing a nude child of that age is like dangling a bait before a rat. Knowing there are depraved people who are excited by naked images of children it may actually be endangering her child's welfare. Everyone is entitled to privacy. Ms. Schneider has exploited her little girl. Parents should be a covering of protection for their kids.
I don't think a child should be ashamed of her/his body, but it should remain private. What kind of message is this photographer sending to her girl? It's ok to show your private parts??? It's one thing to have a pic in your family album of your sweet little baby in it's birthday suit, but exposing a child's privacy to the world is crossing the line. It is indeed exploitation.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:57:26 AM · #2 |
Outside the US, nudity seems to be a little more commonplace. Cultures around the world are different. I don't find this image to be 'pornographic' in any way. Seeing this one photo out of context doesn't support whatever theme the photographer was trying to show either.
Whatever we see as 'inappropriate and distasteful' is directly related to our own upbringing. I don't know if this is 'exploitation' or not. There doesn't seem to be anything sexual about the image.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:59:43 AM · #3 |
Here is a link to the complete set of images, in context.
Scenes from a Childhood
Of passing interest to note is that the 'outcry' came from The Sun. A right wing British trashy tabloid best known for its daily topless and naked women on page 3.
In the particular image, I don't really see anything wrong with it. The girl looks about as grubby as many young children you see around and certainly doesn't look neglected in the series of images.
Never quite understand the huge nipple taboo that exists in the US, childrens or adults... Often amazed to see the nipple airbrushing that goes on for example between the Australian or European editions of Elle and the US edition and similar publications. Exactly the same shoot, just a nipple removed here and there.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 11:00:45.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:00:37 AM · #4 |
I think people freak out nowadays about this kind of thing when before it wouldn't have been such an issue. It's art hanging in a gallery, not posted all over the internet (well I guess it is now).
Exploitation is a strong word and I think much better applied where it holds truer to reality - mostly in developing nations where child labor, child soldiers, and children in the sex industry are truly exploited.
Not everyone holds the same values you or I do. That said, I don't doubt this mother's intent as an artist. I hardly think this qualifies as "Porn" as your subject implies (i.e. since it's not art, it *must* be porn?). Intent, purpose and context all play a role here. Taken as it is, out of context (as a lone photo on the internet) the reaction is predictable. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:07:37 AM · #5 |
pornographic? ... no
odd and not very good? ... yes |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:09:33 AM · #6 |
The image linked is Art, not porn. The child hasn't been placed into any compromising position or situation. The child is merely as many children at that age can be.
Acting Free without being inhibited by the fears we adults thrust into our being.
It isn't until around that age that most children (in the developed world) begin to learn to be ashamed of their nakedness. Don't suggest calling it anything else because that is what it is. In a number of places, people are not ashamed of their nakedness and have no issue with walking around partially or fully nude. It's just in our 'more developed 'western cultures that we find nudity to be so terrible and shameful that we enact laws prohibiting, for instance, woman from wearing only bikini bottoms to beaches.
If the photographer continued to depict her child in the nude, at age 7, age 10, age 12 and so on... I think that might end up crossing the line, unless more taste was applied to the images. The child would have to be posed in such a way to cover those 'terribly shameful' female bits.
To call the linked image child pornography? That just shows a serious lack of understanding between what is art and what is pornography. As well as a lack of understanding between what is exploitation and innocence. Do those same people suggest that 4 to 6 years old boys and girls be locked away if they 'Play Doctor' or 'Compare' their bits with eachother?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:10:40 AM · #7 |
This is just another form of political correctness gone bad. These days you can’t say or do anything that might offend even one person. I am so amazed at how a just one person or a small group of people can bitch about something they don’t like and threaten to sue then before you know it what ever they were bitching about is censored.
Lets face it people. Political correctness is nothing more that censorship. What ever happened to freedom of speech or freedom of expression.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:12:51 AM · #8 |
Little kids run around naked on beaches all the time in the summer. It's fine :)
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:13:38 AM · #9 |
I think the problem is as Gordon says, the different countrys and peoples values, as to what is acceptable or not. With regards to nudity, what is considered completely normal in one country, can get you arrested in another.
I think the artist has also made an effort not to expose the genitals in any of the photos, and therefore has consiously tried to avoid the problems she is currently experiencing. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:15:28 AM · #10 |
| Doesn't appear to be anything sexual about the image. I think the human body is very beautiful and is something we should enjoy and celebrate, shouldn't be ashamed of. But I do feel that models should willingly and knowledgeably give their consent, I personally have a problem with a 5 yr old child's nude portrait being made public (especially where you can identify them) as I don't feel they are mature enough to make that decision. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:17:40 AM · #11 |
I find the apparent obsession with impropiety and the desire to inhibit perverse.
Why fault nature for nudity?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:24:12 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
Although I don't necessarily see the image as porn, I find it inappropriate and distasteful. The poor child appears to be unkempt and neglected.
|
I think it is a poignant portrait of childhood in the summer. Kids are frequently naked,streaked with all maner of yummy food stains (popsicles, Koolaid, icecream, watermelon) in the warm seasons. Happy kids are, anyway.
I love the photos of Jock Sturgess. He's had to deal with this nonsense plenty. I think it is funny and sad that the pictures of her child as an infant and at two are 'okay' to view but suddenly, she turns five and its taboo. Not much changes between two and five on a child's body. Why should three years make such a difference? Ridiculous.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 11:27:10. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:25:20 AM · #13 |
I looked through the entire series. In that context the image seems to me absolutely nothing more than a representation of another ordinary day in that child's life. What's more interesting to me is that this series of mediocre images can be elevated to gallery exhibition status rather than relegated to a dust family album where they belong. With the exception of London Winter 2003 I find them singularly lacking in appeal, either visually or by content.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Of passing interest to note is that the 'outcry' came from The Sun. A right wing British trashy tabloid best known for its daily topless and naked women on page 3. |
Typical. Hypocrisy is never an issue for The Sun - they are just looking to sell a story to their gullible readers who are ready and waiting to get their knickers in a knot over something, anything...
Originally posted by Gordon:
In the particular image, I don't really see anything wrong with it. The girl looks about as grubby as many young children you see around and certainly doesn't look neglected in the series of images. |
I agree. She looks like she's been running around a garden or park naked and like she's a little sad about something just at that moment. Certainly not neglected. I applaud her mother for not inflicting the inhibitions and restrictions of our adult society on her young child - let her enjoy the freedom of nudity (which is clearly not an everyday occurence, judging from the rest of the series) whilst she's young enough - she'll be falling into line soon enough.
Originally posted by Nelzie:
The child hasn't been placed into any compromising position or situation. The child is merely as many children at that age can be.
Acting Free without being inhibited by the fears we adults thrust into our being.
It isn't until around that age that most children (in the developed world) begin to learn to be ashamed of their nakedness. Don't suggest calling it anything else because that is what it is. In a number of places, people are not ashamed of their nakedness and have no issue with walking around partially or fully nude. It's just in our 'more developed 'western cultures that we find nudity to be so terrible and shameful that we enact laws prohibiting, for instance, woman from wearing only bikini bottoms to beaches. |
I agree. To find nudity in a child of this age to be pornagraphic surely says more about the viewer than anything else. I imagine most people will surely think of the image as nothing more than a family snapshot recording an innocent day's play.
There are many peoples who do not confuse nudity with sexuality, let alone porn. It's a sad thing when the confusion that exists in our Western cultures interferes with a child's free and easy play.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:40:43 AM · #14 |
Isn't this the Sally Mann argument again? Without perhaps quite the same level of talent, but the critics are the same. There are those in our society that feel that the human body is a thing of shame, bait for perverts and leaving it uncovered is to invite the worst. This logic is more often applied to children in the west and to women in arabic countries. If naked innocence arouses base passion in another, where does the flaw lie? We seem to want to blame the innocent.
That said I could not imagine using my own daughter in this manner, however this is a personal choice, like diet or religion. If someone views things differently I have trouble seeing how the police ought to be involved. I'm pretty sure that my view point is right, but that does not mean that I belive that others should be forced to behave as I do.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:40:45 AM · #15 |
Photos like this are only pornographic if viewed through the eyes of a pervert. To most of us they are just the artistic (mostly) expression of perfectly natural form and function.
As is so often the case the minority spoils life for the majority. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:41:16 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Little kids run around naked on beaches all the time in the summer. It's fine :) |
At least it should be fine... When my son was younger (like around 2 to 4) he used to run around in the backyard naked and play in the sprinkler. I even have photos of him doing just that and they are very cute. But these photos are displayed in the family album and that is where they will remain. Not because the images are wrong, pornographic, etc. But because their are perverted monsters out there who look at children as sexual objects. In this case, censorship of such images is for the childrens' protection.
My point... yes, let your kiddos run naked in the right environment and teach them that their bodies are wonderful and nothing to be ashamed of. But also teach them when it's appropriate to enjoy such activities; not because of some sense of prudish propriety but because we want them to be safe. And perhaps keep photographs of such moments to the confines of 'trusted' eyes and not public display. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 11:43:38 AM · #17 |
Thanks for posting this. Seeing the image in context makes a difference. I don't see anything pornographic or exploitative about this series of photos. As far as art is concerned, it's all art if the artist says so. Another apsect to consider is that the 'gallery' owner where this was on display knew it would be controversial. Galleries do this all the time, even in the US. Controversy creates value in the art world. The real exploitation here may be that of the artist rather than the child ;)
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:01:21 PM · #18 |
| I saw the exhibit thanks to Kavey, and i just have one thing to say... you're sick, Gracious, as sick are the persons who called the police to close that gallery. I don't see anything pornographic on those photos and only dirty minds would. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:10:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
My point... yes, let your kiddos run naked in the right environment and teach them that their bodies are wonderful and nothing to be ashamed of. But also teach them when it's appropriate to enjoy such activities; not because of some sense of prudish propriety but because we want them to be safe. And perhaps keep photographs of such moments to the confines of 'trusted' eyes and not public display. |
Absolutely... I don't see anything pornographic in the images nor anything wrong with allowing kids to enjoy nudity innocently. But I do agree that these images would be better left in a family album than shown as art - partly because I think they are lame and partly because, much as I wish it weren't so, there are deviants out there and whilst it SHOULD be ok to share innocence without consequence that doesn't always make it so.
P.S. Whilst I can see JMS' point that "art" should be in the artist's eyes, there is also an element of the wider public endorsing that or not as they see fit by either viewing/ buying the works as art or choosing not to.
Message edited by author 2004-07-27 12:16:22.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:11:11 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by frankb0859:
I saw the exhibit thanks to Kavey |
It was Gordon who found and posted the link, I just quoted his post in my own.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:14:23 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by frankb0859:
I saw the exhibit thanks to Kavey, and i just have one thing to say... you're sick, Gracious, as sick are the persons who called the police to close that gallery. I don't see anything pornographic on those photos and only dirty minds would. |
I think you're being a little harsh. She can voice her opinion as she chooses without being called sick. Her assessment of the photo as offensive is just as valid as anyone else's assessment of it as art. Subjectivity is not selective in nature. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:18:48 PM · #22 |
Thanks to Gordon for giving us a link to the entire series. Out of context I feel the photo is a bit inappropriate (the only word I can think of although it doesn't quite fit). I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with it, it's just not a particularly good photo. I think the series as a whole is interesting but the individual photo could have been left out. Whomever picked the photos for the show wasn't thinking about the public perception. Had they left it out, the photographer would have had a full length show. Too bad.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:21:51 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
... The real exploitation here may be that of the artist rather than the child ;) |
Yes, depending on the pricing and commission rate ... : )
A Hollywood maxim is that "any publicity is good publicity so long as they spell your name right." |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:23:04 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Originally posted by Konador:
Little kids run around naked on beaches all the time in the summer. It's fine :) |
At least it should be fine... When my son was younger (like around 2 to 4) he used to run around in the backyard naked and play in the sprinkler. I even have photos of him doing just that and they are very cute. But these photos are displayed in the family album and that is where they will remain. Not because the images are wrong, pornographic, etc. But because their are perverted monsters out there who look at children as sexual objects. In this case, censorship of such images is for the childrens' protection.
My point... yes, let your kiddos run naked in the right environment and teach them that their bodies are wonderful and nothing to be ashamed of. But also teach them when it's appropriate to enjoy such activities; not because of some sense of prudish propriety but because we want them to be safe. And perhaps keep photographs of such moments to the confines of 'trusted' eyes and not public display. |
Something I'd like to ad that will require ya'll to indulge me in a little fantasy... lets say that in coming years my photographic career blossoms to the point that people have an interest in seeing my earlier photographic attempts. Lovely fantasy, isn't it! Those photos of my son running around naked might be published if and only if my son was mature enough to give me permission to publish them. I feel it would be disrespectful of him to do otherwise and that is the problem I have with the Schneider photographs. Even if her daughter was given the choice, she lacks the maturity to make it. True Ms. Schneider is certainly allowed to deam her photographs as art but in the process I think she has done little more than objectify her daughter and her daughter's innocence. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:29:22 PM · #25 |
Parents sign model releases (and all kinds of other contracts) on behalf of their minor children all the time. That's the way the law (most places) works.
You have to prove (in court) the parent unfit to make such decisions to take that right away ... an ugly process all around. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:55:55 AM EDT.
