Jock Sturges

Arvee · Feb 21, 2009

Tim, I think your view is myopic. Why is it, in every news event I have witnessed on TV, that law enforcement confiscates the computers and finds tons of prurient photographs of naked children?

That conflicts with your appraisal of pedophiles!

-F.

Tim M · Feb 21, 2009

Fred Aspen said:
Tim, I think your view is myopic. Why is it, in every news event I have witnessed on TV, that law enforcement confiscates the computers and finds tons of prurient photographs of naked children?

That conflicts with your appraisal of pedophiles!

-F.

Once again... have any of you taken time to study pedophilia? Or are you just basing you opinions and conclusion on what you see on TV and here around the water cooler?

I am gonna jump out of this thread for a while... It is not worth the rise in my blood pressure.

Anton Lukoszevieze · Feb 21, 2009

I've lost the thread here, I don't know who 'you' is anymore in this thread...................
and yes, the cops do seem to confiscate a lot of child pornography from arrested child sex-offenders, therefore the image based
evidence appraisal does seem to be valid.

Arvee · Feb 21, 2009

Tim,

While in college, studying photography, I worked part time as a crime scene photographer for a year. Had first hand, close association with the facts. Let's just leave it there.

-F.

brummelisa · Feb 21, 2009

Fred Aspen said:
My concern is: who are the consumers of Sturges products? He is making a darned good living at it an I can make a pretty good guess who is doing the majority of the buying, and that bothers me.

-F.

So, you think that the majority of his collectors and people watching his images are pedofiles?

I don't think so, but that's my point of view.

/ Marcus

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 21, 2009

The problem is a lot of artists see any criticism of any artist as an attack on the arts, which has to be fought no matter what. An artist could be crucifying babies and photographing them as they die and some of the guys on this thread would defend the guy. I'm a professional artist. It is my ONLY means of earning a living. I realize a lot of people outside the arts have a low opinion of art and artists. It sucks. It really does, and it makes it hard for us to make a living, but I am not able intellectually or morally able to defend to the death any artist, no matter what. Eventually guys, you get to the point where you start looking foolish when you won't let go of your crusade. The newspaper article says:

"But the last time Sturges was investigated by the federal government, in 1990, police and federal agents stormed his San Francisco studio, where they claimed to find photographs of nude children (genitals “vividly displayed,” according to one newspaper account that quoted FBI agents) along with letters and photographs that suggested Sturges had engaged in a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl. It’s a relationship Sturges doesn’t deny."

It's a relationship Sturges doesn't deny. So, why isn't he in jail? Because in statutory rape cases the child has to be under the age of consent (which is as low as 12 in some states) AND her parents have to file charges. The state, at least here in Indiana, will NOT prosecute those cases unless the child's family asks them to. The girl he had sex with was 14, which may have been old enough where it happened to be legal. Her parents may not have wanted to go through to publicity of a trial. Even if what he did was legal, it is still disgusting. Even if her family didn't press charges, it is still wrong. I won't defend someone like that. I don't care if he is a fellow artist. If I had a 14yr old girl and a 28 yr old man had sex with her, he wouldn't have to worry about me pressing charges, he'd be dead. End of story.

JBrunner · Feb 21, 2009

Lots and lots of huge leaps being made here, building one supposition upon another. For starters, Sturges work is hardly the stuff of pedophilia, and if you think it is you are woefully naive. The supposed "allegations" and the lack of denial are based on a movie. The mind boggles. What is being put forth are not facts, there are no bonafide "allegations", and no person has been charged with a crime. If you don't like or understand the the work, that's fine, but a public lynching based on internet hearsay isn't going to fly. If you have something to contribute that isn't based on cherished conjecture, carry on.

BrianShaw · Feb 21, 2009

Tim M said:
My point being... after several years of governmental investigations I would think if the man was guilty...

Tim. I agree. Not knowing the "Truth" but knowing what I've read, I too think...

zinnanti · Feb 22, 2009

>> RANT WARNING <<

I mention the following because this thread is delving into "information" gleaned from apparent news reports or a documentary about Jock Sturges.

The news is a daily dose of poison.

I'm a "card carrying" member of the media, in addition to practicing law. On occasion, I research for a reporter/anchor at CBS2 in Los Angeles. As well, I've had plenty of cases in the news. I've dealt with a lot of different newsrooms in both capacities.

The point being - the news screws it up quite frequently. Further, the story is frequently written well before the reporter asks the first question. I've been on both sides - could do no wrong and could do no right. They write on the basis of what the consumer apparently demands. It's easy to beat up on the "bad guy."

Don't believe everything you hear about Jock Sturges and a relationship with a 14 year old until you get the facts from a reliable source. That's a heavy accusation and the reported "facts" are likely skewed toward making the situation look worse.

It's hard to put into words, but when you see the "news" inside-out it really changes your opinion of the information that passes for news. Many - if not most - general assignment reporters have zero background on their subject and are given no resources to obtain background. It's (1) get an angle, (2) get a clip, (3) get your B-roll, (4) package, (5) transmit.

It has become patently unreliable.

I'm looking for a primary source on the relationship issue. The best I could find is this L.A. Times article: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/news/mn-26778

The article reads as an indictment. This is the L.A. Times and you would think there might be some balance. There is none. It's pure pandering. Where's the development on the relationship? When did it commence? What made it intimate? At what stage? How long did it go on for?

Here's an L.A. Times reporter that has access to the two very candid individuals involved in the relationship and FAILS TO ASK THE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS!!!!!!

Instead of developing that part of the story, they call in - of course - the "First Amendment Experts." The purpose of this is "formula writing." (1) Setting up the indefensible behavior then (2) calling in the experts to show how the bad guys will get away with their indefensible behavior. This equals reader rage and "way to go L.A. Times" in reassuring us that this is a screwed up world and there is no sense in trying to understand things.

You want to really take this thread for a loop?

June 2000: I appeared on behalf of O.J. Simpson. This was an attempt to secure telephone records which seriously called into question the time frame of the murders.

January 2003: I defended John Quigley when he sat in an ancient oak tree in Santa Clarita for 73 days, trying to save it from the bulldozer.

2003 - 2006: Numerous local "press cases" - one a defense verdict where I was the good guy, another locker room assault where I was the bad guy.

February 2007: DNA in the Anna Nicole Smith case - Los Angeles litigation.

August 2007: Restraining order against self-proclaimed pedophile, Jack McClellan.

By now, I can predict on each and every occasion what will get written. It makes me sick. In the O.J. matter, there was a seriously viable argument. The press would not have any part of it. In Quigley, we could do no wrong. I could have showed up in a tu-tu and the press would have clapped. Anna Nicole - sick drivel of a rumor hunger press. Jack McClellan - could do no wrong - it was just pile on the bad guy.

Now, I picked up a Hells Angels case and, again, I'm the bad guy. (Whatever.)

I will tell you from experience, not only is the press NOT going to go to bat for a guy like Sturges, they won't even provide balanced reporting. This is because producers send their minions to the field with an agenda. If the minion wants to keep their job, they bring back the content the producer sent them out to get.

I was once doing an interview with a CNN crew. CNN sent out Beavis and Butthead to get some roll during the McClellan case. After Butthead figured out there was no tape in the camera, Beavis launched into the same exact question three times. I finally had to say, "Would you like me to formulate a question you could ask me so I can respond?"

She said, "Yeah, that would be great."

The L.A. Times article essentially accused Sturges of producing child erotica, if not child porn. This is patently false. But, they're okay with it. They know that no one is going to go to bat for the guy, and anyone who does will be discredited in short order.

I guess I can say I'm pretty upset. I'm not in favor of 14 year olds having relationships with people twice their age. However, what were the circumstances? Further, lats say it's a "worst case scenario - does that set the standard by which his work is to be measured?

If I want erotica, I can always go to my local supermarket, where my 14 year old can read about "orgasm faces" on the cover of Cosmo and I can get the latest dose of Brad and Jen.

What a sophisticated society we live in.

jd callow · Feb 22, 2009

Thanks Tony.

walter23 · Feb 22, 2009

Tim M said:
Once again... have any of you taken time to study pedophilia? Or are you just basing you opinions and conclusion on what you see on TV and here around the water cooler?

I am gonna jump out of this thread for a while... It is not worth the rise in my blood pressure.

I know a few things about pedophiles.

1. It's usually someone well known to the family of the victim, or within the family. Not the perverted stranger in the van with binoculars that we usually imagine.

2. One of the strongest predictors of pedophilic activity is having been a victim of one as a child.

3. Pedophiles are drawn to sexually connect with the perceived innocence of the child. These images exploring innocence and nudity in young girls certainly play into that. Of course the other factor is a power issue, as with most rape situations, and Jock Sturges' images aren't going to play with that. But in terms of the images being correlated with sexuality, you need only look at the amazon stats; people who buy Sturges also buy various types of porn *at the same time*. (Nothing wrong with porn per se here, I'm just pointing out the connection...)

Anton Lukoszevieze · Feb 22, 2009

Landscape photography anyone?

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Jock is a great guy. When I bought my 8x10 Master View camera on ebay he was one of the bidders in the auction. I contacted him via email to see if he was THE JOCK STURGES, he volunteered to help me learn my new camera (he owns 4). We ended up having several long conversations where he taught me the in and outs of the camera and we also discussed his work my work and photography in general. A really genuine guy who is open to sharing and teaching. It is a pleasure to have talked to the guy.

I even sent him my webpage and he spent the time to send me 2 very nice thoughtful emails on the good and the bad of the photographs. Here is what he wrote about my site, gerryyaum.com

http://gerryyaum.blogspot.com/2008/02/jock-sturges-review-of-gerryyaumcom.html

Ed Sukach · Feb 22, 2009

chriscrawfordphoto said:
...but I am not able intellectually or morally able to defend to the death any artist, no matter what.

I am. Depends. greatly, on the situation, and the artist.

"But the last time Sturges was investigated by the federal government, in 1990, police and federal agents stormed his San Francisco studio, where they claimed to find photographs of nude children (genitals vividly displayed, according to one newspaper account that quoted FBI agents) along with letters and photographs that suggested Sturges had engaged in a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl. Its a relationship Sturges doesnt deny."

These fit your standards for "truth as determined by reality testing?", or "proof"? "Police and federal agents CLAIMED to have found..."?

Whenever I read a sentence with awkward construction, e.g., "It's a relationship Sturges doesn't deny...", I become suspicious. A key word here is "suggests". A squad of shock troops, attacking. Their mission is to find "nasty stuff", and whatever happens, they will be preconditioned to do exactly that. One might discover a cute photograph of two adorable kittens in a basket of yarn, and as to different degrees of truth about their perception, say, "This SUGGESTS an albatross having forced sex with a whale." That declaration might be interesting - but of infinitesimal - strike that; nonexistant legal value.

As to "denial" ... How easy it would be to paint with a black brush:

During a trial for "Not Stopping at a Stop Sign" a reporter asks the question, "Are you going to deny a sexual relationship with a fourteen year old girl?", an accusation NOT included in the trial, nor with any relevance to sliding through a stop sign. The defendant, answers (as he has been instructed by his legal counsel, "Don't answer ANY questions, just refer them all to me..."), with the expression of a deer caught in headlights ... "Uh. See my lawyer".
A very short step for the reporter to write, "Well, he didn't DENY it."

Were formal charges ever brought to trial?

What proof did anyone have about anything here?

So, why isn't he in jail? Because in statutory rape cases the child has to be under the age of consent...

And you seem to be sure that this is applicable. A "suggestion" that, in fact ANYTHING did happen, and what seem to be, to me, some rather wild extrapolations.

Have you had experience writing for the tabloids?

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Tim M said:
There is a quote that I love;

"We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are."
- Anais Nin

I am going to borrow this for my blog, thats right on the mark...thanks Tim

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

JBrunner said:
The quote is deeper than that. Seeing "pedophilia" in a non sexual nude of a child is simply a reflection on the person who sees that. It doesn't mean that they are a pedophile, simply that is how they see. Seeing anything in a photograph is a reflection of ourselves. A photograph of my young son in the bathtub brings to me feelings and memories of happiness, because tub time with my son is fun and happy, If someone sees "pedophilia", it talks about them, not my son or me, and by my definition that makes them the pervert. American society is truly screwed up. For a lot of people here nudity is always sexual. It is a phenomena of repression. A naked man is "homo erotic", a naked woman is "objectified", a naked child is "pedophilia". They are on automatic. Many people here see evil in everything, and in doing so reveal the evil in themselves.

I did have a man leer at my breasts once. I found it confusing, rather than creepy .

Very well said J I could not do better, and funny with the last line also.

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I like mental gymnastics. I think it's healthy to explore the process and the person producing the work. It's also very interesting to hear other people's views on it. Sometimes the discussion around the work is more valuable than the work itself.

Agree Cheryl, I have found that often the discussions help all of us grow and understand on many different levels. When I was posting my ladyboy images and we had a long ethics debate, it got me thinking in many new directions, this debate is likely to do the same.

nemo999 · Feb 22, 2009

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I like mental gymnastics. I think it's healthy to explore the process and the person producing the work. It's also very interesting to hear other people's views on it. Sometimes the discussion around the work is more valuable than the work itself.

For me personally, the example I have seen of Sturges's images of nude teenage girls suggest the subjects are used to be naked (on naturist beaches), are unperturbed in general by people looking at them but have an expression on their faces which suggests they can't quite figure out Sturges's motivation. Neither can I - Sturges does not appear to be a pedophile, the images do not have the sexual charge which I would expect if they had been taken by a pedophile - I suspect Sturges himself doesn't really know why he takes these pictures, notwithstanding his public pronouncements. Ultimately, I find his work unshocking but also uninteresting and unengaging.

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

jmal said:
What a load of crap. He photographs people, which I am beginning to think are the only interesting subjects (yeah, send in the landscapers--I'm still bored by most of them), and he does a better job of it than most humans on the planet.

will take a photo of a real live person over a rock or tree any day of the week.

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Monophoto said:
I think there is an element of that involved here - as photographers, we are trying to communicate. We need to anticipate the reaction of viewers to our images, and use some judgment in deciding where to show what. Self-censorship is always better than third-party censorship.

I agree with most everything you said, this last part thou I have a bit of trouble with. Should artists not attempt to see and do things in new ways, to push people into new areas of thought, to raise the bar in understanding of what life is about. If you are self-censoring to much (I guess we all do that to a degree) then your sort of lowering yourself into the valley of seen that, done that, bored with that type of work.

I think the key is not to decide what the VIEWER WANTS but to decide what I want to say in my photographs and not cater to the viewer.

Anton Lukoszevieze · Feb 22, 2009

will take a photo of a real live person over a rock or tree any day of the week.
Congratulations, your life must be thrilling.

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Tim M said:
It is no wonder that this man is so hesitant to open up to people. I am honored that he was willing to talk and do this interview with me. I do not take it lightly or as a trivial experience that he spoke with me, a total novice and absolutely unknown personality.

I completely agree with you Tim. With me it was the same deal, he took about 3 hours out of his busy schedule to talk to me to teach me how to use his favorite camera and to give me advice on creating what I dream of creating. A genuine gentleman and wonderful person in my opinion.

brummelisa · Feb 22, 2009

I wonder what his models feels about this debate (not just the APUG-one, but in general)?

I once took an image of my daughter nude (showing belly and up) when she was around seven.
One could see her nipple, but I didn't even reflected on that and uploaded the image to photo.net

Man, were I blown away on how this (too me innocent) image could create such a debate there.

Thankfully, Ellen isn't ashamed of the image nor am I and I still stand behind the image.

And what I understand from reading lots of interviewes about Jock, he never uses a model-release, but simply phone his models every time he wants to use there photos. He actually says that it's not his, but the models photos. So, since the images are still viewable the models can't be ashamed of them.

/ Marcus

brummelisa · Feb 22, 2009

Actually I have seen several of Jock's photo-criticism (sp?) on photo.net a couple of years ago and they were really really long. So, I surely think that he is a man that loves photography and wants to share his knowledge.

/ Marcus

I completely agree with you Tim. With me it was the same deal, he took about 3 hours out of his busy schedule to talk to me to teach me how to use his favorite camera and to give me advice on creating what I dream of creating. A genuine gentleman and wonderful person in my opinion.

BobNewYork · Feb 22, 2009

It seems to me that what we know, (unless we accept innuendo as evidence and lack of denial as confession,) is very limited. We know that this was investigated by the authorities. We know that, once started, the authorities will do everything they can to get a conviction - particularly in a high profile case. We also know that there was no prosecution.

It comes down to the images in and of themselves. Who may or may not look at them is a non sequiter. If we start banning things just because someone might gain what we've decided is illicit pleasure from them we are on a dangerous and slippery slope. I have no doubt that some with pedophiliac, (is that a real word?!) tendencies will have bought the book. Does anyone really believe that by banning it these people would no longer be pedophiles? Does anyone believe that Sturges' work creates pedophiles?

For me, the authorities were on the case; they investigated and failed to bring charges. Are we now innocent until proven guilty as long as there's no innuendo that suggests that maybe there's some guilt somewhere? Possibly? Maybe? In the minds of some?

You like Sturges' work or you don't. End of story.

Jock Sturges

Arvee

Tim M

Anton Lukoszevieze

Arvee

brummelisa

chriscrawfordphoto

JBrunner

Moderator

BrianShaw

zinnanti

jd callow

Moderator

walter23

Anton Lukoszevieze

gerryyaum

Ed Sukach

gerryyaum

gerryyaum

gerryyaum

nemo999

gerryyaum

gerryyaum

Anton Lukoszevieze

gerryyaum

brummelisa

brummelisa

BobNewYork

Jock Sturges

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency