Bob Shell

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 9, 2007

This brings to mind an interesting question -

What if he were the second coming of Richard Avedon, or Ansel Adams? would we be so quick to condemn? There is a long history of famous artists getting a free pass for their oddities of personality and/or behavior if they are great enough. Picasso, Caravaggio (multiple brawls and even a murder or two), Michelangelo (bit off someone's nose). We even make movies that satirize the art world for its glorification of criminal artists (Art School Confidential). So is it because Bob was a truly mediocre photographer of his chosen subject matter, or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

George · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
This brings to mind an interesting question -
...
So is it because Bob was a truly mediocre photographer of his chosen subject matter, or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

Do you really think, as you ask, that people "condemn him so harshly" because of his mediocre photography??? There are tons of mediocre photographers and they don't attract harsh condemnations.
A lifestyle people are afraid of? Well, don't you understand that if an adult man uses a weak position of a teenage drug addict girl, if the girl looses her life while in this kind of dependency, that people have a heck of a good reason to use harsh condemnations? What's wrong? Playing an angel of mercy? Good but the girl lost her life before that angel had time to come to her... Simply because someone else condemned her harshly, too harshly, to death...
To hell with studies of his mediocre photography - there was something not at all mediocre! Enough said.

Peter De Smidt · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
. So is it because Bob was a truly mediocre photographer of his chosen subject matter, or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

No, it's because it looks like he killed a girl.

I agree with Roger that Mr. Shell's guilt on that point isn't certain, but it does look likely. As a one-time epistemologist, though, I'll point out that very few things, if anything, are certain.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
This brings to mind an interesting question -

What if he were the second coming of Richard Avedon, or Ansel Adams? would we be so quick to condemn? There is a long history of famous artists getting a free pass for their oddities of personality and/or behavior if they are great enough. Picasso, Caravaggio (multiple brawls and even a murder or two), Michelangelo (bit off someone's nose). We even make movies that satirize the art world for its glorification of criminal artists (Art School Confidential). So is it because Bob was a truly mediocre photographer of his chosen subject matter, or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

Hmm - I don't think these people were given a pass because they were famous artists - I think they simply lived in a more lawless time than we do now and many people got away with things like this.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

George said:
Well, don't you understand that if an adult man uses a weak position of a teenage drug addict girl,

George,
this is a somewhat unfair characterization. At 19, this girl is considered an adult in this society and is responsible for her own actions. The way you put it makes it sound like he was taking advantage of a 16 year old.

Terence · Sep 9, 2007

Ah yes, it's amazing how quickly people become adults on their 18th birthday and suddenly start acting mature. That's why we allow them to drink at that age. Oh wait, that law was changed almost 20 years ago. Now the government doesn't believe people are mature enough to drink until they turn 21, at which point they suddenly become even more mature than at 18.

She was underage for drinking. At the very least, he provided her with alcohol, a crime in and of itself and one which would impair her judgement. So if the argument is that she did everything of her own unimpaired and mature judgement, I would have to disagree. Even more so if he really did put morphine into her wine.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Terence said:
Ah yes, it's amazing how quickly people become adults on their 18th birthday and suddenly start acting mature. That's why we allow them to drink at that age. Oh wait, that law was changed almost 20 years ago. Now the government doesn't believe people are mature enough to drink until they turn 21, at which point they suddenly become even more mature than at 18.

She was underage for drinking. At the very least, he provided her with alcohol, a crime in and of itself and one which would impair her judgement. So if the argument is that she did everything of her own unimpaired and mature judgement, I would have to disagree. Even more so if he really did put morphine into her wine.

This is a completely unfair characterization of the point I was making. No one believes maturity suddenly happens at age 18. Maturity increases continuously from birth. The law simply says that at 18, it has increased to the point where you can move out of your home, get your own place and become self-supporting. The point I was making was that referring to her as a teenage girl has connotations of pedophilia - which in this case is quite unfair.

Terence · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
This is a completely unfair characterization of the point I was making. No one believes maturity suddenly happens at age 18. Maturity increases continuously from birth. The law simply says that at 18, it has increased to the point where you can move out of your home, get your own place and become self-supporting. The point I was making was that referring to her as a teenage girl has connotations of pedophilia - which in this case is quite unfair.

Seeing as how her age ends in a "teen" I'd say it's just as fair a characterization as implying she's mature by referring to her as an adult.

True, she's an adult, but also true she's a teenager. Neither really tells you whether she's a mature, responsible person. Given that she was a drug addict who was drinking, regardless of her age, I would say the guy was out of line. I'm as liberal as they come, but I believe in taking personal responsibility for our actions. When was the last time you or I was giving alcohol to an underage (for drinking) drug addict and trying to photograph her naked? Like crashing into a car full of nuns, it doesn't look good in court.

George · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
George,
this is a somewhat unfair characterization. At 19, this girl is considered an adult in this society and is responsible for her own actions. The way you put it makes it sound like he was taking advantage of a 16 year old.

The way I put it sounds like she was a teenager. The 16 year old and pedophilia is the way YOU put it, remember that? Maybe because for you the words "teenage girl" has "a connotation of pedophilia". So much for your lesson of fairness.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

George said:
The way I put it sounds like she was a teenager. The 16 year old and pedophilia is the way YOU put it, remember that? Maybe because for you the words "teenage girl" has "a connotation of pedophilia". So much for your lesson of fairness.

No - it's not teenage girl that does it it's the whole sentence:

"Well, don't you understand that if an adult man uses a weak position of a teenage drug addict girl,"

when you put it this way, you seem to imply that the "adult man" was the only adult in the room.

I think it would be more fair to say something like: "an adult man uses the weak position of an impaired woman"

Edwardv · Sep 9, 2007

This situation is very sad for everyone. Sad that the young lady's situation was terrible in the first place and she passed away. Sad for Mr. Shell for not using good judgement as an adult. I repeat as an ADULT. I remember years ago and I know many of your will remember this too. "If we are old enough to die, we are old enough to vote." With that many other responsibilities came with being 18. Being 18 now you do not have the same rights as we did when President Nixon, I am not a crook, and both houses changed the law for 18s to vote. If we do not want 18s, 19s, and 20 years old not be adult until 21 years old then there should be a law to state this, as to protect these young ones. Then why are we charging 12. 13. 14s as adults for crimes? And insurance companies should change the laws of their policies to treat 21s as an adult instead of 25. Yes, this is a sad situation. And there should be a law for anyone joining the military YOU have to be 21. Because even sadder is when I go to Bethesda Navel Medical Center or Walter Reed Medical hospital for medical treatments is to see 18 and 19 year olds missing arms, legs, both legs; they haven't begun to enjoy life. And how do we treat them????? Sorry, right now, this whole situation has gotten me sick and and it reminds me of other issues at hand. So I am signing with this.

A Disable Vet

Dan Fromm · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
This brings to mind an interesting question -

<snip> So is it because Bob was a truly mediocre photographer of his chosen subject matter, or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

TFC, I believe the man behaved very badly. He violated the generalized incest taboo (the strong should not take advantage of the weak; incest is a special case of this) with, alas, disastrous consequences.

I didn't like the pictures he published in Shutterbug and I was puzzled by the combination of personas he displayed. Good Bob, who posted very helpfully and in a kind and friendly way in, e.g., RUG and on usenet. And Bad Bob the Editor who seemed to lie in favor of advertisers and who abused readers who questioned Shutterbug's policies.

As for his lifestyle, I guess that even though I've been characterized as "a fine economist but such a reactionary bastard" by a Nobel laureate in economics, I'm a liberal after all. I'm indifferent about how the man lived. It wasn't and isn't my business.

Cheers,

Dan

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Edwardv said:
Because even sadder is when I go to Bethesda Navel Medical Center or Walter Reed Medical hospital for medical treatments is to see 18 and 19 year olds missing arms, legs, both legs; they haven't begun to enjoy life. And how do we treat them????? Sorry, right now, this whole situation has gotten me sick and and it reminds me of other issues at hand. So I am signing with this.

A Disable Vet

What makes this situation particularly sad is that these people are being chewed up for an ill-conceived war that never should have been started in the first place - this conflict was never in our national interest - as opposed to WWII where we were fighting for our very survival. - It's just a terrible waste.

Terence · Sep 9, 2007

He didn't use the imaired condition of the woman, he helped induce the impaired condition of the woman. So I would say you're at least omitting a major point of the story. She could have been 90 years old and what he did was still extremely questionable. As others have pointed out, he certainly knew the issues of photographing a nude, female model alone, having written about them himself. He compounded the situation by, at the very least, knowingly let her consume alcohol beforehand.

Regardless of whether he killed the woman, he put himself in an extraordinarily compromising condition with her. To classify what even he admits he DID do as "stupid" is a gross understatement.

jeroldharter · Sep 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
No, it is not so. If his appeal fails...

Fair enough.

Jamie

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Terence said:
He didn't use the imaired condition of the woman, he helped induce the impaired condition of the woman. So I would say you're at least omitting a major point of the story. She could have been 90 years old and what he did was still extremely questionable. As others have pointed out, he certainly knew the issues of photographing a nude, female model alone, having written about them himself. He compounded the situation by, at the very least, knowingly let her consume alcohol beforehand.

Regardless of whether he killed the woman, he put himself in an extraordinarily compromising condition with her. To classify what even he admits he DID do as "stupid" is a gross understatement.

And what does any of this have to do with you referring to him as an adult and her as a teenager in the same sentence? I don't disagree with anything you say in this quote, but it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

Terence · Sep 9, 2007

You suggested the better phrasing was of "an impaired woman." This too is misleading. He caused the impairment. It wasn't like she, unknown to him, showed up impaired. He played an active roll. If you are trying to properly characterize his behavior (two consenting adults did . . . ), then you are at best downplaying, if not omitting, a major part of his culpable behavior. I agree he was not technically a pedophile, but he was certainly a manipulator of young women.

jeroldharter · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
... or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

Lifestyle? I suppose if someone's "lifestyle" is drugging me and then sexually defiling my corpse I am a bit nervous at least.

I think that you are implying that people are distracted by the sexual fetish. Maybe so, but the jury was not. They did not convict him of fetishism but involuntary manslaughter. But anyway, how can you interpret this stuff as a lifestyle? That seems like very politically correct language hoping to normalize major sexual problems/deviancy as if the occasional death is par for the course of his lifestyle.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 9, 2007

to clarify my reason for posting - I'm not disputing that at the very best, kindest, gentlest summation of Bob Shell's situation, you could say that he made multiple errors in judgement (sheltering a young woman known to have multiple addiction issues instead of assisting her to get medical help, not keeping tighter control of his own supply of legally obtained controlled substances, recording his own sexual activity with said young woman, and so on) which all tragically converged to result in the death of Marion. At best he was a fool and a screw-up. At worst, he is a depraved and indifferent homicidal sociopath. Since I did not sit on that jury, and all I can work from is second-hand information reported by news media, I refrain from passing my own judgement.

My point in posing my question was, lots of people have been feeling free to pour opprobium upon him, based only on the same secondhand information. Included in the opprobium has been commentary on his mediocrity as a photographer. Historically, artists of great talent have been exculpated to one degree or another for their misdeeds. Would people be more willing to withhold judgement upon him, or to support him as Roger Hicks is doing, were he a greater talent? Thus my previous example of Caravaggio - he was known to be continuously in trouble with the law, including having charges of murder leveled against him. I would not characterize Renaissance Italy as being more lawless than today. The Condotierre della Notte (literally the Night Police, the 16th century equivalent of the Vice Squad) were highly organized, and kept records as detailed and careful as those of any modern police force. I'd argue that in some ways, they were more professional than many modern police forces. Caravaggio kept the protection of multiple powerful patrons throughout his life, even when they knew about his involvement in the murder. Obviously, they felt his talent outweighed his sins.

To cite a more modern example, Robert Mapplethorpe. People still hold his artwork in extremely high esteem, and yet he continued to have sex with multiple partners when he knew he was infected with HIV and dying. Today, in some states, this is a prosecuteable crime. But I don't see folks running around slamming Mapplethorpe's morality to any greater degree for this than they already do for his choices of subject matter. He's still characterized as "that great artist who also happened to be a debauched pervert", as opposed to "a debauched pervert who happened to be a photographer".

So at what point do we make that distinction? At what point does artistic talent perform an absolution of sin?

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Terence said:
You suggested the better phrasing was of "an impaired woman." This too is misleading. He caused the impairment. It wasn't like she, unknown to him, showed up impaired. He played an active roll. If you are trying to properly characterize his behavior (two consenting adults did . . . ), then you are at best downplaying, if not omitting, a major part of his culpable behavior. I agree he was not technically a pedophile, but he was certainly a manipulator of young women.

Yes - well I believe I said "something like" - I didn't intend my sentence to be an accurate characterization of what he did - simply an alternative way to refer to her.
BTW - I am in no way trying to defend Bob here - from what I have read his actions were indeed reprehensible and I think his sentence is fair - after all he was found guilty of depriving her of 40-60 years of life.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 9, 2007

jeroldharter said:
Lifestyle? I suppose if someone's "lifestyle" is drugging me and then sexually defiling my corpse I am a bit nervous at least.

I think that you are implying that people are distracted by the sexual fetish. Maybe so, but the jury was not. They did not convict him of fetishism but involuntary manslaughter. But anyway, how can you interpret this stuff as a lifestyle? That seems like very politically correct language hoping to normalize major sexual problems/deviancy as if the occasional death is par for the course of his lifestyle.

I am not equating his specific acts which led to the charges being filed with a "lifestyle". I'm talking about the bondage/fetish stuff. I don't know how, and neither do you, Marion got the combination of drugs into her system that caused her death. From my reading of the various articles discussing the trial, I am suspicious of the accuracy of the timeline of his "defiling" of her corpse. He may well have been having sex with her dead body, or he may not. In no way shape or form do I equate bd/sm activity with 'the occasional death as par for the course'. To do that would be the same as saying the occasional wife-beating is just par for the course with marriage as a lifestyle.

Terence · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
Yes - well I believe I said "something like" - I didn't intend my sentence to be an accurate characterization of what he did - simply an alternative way to refer to her.
BTW - I am in no way trying to defend Bob here - from what I have read his actions were indeed reprehensible and I think his sentence is fair - after all he was found guilty of depriving her of 40-60 years of life.

No worries. I will admit I like to argue for the sake of arguing (debate is too weak a word for that), and don't automatically assume people believe what they argue.

If nothing else, the Jesuits instilled in me the Jesuitical approach to "debate".

George · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
...
...
Since I did not sit on that jury, and all I can work from is second-hand information reported by news media, I refrain from passing my own judgement.

My point in posing my question was, lots of people have been feeling free to pour opprobium upon him, based only on the same secondhand information.
..........
Thus my previous example of Caravaggio - he was known to be continuously in trouble with the law,.....
........
To cite a more modern example, Robert Mapplethorpe.
...
?

The interesting (not so much, no) question is - since you refrain from passing your own judgment about B. Shell because all you can work is from second-hand information - why don't you use the same logic in the case of a man living centuries ago (Caravaggio in question) or even the more modern example, Robert M.?
You can't have it both ways...

c6h6o3 · Sep 9, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
So is it because Bob was a truly mediocre photographer of his chosen subject matter, or is it because he led a lifestyle that most people don't understand and are afraid of, that we condemn him so harshly?

Neither in my case. I condemn him so harshly because his negligence killed a human being.

david b · Sep 10, 2007

This entire thread should be removed because it has no positive value for APUG.

Bob Shell

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

George

Peter De Smidt

dslater

dslater

Terence

dslater

Terence

George

dslater

Edwardv

Dan Fromm

dslater

Terence

jeroldharter

dslater

Terence

jeroldharter

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

dslater

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Terence

George

c6h6o3

david b

Bob Shell

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency