Jock Sturges

[gandolfi]

As for anyone else: I simply expressed my view just like anyone else, I asked a powerful question That most would not answer.

/QUOTE]

A powerful question, with an easy answer for me.

I would say no. But only because I truely think I could do it better..

(how schmuck am I ?)

 

[bill schwab]

Now, How dare you write that I am using my child for self-promotion of my blog. For what reason would I do that?

Well, because you did... and I have no idea. Was the photograph not used in a thread thats purpose was to announce and promote your BLOG about being a single father?

But what happens when someone else presents their view that you don't agree with, you attack, just like a cave man.

Attack? I'm not attacking you. And I don't remember saying that I do not agree with you. Maybe it is you that should go back and read my post without the hostility.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I wrote my own opnion and asked the writers here to please put up some meat in the game. Only one person answered and I respected that.

I'm confused, Tom. I've answered everything you've asked me to, and then some, in great detail. Why is it that you think only one person has responded to you with "any meat"?

Unless you're asking about the "would you let him photograph your child nude" question. I thought my position was crystal clear that if Jock Sturges was a long-time friend of my family and I had raised my children as naturalists, you'd better believe I'd let him work with my children, dressed or undressed.

In response to other parts of your last few posts, I have in no way been disrespectful toward you or your opinions. I disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion just as much as I'm entitled toward mine. I can't help reading much of what you've written in this thread as a bit hostile and overly aggressive. This is not a battle, and there is no need to rush in with swords drawn.

I would suggest you might get some insight into my work and point of view if you took a look at my website, as I have yours. Then perhaps you might get a feel for my perspective. You might find that you're making assumptions that are not at all consistent with how I see art and children.

www.cheryljacobsphotography.com

- CJ

 

[ChrisHensel]

We bring our collective experience with us as we move through life. I spent 15 years in law enforcement. The methodology ascribed to the photographer is consistent with the methodology of others who specialize in the victimization of children. Establishing trust, gaining approval from parents, the cloak of respectability/authority because of the perceived lofty position of the artist. Really, all very obvious signs warranting serious suspicion. But there will always be those that convince themselves that this man could never do this. He is an artist, he cares about his subjects, etc.

No one ever sees these guys, though, do they? Not until it is too late.

 

[zinnanti]

I'm not trying to kiss anyone's arse - but I find Cheryl's work brilliant. Frankly, I'm a little jealous I haven't had such opportunities of subject matter.

And, at the risk of the CPS "thought police" kicking in the door, I wouldn't have a problem with Jock Sturges photographing my daughter - in her God given birthday suit - if she were comfortable with it and it were in a setting as respectful as those featured in "Last Day of Summer" or "Portrait of a Muse."

There. Satisfied? BTW - My name is quite recognizable re legal proceedings in this regard and easy to find on the web for anyone looking to do my family and I (further) harm.

There. There's the "meat" - so to speak.

Since when is an artist responsible - or properly censored - for what his/her audience might think?

You know, I used to practice family law. Did you know that everyone in the courtroom was a "molester" or "abuser." The degree of which was only up to what the other could "sling" or "prove." Clearly, it was all in the best interest of the child. Right?

Enough. I'm done with this thread. The train has come way off the tracks.

These convoluted statements against beautiful artform are a compelling justification to never give up producing them.

In closing, I ask you just one question - the "meat" if you will.

Have you ever picked up one of Sturges books and read it? "Snapshots"? How about 8 x 10 contact prints? There's gotta be a Lenscrafters in the neighborhood. And, no - the work isn't that crappy 300dpi digital "spittal." (Ansel Adams has to be rolling in his grave given "his" latest series of "prints.")

Sorry. I'm just a little pissed off.

 

[zinnanti]

We bring our collective experience with us as we move through life. I spent 15 years in law enforcement. The methodology ascribed to the photographer is consistent with the methodology of others who specialize in the victimization of children. Establishing trust, gaining approval from parents, the cloak of respectability/authority because of the perceived lofty position of the artist. Really, all very obvious signs warranting serious suspicion. But there will always be those that convince themselves that this man could never do this. He is an artist, he cares about his subjects, etc.

No one ever sees these guys, though, do they? Not until it is too late.

Yeah. Like I said. This is it. I'm done with this thread. I bring the collective experience of practicing law for 10 years and actively photographing for 20 years.

Also, 15 years isn't enough to retire. Are you still in law enforcement? If not, why not?

Maybe I should start blabbing about all the "off the record" things I learned in the course handling a litany of cop divorces.

Something tells me things would get pretty quiet around here.

Answer the question: Have you ever picked up one of Sturges books and read it?

 

[dwdmguy]

I'm done with the thread as well.
Can't you see, I gave a disclaimer as to where I was coming from, I did not write a word on your opnions, I only wrote on my own, and not one person responded to support their position, it was focused on me, not the issue, because I had another view point. How can you not see that. I am done with this. The bottom line is I think I have a lot of "other" things in common with Sturges, I spend most summer days on a optional beach in NJ, I find the body simply wonderful, but where I disagree is I will not publish images of children. Period. That is my view.

 

[zinnanti]

not one person responded to support their position, it was focused on me, not the issue, .../QUOTE]

First of all, I responded with plenty of support - and answered your question.

Jock Sturges was kind enough to respond to a series of emailed questions that I sent to him in preparation for a talk I am proposing to the California Professional Photographer's Association (prophotoca.com). I normally wouldn't do this as I don't know what's "off the record" or "on the record", but I am cutting and pasting his response below. I truly think he wants his story told.

This is less than 48 hours old. If you doubt the authenticity, I will send you the email so you can examine the email headers. I only ask that you respect his privacy should you come across his email address.

He concludes with "don't hesitate to pose further questions." Someone who has nothing to hide doesn't fear investigation.

BTW - guess what "law enforcement" did when my 14 year old received death threats after I sued self-proclaimed pedophile, Jack McClellan?

Nothing.

Here - Jock Sturges speaks for himself.

On Mar 7, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Tony Zinnanti wrote:

> 1. Prior to the raid, did you have any indication that you were on the
> FBI "radar," so to speak?
Absolutley none. And I don't think I was. The FOI request we made did not turn up any but then it was extremely heavily redacted.
>
> 2. What was the legal basis for the raid on your studio and the
> destruction of your work and equipment? What did any warrant purport
> to find on your premises?

Pictures of mine seized at a color lab in SF pursuant to a tip from an assistant lab manager (a young self describe "christian" whom it turned out was fired from a previous position for a similar act) were deemed questionable enough to warrant the initial warrant which was for a search and seizure at the apartment of the technician whom I had hired to make internegatives from transparencies made on the beach in France -- though those same pictures would ultimately play no role in the issues the us attorney (lack of capitals not accidental) attempted to advance before the grand jury. The technician in question, Joe Semian, a tall, young African American, was arrested and eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor. I was never charged at all. Imagine that. A team of feds and SF police came to my apartment about four hours later and were there for 6 hours before they succeeded in getting a warrant. They used descriptions of images (my work) that they saw on the wall of the apartment to justify the warrant.
Ironically they seized none of those framed images despite filling a truck the size of a UPS truck to the roof with mu possessions.


>
> 3. Was there ever a criminal filing - versus any filing
> recommendation? Was the case rejected by the prosecution or was it
> dismissed by a magistrate/judge?

After almost two years the us attorney asked his grand jury for a single indictment for child pornography. The grand jury declined. End of case. No criminal charges of any kind were ever filed.
>
> 4. What was the jurisdiction? (Federal, state and geographically.
> Sometimes,
> feds run cooperative details with local law enforcement.)

This is interesting. After 24 hours the SF police who had done the seizure with two feds in attendance called my attorney (then Ephraim Margolin -- a very bright man who never spoke a single word that I
understood) and told him that they were dropping the matter and would return my property. I just had to rent a truck and come get it. Then less than an hour later Margolin called me to say that the feds had taken the case over. I think that the phrase that covers this is "emotional roller coaster" and you could add the word steep in there anywhere you want.
>
> 5. What was the critical revelation that led to the case not
> proceeding?
> Where was the turning point in your favor?

The turning point was gradual and actually a little funny. The us a in question stopped my lawyer (by then, Michael Metzger) in the hall one day and said, angrily, to him "I'm sick of all these witnesses in front of my {grand} jury who LIKE your client!" and then stormed off.
In fact as far as I know the grand jury never saw a single witness that did not present anything other than exculpatory evidence.

I was doing a ton of national media in this time frame (they called
me) so that might have had an impact but I've never spoken to anyone from the grand jury so I do not get to know. Without exception the media took a hard look at me and then came down solidly on my side.

Now I'm going to jump ahead three or four years to a point in my life when fate called on me to resist a major legal push against me and my work engendered by what I like to call the not-so-christian right. A character by the name of Randal Terry had been disenfranchised from the anti-abortion business by NOW (the national organization for
women) whose lawyers had come after him using legal theory manifest in the RICOH statutes. Randal's lawyers persuaded him to settle out of court. NOW really took him to the cleaners, even attaching his frequent flyer miles. Anyway, the ink had hardly dried on his settlement when he came after the arts with attacks on me, Sally Mann and David Hamilton. Within just a few months I had had to hire attorney to protect my interests before six or seven grand juries in conservative states across the country. The point of this digression is that one of the grand juries was federal -- out of Pittsburgh. I became aware of this because it had become clear that my mail was being opened in SF and my phone was behaving bizarrely as well. Some distance into this I asked the attorney I had retained in Pitt., Paul Boas, why the feds were doing this AGAIN. Metzger had calculated from his experience that at the end of two years and an investigation that had doubtless cost more than a million dollars, the feds had to have an enormous file on me. I asked Paul Boas, "why are they doing this?
They have to know everything about me already. They interviewed just about everyone I know all over the US and even in France...?" He allowed as to how that was a bit of a puzzle for him too so he said that he would talk to the us a and see what he could find out. It turned out that the feds had LOST my original file. It was just gone.
So they were starting from scratch. If I had to guess if this "loss"
was accidental or intentional I would have to come down on the side of intentional because it contained nothing but exculpatory evidence.



>
> 6. Is there any form of continued surveillance, harassment or overt
> official criticism of which you are aware?

Nada. With one wee exception. When we did the FOI discovery the vast majority of the documents were redacted to the point of utter uselessness. Just page after page of black bars and descriptions of still further pages which had been omitted in their entirety. But there was one exception. While at a gallery opening of my work in Chicago the gallerist had called me into his office to meet a collector who wanted to meet me personally. The guy was a young man with well polished black shoes who didn't seem to know boo about art so I was a bit puzzled by him. He wanted to know if I had any "special" pictures that I didn't exhibit. any "other" material. I replied no, definitely not, and that was an end to it. He showed up in the FOI papers as an agent (as I realized that I had half suspected at the time...) His whole report was there. Given how much else had been omitted I always assumed that this was the feds sending me a message.
I'm relaxed about this though. The more that agents go to galleries , the better. They might learn something about art...

Now that I think about it I also had a workshop student attend a workshop I was doing in West Palm Beach, Fl about 14 years ago. A very fit, attractive young woman, she had some sense of the basic mechanics of photography but was otherwise clueless about any notion of the medium as art. When she learned that the minor teenagers we would be shooting for the first two days of the workshop would be dressed throughout and that the nude models we would have for the last two days would be professionals over the age of 18 she dropped out of the workshop and left. Hmmm...



>
> 7. Is there evidence of gender bias against you? It's sensitive to
> talk about, and I think we all know the names, but have women artists
> producing like images suffered the same official interference with
> their work?

Sally Mann is a good friend so I am pretty aware of what she has been up to. She was NOT bothered to the extent I was but largely for an interesting reason. Her husband, Larry, is a good and aggressive attorney. He and Sally took a box of her most provocative work and dropped in on both the us a for their region and the state district attorney as well. She presented her resume, her books and her prints and said, if this is a problem you need to tell us right now. She stole a march on them both. She's never had any of the formal legal problems that I did.

Was this a form of discrimination? Almost certainly. Sally plays with a much more aggressive level of adult metaphor in her work than I have ever sought to and actively poses her models -- something I never do.
So my images represent a careful record of natural states as it were while in hers the children are actors on her, adult stage. It's a significant difference. As the supreme court has held that mere nudity in and of itself is not actionable (please excuse my amateur
paraphrasing) I would seem the better defended by legal circumstance.
So.


>
> 8. Did the instance with the FBI effect the willingness of your
> subjects to work with you?

One girl in northern california was swimming in all her clothes when I visited her family some weeks after she had been quite brutally and invasively interviewed by two fbi agents. (I could send you a jpg of an image I made of her doing this if you would like). Then about 13, they had asked her questions like "has he ever made you spread your legs so that he could photograph your vagina", etc. Her parents told me that she had been "really wierded out" by the agents. I continued to work with her (she wanted me to) but she was hyper self-conscious for about a year after that but gradually reverted to her old uninhibited natural self and is in my work to this day. (she recently opened a studio in Eureka, CA and is doing extremely well as a professional photographer) In fact, I did not lose a single person or family from my work because of the feds. My great wealth in the world has always been the people in my work. We know, care about and trust each other. The greatest single endorsement my work enjoys is manifest in the fact that a whole generation of my models have now come of age and are raising children of their own whom they are happily enrolling in my ongoing artistic project. To my lights this answers the informed consent question and the do no harm question more than adequately.


Your questions did not encompass a couple of the more chilling aspects of this ordeal for me.

1) During the investigation the feds regularly ignored the legal proscription that should have prevented them from speaking to the press about the specifics of my case. In fact they described my photographs to the press in disturbingly graphic language and cast other aspersions as well. We raised these issues with a judge when we went forward with a motion for the return of my property and the judge chewed out the us a and his team. But the bell could not be un-rung AND they kept it up after that hearing. They were getting beat up by the press who were soundly on my side of the issue and were damned if they were going to take it lying down. This was one of the first places where I learned that the fbi was a law onto itself; that its agents could choose to obey or break any law they wished without fear of repercussion.

2) Half way through the second year I learned that the families I knew in France were being visited by agents from the Police Judiciare
-- the French equivalent of the fbi. When the families asked why the agents were there they were told that while the pictures they had been shown from my work did not bother them at all -- indeed they liked them and had said as much to the american police when they had been first contacted -- the americans had written back to inform them that I had been convicted of incest in the US and was a known sex criminal so in light of that, of course they had to do an investigation. Learning that this was happening made me pretty crazy and subsequently hugely frustrated when my lawyer (Metzger) informed me that it was legal for the feds to lie to develop evidence during an investigation. Happily for me all of my families in Europe know me well enough to know that I had never had children of my own so they pretty much all said, "Um,, incest? How did he do that when he doesn't have kids?" The PJ's pretty quickly figured out that the feds had lied to them and they didn't like it The called all the families that they had visited and told them that as far as they were concerned my pictures were beautiful and that "le dossier de Monsieur Sturges est impeccable". -- my file was impeccable which is very strong legal language in France. They also went so far as to say to at least one family that as far as they were concerned if there was anyone sick in the equation it was the American police.

French culture is deeply invested in the aesthetic pursuit so I was lucky that the feebs chose the wrong country in which to attempt to assassinate my character because they did not like my art. As had happened in the States with my American models, I would not lose a single family from my work in Europe as well.

3) Not so chilling but interesting. We had a "friend"on the inside at the fbi in Washington. He told us that the then head of the fbi, Sessions (sp?) saw my case on his desk every week and that there was huge internal pressure to deliver a result against me. Scary. But there is the political component for you. The federal task force that was working against me was one of Edwin Meese's misbegotten offspring.
It was all about power and religion from the beginning. Unfortunately and fortunately I subscribe to neither.

 

[zinnanti]

PART II

Now I live in Seattle where I am happy with a wife and two daughters, one 9 months and the other almost 4 years old. My work proceeds well as I have released two major new books this winter and am working on a third. I am represented by 25 galleries in nine countries and have also in recent years been working at the top end of the fashion business for magazines like Vogue and Marie Claire. But all this success and happiness occurs against an emotional/psychological backdrop that is frankly more fearful and guarded than once was the case. We are careful with what art we have on the wall and very careful also with whom we invite into our home and just how my work is moved into and around the fine art world. The battles detailed above cost my wife and I significantly in both peace of mind and in the progress of our lives. My wife's ambitions to go to medical school were pushed back almost a decade in total. Happily she is now a practicing physician (and a good one!) and I am fine as well. Last year Photo District News named me a "Photographic Legend". Jesus.

Winston Churchill once said, "There is nothing quite so invigorating in life as to be shot at with no effect".
Hemingway said, "Life breaks everyone. The ones who survive are strong in the broken places."
I say, "Amen."

jock sturges
seattle, 3/7/09

don't hesitate to pose further questions.

 

[ChrisHensel]

Also, 15 years isn't enough to retire. Are you still in law enforcement? If not, why not?

I moved on...lots of despair in that line of work. Certainly some of the true believers must concede the possibility that something is amiss. Not even a glimmer of doubt?

There is nothing so scary as Those That Are Certain.

Tell ya what: I'll concede that maybe everything with the artist is on the up-and up and you concede that maybe...just maybe...it isn't.

Now that would be honest.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm done with the thread as well.


I am done with this.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Also, 15 years isn't enough to retire. Are you still in law enforcement? If not, why not?

I moved on...lots of despair in that line of work. Certainly some of the true believers must concede the possibility that something is amiss. Not even a glimmer of doubt?

There is nothing so scary as Those That Are Certain.

Tell ya what: I'll concede that maybe everything with the artist is on the up-and up and you concede that maybe...just maybe...it isn't.

Now that would be honest.

Nobody but Jock Sturges will ever know for absolute certain whether he is "on the up-and-up".

But the last time I checked, in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. And there have been no charges filed against this man, let alone convictions.

Anyone in law and / or law enforcement for any length of time knows and should appreciate this.

I believe I have stated my position throughout this thread in a rational and respectful way, taking into consideration the views and sensibilities of others. Anyone not in agreement with that statement is welcome to contact me directly for either an apology or a clarification, whichever I feel is in order.

With a nod of recognition to Mr. Sturges for a lifetime of beautiful work and years of living under a completely unfounded presumption of guilt, I am now signing out.

- CJ

 

[zinnanti]

Also, 15 years isn't enough to retire. Are you still in law enforcement? If not, why not?

* * *

Tell ya what: I'll concede that maybe everything with the artist is on the up-and up and you concede that maybe...just maybe...it isn't.

Now that would be honest.

You never answered the question. Have you ever picked up one of his books and read the essays and looked at the photos?

One word: context.

Law enforcement has made up its mind about Sturges. It doesn't matter what the proof shows. I've litigated for ten years. I know it DOES NOT matter. Stats, agenda, ego, rankings and victories is what matters. Thank God the Grand Jury in San Francisco did not indict him.

No - I will not concede your point. Read the interview. Pick up the book. Do your research. you could not have possibly done so between my post and yours.

On the other hand, don't despair. Law enforcement and absolutely immune prosecutors have enough resources, time and myopia to eventually put him away, break up his family, condemn his work and win the war on the public.

Don't despair. I'm sure it will work out.

 

[zinnanti]

Lastly, I'll tell you something - you're coming on strong as a cop. Are you visiting this board as a cop or a participant?

I'm not looking to provoke a brawl, but when you come to this board with the tact that you're in law enforcement and Sturges couldn't possibly be clean, you're monitoring this thing as a cop - just like the guy who was sitting in the gallery soliciting "special images."

This is why I will never quit practicing law. Because in all of the unjust authoritarian arrogance, there is a slight inkling of hope the good guy might win.

 

[jd callow]

Long ago this had, in my mind, turned into an ugly thread. If it were up to me I'd end it here on Mr Zinnanti's post. The issue that has evolved is one that either condemns the artist for some intent we can not know or condemns the artist for some use of his work that he cannot control. Before posting and furthering an injustice, one fine gentleman had the good manner's and balls to ask the artist instead of relying upon his ignorance. Another rightfully pointed out that in this country people are presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Some here have him as guilty regardless of knowledge or doubt. I hope they and everyone else never find themselves in a court like this.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I think it's time that this thread be closed. It's run its course, and then some.

 

[darinb]

>>The issue that has evolved is one that either condemns the artist for some intent we can not know or condemns the artist for some use of his work that he cannot control.<<

Yes, but aren't these issues at the very heart of the ethical questions we are discussing? Did you expect difficult ethical questions to be clear cut?

I would agree that these are very difficult ethical questions and wonder at those who have the truth so very clear in their mind.

--Darin

 

[jd callow]

Darin,
You do not condemn a man for what you think is in his mind. You do not condemn a man for things others do when he has no control over their actions. And you sure as hell shouldn't condemn a man with the lowest form of behavior out of ignorance and do it on a public forum.

There is nothing fuzzy about this. In fact it couldn't be more clear cut. The ethical question doesn't have anything to do with Jock it has to do with the people who are quick to accuse a man on a public forum from the safety and comfort of their home .

 

[WarEaglemtn]

"The persons who went after him however, hate the human form and find perversions in everything, and are a danger to everything."

Typical statement from a Utah redneck MoronicPriesthood influenced fool. Get out of Utah and in the real world, ditch the foolish hat and learn wisdom by reading old Jorge Gasteazoro posts.

 

[darinb]

>>You do not condemn a man for what you think is in his mind. You do not condemn a man for things others do when he has no control over their actions.<<

Take a step back and consider--aren't you giving Jock and his work a bit of a "free pass"? On the personal morality issues are there no facts that raise "red flags" and motivate genuine concerns? On the "no control" issue is that really the case when Jock is the producer of the work and books? Would you give other producers such a free pass for their products?

Isn't there really a lot more middle ground here than you acknowledge? A lot more basis to have a discussion of the ethics of his work?

Yes, I agree that many on this thread see only their own point of view and are hostile to any other. I see an awful lot of that from the very posters who are at the same time claiming that it is the other guy who is closed minded! And I also see that some posters are posting with strong emotions driving their words rather than considered opinion. But that is sort of how life is in a free and open discussion--sort of messy, sometimes unpleasant.

Jock rose from obscurity due to a debate just such as this. He is no stranger to it. Indeed, from a national awareness point of view his work is born of it and he has benefited greatly from the attention. Our struggles here with the ethical questions are neither novel nor shocking.

--Darin

 

[eddym]

We bring our collective experience with us as we move through life. I spent 15 years in law enforcement. The methodology ascribed to the photographer is consistent with the methodology of others who specialize in the victimization of children. Establishing trust, gaining approval from parents, the cloak of respectability/authority because of the perceived lofty position of the artist. Really, all very obvious signs warranting serious suspicion. But there will always be those that convince themselves that this man could never do this. He is an artist, he cares about his subjects, etc.

No one ever sees these guys, though, do they? Not until it is too late.

What a crock! Every time I do a portrait shoot, I try very hard to "establish trust, gain approval from parents (if it's a minor I'm shooting), and conduct myself in a "respectable/authoritative" manner," because that's what a PROFESSIONAL does! By your criteria, I would "warrant serious suspicion"!

 

[SuzanneR]

I think it's time that this thread be closed. It's run its course, and then some.

Agreed.