Jock Sturges selling his camera and print on Ebay...

[User Removed]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15248&item=7521995828&rd=1

In case anyone is interested...Jock Sturges is selling his old 8x10 Kodak Master camera, along with an vintage original 8x10 contact print on Ebay.

I think there was a thread on the board about someone asking what lens Jock used. Well, here is your chance to just buy his whole camera!

Congradulations on Jock's new baby girl also! (The reason for selling the camera)

 

[matt miller]

pretty cool, thanks for the link.

 

[Alex Hawley]

This will be an interesting one to watch.

 

[User Removed]

This will be an interesting one to watch.

haha. That is what I was thinking. Its only been up for a few hours...and its already bid up too a few thousand dollars. Im sure whoever buys it will keep it as a collector item and not a camera they use.

 

[Dave Parker]

Interesting piece of photographic history..

 

[livemoa]

What would the original print be worth?

Could be worth buying just for that! Good way to sell the camera anyway, nice marketing touch.

 

[colrehogan]

Interesting. I'm going to watch this auction just to see what the final price is.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm watching it as well.

Prints for reproduction aren't necessarily regarded as "fine prints" for collecting and exhibition purposes, but since was for an important book, it might fetch more than most.

 

[cjarvis]

Over $2500 with 5+ days left. Too high...unless the camera actually comes with a few prepubescent French girls who have looks in their eyes as if some dirty old fart with a view camera just stole pieces of their souls.

 

[bill schwab]

What would the original print be worth?

Judging by his current prices and the fact that it was used in the making of the book, I'm guessing you could get in the 700.00 to 1800.00 range as long as it is signed. The provenance letter he promises wouldn't hurt either.

Bill

 

[scootermm]

Over $2500 with 5+ days left. Too high...unless the camera actually comes with a few prepubescent French girls who have looks in their eyes as if some dirty old fart with a view camera just stole pieces of their souls.

hopefully this is a joke.

I read an interesting interview with Jock this morning and found his words and thoughts to be very meaningful and honest.

Exploitation seemed the last thing associated with his photographic art.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Over $2500 with 5+ days left. Too high...unless the camera actually comes with a few prepubescent French girls who have looks in their eyes as if some dirty old fart with a view camera just stole pieces of their souls.

Sums up my feelings, too. Except I think you're being too kind...

 

[Frank Petronio]

The conventional art world answer is that we bring our own feelings to bear when we see dirty pictures. Jock isn't the perv for making them, but you are a perv for thinking he must be a perv, so Jock is pulling a double ironic whammy on you. This gives him a lot of credibility in the art world. That the pictures are well-crafted and the models are beautiful (whatever the definition) doesn't hurt either. And Sturges seems like a genuinely decent guy from the interviews and such I've read.

But I don't keep his books on display, which makes me one of those people who must be a perv. And truth be told, some of those teenage girls are attractive, although I can't say that out loud in most company. And I bet 90% of you guys that are adults do the same thing - you don't leave the Jock Sturges book on the coffee table when the elderly and conservative relatives come over do you? It might be something you'd do for shock value when you're 21, but com'on -

Also, having a couple daughters of my own, it makes me uncomfortable to think of them running around with grown men taking photos of their nude bodies. Jock's work softens the barrier between what is appropriate behavior, and what the boundaries are. And I reluctantly argue that boundaries and barriers are a good thing in moderation, as they keep the real pervs in check.

It's like rappers using the "n" word to lessen it's power. Nice idea but it doesn't work. Instead it just coarsens society further. Public nudity is a nice idea but it would probably cause more problems than it would solve.

Finally, all of Jock's models are beautiful and svelte. The reality is that if nudity was widespread, we'd have a society of basket case body image problems and a lot of truly gross things to look at.

 

[Kerik]

hopefully this is a joke.

I read an interesting interview with Jock this morning and found his words and thoughts to be very meaningful and honest.

Exploitation seemed the last thing associated with his photographic art.

Matt,

Unfortunately it probably isn't a joke. There are many folks like CJarvis who are more than willing to spread this kind of ignorant drivel (and I'm talking specifically about what he wrote, not intelligent criticism of Jock's work in general). I know Jock personally and have met a couple of his long-term models. I've always found Jock to be kind, thoughtful and immensely enthusiastic about fine art photography. The models I met were two of the most intelligent, articulate young women I've met and clearly more well-adjusted than the majority of American teenagers I come into contact with. Admittedly, Jock's work isn't for everyone, but to characterize it the way Chad did is pathetic and sickening to me.

Now, let me tell you what else I know about Mr. Jarvis. I've tried to be patient, but now I've had it. About this time last year I agreed to participate in Mr. Jarvis' "Double Exposure" venture . I received no compensation for allowing my work to be reproduced, although I was promised a copy of the final product. Despite asking several times, I'VE NEVER RECEIVED A COPY OF THE PUBLICATION. I never even received proofs, which I had asked for early on. In addition, I asked to have about a half dozen of my platinum prints be returned to me a couple months ago, and that hasn't happened either. Take from that what you will.

~Kerik

 

[Tom Duffy]

It's about informed consent. A child can't give it, so they're being taken advantage of. Retrospectively, they may agree with the decision their parents made for them, or they may not. Meanwhile, it's called exploitation.

 

[TPPhotog]

I've just discovered that I have some innocence left as I had to do a google to see what all the fuss is about.
As someone who quite happily shoots female nudes myself I expected to see over reaction as usual to nude photography. However I admit that for myself I do find his work to be inappropriate due to the age of the females or I'll even go so far as to say children.

Before I get jumped on I will point out that as I shoot nudes I do not see them in a sexual context but as form and texture, but those "models" are certainly too young in my book. I agree with Tom, where is the informed consent!!

 

[Jorge]

I bought the book "radiant Identities" and I find the work beautiful. In it, there are pictures of the parents helping Jock set up and take the pictures (who were also nude BTW). From the same book Jock takes pains to explain that there is no way coercion or parental influence when posing for these photos, as a matter of fact, Sturges lets them play with his camera just so that they get comfortable with it.

Unlike Frank, I had the book on display until my dog chewed on it.....Ultimately the question is, is there something wrong with looking at beautiful young bodies with flawless skin? If you say yes, then maybe you are attribuiting more to the photographs than what is there, and that methinks that is personal baggage.

 

[BradS]

Sturges and his work seem to be synonymous with controversy. I can't help but wonder if/how being the father of a daughter wil change his perspective.

 

[TPPhotog]

Jorge it's not a matter of "personal baggage", every model I work with has made their own decision to model nude knowing that the photographs will exist and possibly will be published at anytime during at least my lifetime.

As we all know life moves on and if I publish the pictures in the future the models may have become parents, moved into the professions, maybe even become nuns Either way they make the decision for themself knowing the implications. I wonder if those same parents would also consent to the daughters having tattoos which will also be part of them for life?

 

[David]

These excerpts from an interview in View Camera magazine, July/August '98 w/ Jock Sturges and John Paul Caponigro.

"...What happens is that, when a child's or woman's physical self is invaded in some way by an aggressor, they'll either tell or not tell. It's as simple as that. Systems that have instructed them in shame, to a great degree, are systems in which they are much less likely to tell. The systems that are the most open have, in fact, the lowest statistical incidence of child abuse, because child abusers are caught very early because kids tell all. The irony is the the people who are militating against my work are working for a result that would be opposite what they expect or pretend to desire. There is, for me, quite a profound irony there".

and...

"...so if you read sexuality into my pictures, beyond what's inherent to a human being, then the work is a Rorschach, and your evincing sexual immaturity or sexual malaise in your own life. I have to tell you, I am sometimes suspicious of the sexual mental health of some of the people who point their wavering fingers at the morality, the art, of others. How is it that they are so interested...?".

finally,

"Caponigro: "When you, a man, looking largely at women, and by and large, but not exclusively, young women, the notion of sexualilty has to be addressed in some way. I'm wondering, what stance do you take towards that, you personally?"."

"Sturges: "Well they are beautiful. Their bodies are lovely. When they're children, they're children. They're beautiful, but not in a way that invites aggression sexual interaction at all. They're just what they are. And that's part of the problem; a lot of people seem incapable of dividing out simple admiration from a sexual urge.

I've never accepted the idea that there is any point along the trajectory that our lives describe, from birth, until death, that is not beautiful-that is, somehow or another, inherently obscene or to be hidden. Hiding is bad for us. Hiding makes people perversely interested in the hidden, and the ashamed when the hidden is broached."."

I hope I haven't selected passages out of context. When I read this years ago I was moved by the integrity of what I read, now re-reading it I find the same response.
David

 

[TPPhotog]

Sounds to me like the same BS that was ripe in the early 70's from psychologists justifying why we should be able to do anything we want and social workers spouting that all whites are born racist .... ROFLMFAO

 

[David]

re: informed consent

I found this in a review by Charles Taylor called, 'Art Chasing Life, Sturges and the Properties of Time'.
How can you not be struck by the beauty of these young women? It's important to remember, though, that attractions are not actions. Sturges's working relationship is one of implicit trust. Eschewing release forms, he gets permission from his subjects each time a picture is exhibited or published. "Either I stay in touch with people or I don't deserve to use their pictures," he says flatly.

 

[TPPhotog]

However once he has sold a print he has no control over where it goes

 

[David]

Sorry, TPPhotog, but I fail to see the relevance of your point. If decent, stated intentions and perceptions (as quoted in Sturge's interview) are subverted or perverted by others how does that reflect on the artist or the subjects of the art. If an ax murderer misuses an ax, is the ax manufacturere or the ax somehow immoral?

I have three daughters, now grown. As they were growing I tried to respect them in all ways, including being circumspect about their bodies. There are many ways to be in the world and there are those whose world view encompasses openness more than others. Who are we to judge their values? I didn't take Sturges type images of them as they were growing, but I can imagine a way of being in the world where to do so wouldn't be shameful. There is an innocence that can be appreciated even though some may pervert that innocence according to their own ways. Artful representation does not necessarily collude with that perversion and, in fact, can eschew it.

 

[TPPhotog]

David the relevance of my point is that when I shoot with a model she has given her informed consent and we work within the levels that she is happy with. If I then sell any of the work she is aware that the pictures could turn up at any point in the future without further contact from myself. This is an informed decision by herself and she has agreed to it via a release form.

In the case of Sturge's interview he says that "he gets permission from his subjects each time a picture is exhibited or published. "Either I stay in touch with people or I don't deserve to use their pictures".

He may have control until it is first published or sold, but after that he has no control over when or where it will be shown or exhibited. Therefore it is irrelevant weather he stays in touch with the model or not.

It's not a case of his work being "subverted or perverted by others", but the fact that at that age the models cannot give informed consent and it is the parents for whatever reason that make the decision for her.

Btw on the original topic of this thread it is a nice camera