Jock Sturges

[Tim M]

This comment annoys me on so many levels. An older male photographer obsessively photographing and objectifying leggy nude models on the beach bothers me to a degree. Yes... he's doing it quite beautifully. Whatever, :rolleyes:

Have you ever had an older man take a good long leering look at your breasts?

Creeps me out... hmm, does that really make me a creep because sometimes his pictures remind me of those moments?

The funny thing about this statement is that Jock has been taking these photos for decades. He has not always been old, he was once a very attractive young man/photographer. Was it okay for him to photograph his leggy models then?

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

This comment annoys me on so many levels. An older male photographer obsessively photographing and objectifying leggy nude models on the beach bothers me to a degree. Yes... he's doing it quite beautifully. Whatever, :rolleyes:

Have you ever had an older man take a good long leering look at your breasts?

Creeps me out... hmm, does that really make me a creep because sometimes his pictures remind me of those moments?

I think the interesting word in this statement is the word "objectifying." That word connotes a disrespect of a subject, implies that he is using his subjects as nothing more than a thing to stare at. That's directly at odds with the working methods he describes, particularly the fact that the subjects are almost always long-time friends of his.

We DO have to keep in mind that these people are sitting for him willingly, and most over long periods of time. That's distinctly different than having your breasts leered at by a stranger. (I'm not sure what the "older man" idea has to do with anything; is it worse to be leered at by an older man than a younger one? Is it less uncomfortable to be leered at by a good-looking guy?)

I'm not saying it's wrong to think he's "creepy". I just want to explore the perspective behind it.

 

[SuzanneR]

The funny thing about this statement is that Jock has been taking these photos for decades. He has not always been old, he was once a Very attractive young man/photographer. Was it okay for him to photograph his leggy models then?

My bad.. his age isn't the issue for me... and his work isn't worth these mental gymnastics, either.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't find Sturges' work particularly appealing. Like Suzanne they don't spur questions and thought in my mind. That doesn't make him any lesser of a photographer, of course.

The connection made with pedophilia is very serious, and like Cheryl I think we have to be very wary of how we use the word. That word is more loaded than dynamite. Only Sturges himself can know what goes on in his mind when he makes his photographs, and only he can know his motivation and agenda. It's up to us to interpret the photographs as we see fit, and empathy becomes very very important. Try to step outside your own mind for a little while and see things from a different viewpoint. Same as we judge and questions certain subject matter - our judgements and questions are also subject to be critically analyzed, and say more about us as people than it says about the photographs.

The notion that these people are of friendships developed over a long period of time speaks volumes to me.

Thanks for posting the link, it was very interesting to read.

- Thomas

 

[Kerik]

Have you ever had an older man take a good long leering look at your breasts?

Um, well no, not that I noticed. What is your age cut off for it not creeping you out?

 

[SuzanneR]

I think the interesting word in this statement is the word "objectifying." That word connotes a disrespect of a subject, implies that he is using his subjects as nothing more than a thing to stare at. That's directly at odds with the working methods he describes, particularly the fact that the subjects are almost always long-time friends of his.

We DO have to keep in mind that these people are sitting for him willingly, and most over long periods of time. That's distinctly different than having your breasts leered at by a stranger. (I'm not sure what the "older man" idea has to do with anything; is it worse to be leered at by an older man than a younger one? Is it less uncomfortable to be leered at by a good-looking guy?)

I'm not saying it's wrong to think he's "creepy". I just want to explore the perspective behind it.

Again... my bad on the age thing. You are right... having a stranger stare at your chest is unnerving, no matter their age or looks. Especially when it's unwanted attention.

And, as I stated earlier, his work shows more respect for his models than a pornographer's does, certainly. But I'm not sure the emotional connection and respect he has forged comes through in the pictures. And, because it's simply beautiful... a precious object if you will...

Funnily enough, he mentions Weston in the piece, and I've never felt the same way about Weston's nudes or work in general. It seems to work on a gut level in a way that is intriguing to me... and keeps me coming back where Sturges lacks.

 

[Kerik]

I think the interesting word in this statement is the word "objectifying." That word connotes a disrespect of a subject, implies that he is using his subjects as nothing more than a thing to stare at. That's directly at odds with the working methods he describes, particularly the fact that the subjects are almost always long-time friends of his.

We DO have to keep in mind that these people are sitting for him willingly, and most over long periods of time. That's distinctly different than having your breasts leered at by a stranger. (I'm not sure what the "older man" idea has to do with anything; is it worse to be leered at by an older man than a younger one? Is it less uncomfortable to be leered at by a good-looking guy?)

I'm not saying it's wrong to think he's "creepy". I just want to explore the perspective behind it.

Exactly. And remember that his models live and breath in a much different culture than most of us. He has photographed generations of some of the families. Obviously, they are comfortable and quite enjoy the work. Does that make them creepy, too? That they would let their children be photographed this way? One of the things I took away from talking to his models was how humorous they found the negative reactions to Jock's work and our culture's fear and paranoia of the naked body. We are so backwards in so many ways.

I'm curious how people respond to Sally Mann's or Mona Kuhn's work? Would the response to Jock's work be different if he was a woman?

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Kerik, you brought up the point I was going to make. Many people who see Sturges as a child pornographer see nothing wrong with Sally Mann's work. Is that because she's female? or because she's photographing her own children? or because she photographed both boys and girls? It's odd to me.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Suzanne, it's funny how subjective art is. I've always found Weston's nudes a bit cold and technical. (Heresy, I know.) I don't connect with them at all, not in any way. But many (not all) of Jock Sturges' images speak to me.

(As always, I remain curious about the definition of a "pornographer.")

 

[jamusu]

I'm sorry, Jamusu, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this line of thought. To impose our own views of morality onto a person from a vastly different culture and background is irrational at best. You must keep in mind, among other things, the fact that the children and adolescents Jock Sturges has photographed are from naturalist families; the photographs are of these people (all ages) living everyday life according to their own values. To document those lives, with the full ongoing permission of all his subjects, is simply honest. He states emphatically that he has never instructed his subjects to undress, or really to do much of anything.

In most parts of the world outside the US, children run naked on beaches, happy in their most natural state; I would no more pass judgment on the work of a photographer like Jock Sturges than I would on those children's parents. I have some "natural state" images of my kids and nephews; have I done something morally wrong?

In these times, we must all be VERY careful about the word "pedophile." It's got such ugly connotations, and unless you are certain of what you're talking about, it's best not to throw it around lightly.

- CJ

__________________________________________________________________

Cheryl.

I did not call Sturges a pedophile, but strongly feel that his images of children can be used by those who are pedophiles for sick and unnatural reasons.

I was new to photography when I first joined APUG. You were one of the first individuals I contacted for guidance because of the positive message that your work conveys. And I must say what I have learned from you has helped me tremendously!

Your body of work, including the naturalist images show warmth and loving moments between siblings/children. At no time have I ever felt as though you did something wrong by taking those images. I hope you do not believe I felt as such.

Also, Suzanne Revy's images give me the same feeling as your work. I guess it has something to do with maternal instinct? In fact, I nearly started a post about the pair of you entitled:"Do Women Photographers Make Better Child Portrait Photographers Than Men"? Needless to say, I never got around to it.

Sturge's images, on the other hand do not convey the same message to me. They show under aged children in what can be viewed as sexually provocative poses at times. At no time have any of your photos captured such a moment.

Also, I read where he had an affair with one of his models named Jennifer Montgomery when she was 14 and he was 28. Although I do not know how accurate it is, here is a link:http://www.worlddreambank.org/J/JENIMONT.HTM She later made a movie about it entitled' "Art for Teachers of Children".

As always, I thank you for all the help you have given me in the past. I respect you and the body of work you have created with no reservations. It was not my intent to offend you with my response. Hopefully I did not. If so, I apologize.

Jamusu.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I haven't taken a really good long look at Jock's work to comment on it with credibility, but in reference to Weston's work, it feels to me very much a product of its era - his nudes are Modernist studies of the form in the same way his peppers and his other still lives are. Ruth Bernhard's nudes, although shot during a similar time period, don't have that same Modernist feel that her still lives do. Weston's are clinical, yet very personal - I think there's a definite eroticism to them, but it's not a comfortable one because it is SO personal. It's like we're looking through Weston's eyes and sharing his particular synaptical discharges instead of having our own experience. While that's true of ANY photograph to a degree, I think Weston takes it to an extreme. Sally Mann is more subtle with it because she pulls you in to the scene, and I don't think her photos carry an erotic connection because for her there isn't one. What I can remember of Jock's work does strike me as being somewhere in-between. I think technique has some influence on this in addition to style, but I'm not sure exactly how to articulate that idea.

 

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne, it's funny how subjective art is. I've always found Weston's nudes a bit cold and technical. (Heresy, I know.) I don't connect with them at all, not in any way. But many (not all) of Jock Sturges' images speak to me.

(As always, I remain curious about the definition of a "pornographer.")

On that last point, me too; perhaps it gets back to the unwanted looks.

Oddly enough, I can understand finding Weston's nudes cold and techinical, but I think there's a greater breadth to his work as an artist that again is lacking for me in Sturges' work. But indeed... more precious objects... a Weston print is something to behold.

As ever, YMMV.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Jamusu,

The simple fact is that ANY image of a child, whether dressed, undressed, or wearing a snowsuit, can and will be seen as sexual to a pedophile.

And there are people with sexual fetishes for everything under the sun. Feet, fingers, sweatpants, ropes, belts, shoes, hats, puppies, food. You'd be shocked. Cute little puppy pictures are some people's porn. No lie.

No matter how much we would like to, we cannot crawl into the head of another photographer and know how he/she thinks. Nor should we believe completely unfounded claims we read on the internet.

While you may not have directly called Sturges a pedophile, you got as close as possible. You must understand that the mere mention of that word in connection with a photographer is potentially damaging.

The purpose of art is rarely to make the viewer feel comfortable. Many people are uncomfortable with MY work, yet I can assure you that my work and relationships with the children I've photographed has never and will never be inappropriate.

I think there is an enormous double standard when it comes to male and female photographers and nudes. Jock Sturges' work is morally wrong, while Sally Mann's extolls the virtues of childhood. You'd never see Ruth Bernhard's work as pornographic, but a male photographer doing the same work often is a pervert. It's so strange.

 

[SuzanneR]

Exactly. And remember that his models live and breath in a much different culture than most of us. He has photographed generations of some of the families. Obviously, they are comfortable and quite enjoy the work. Does that make them creepy, too? That they would let their children be photographed this way? One of the things I took away from talking to his models was how humorous they found the negative reactions to Jock's work and our culture's fear and paranoia of the naked body. We are so backwards in so many ways.

I'm curious how people respond to Sally Mann's or Mona Kuhn's work? Would the response to Jock's work be different if he was a woman?

Well, I have some issues with the idea that he or his models are merely amused at negative reactions. Perhaps, they are a little judgmental, too, and not open to others views.

As to the last question, I find Sally Mann's work very interesting and her emotional connection to her children in the pictures is unmistakable. Some of her pictures, though, I find a little weak, and when she really starts "pushing the Sturges-Mann School of Nude Children" envelope, in for example "Hay Hook" , the pictures get less interesting to me.

I've got to hand it to her... Candy Cigarette is about as good as it gets.

And Mona Kuhn? I find her work quite dull.

 

[ilya1963]

"I think there is an enormous double standard when it comes to male and female photographers and nudes"- Cheryl Jacobs
__________________
Not just female and male thing , you and Suzanne both are female photographers and interpreting Weston's nudes so different , interesting...


Back in Weston's time was he ever called those names you mention here ?


The fact that most of Sturges models/friends look straight in to the camera/viewer is what gives his work honesty,it asks the viewer a direct question - Can you handle this ? Some people get weird out by this directness , the comfort zone of the models/friends with themselves and the artist is unparalleled and very admirable , by saying so I am saying that Weston's nudes are mostly of his lovers , where Sturges has separated the man and the artist , the paradox to me is that Weston's nudes do tend to be more cold and Sturges work seem to radiate warmth and soft glow of life in the landscape , their beauty no more no less beautiful then a beautiful landscape , Weston's nudes of Charis at white sands were "found" by him not posed...
Even though Sturges says he just observes and freezes the model when he sees it fit , the models seem to always look straight in . so he must tell them at a given moment to look in , there was a nude of a black woman Weston photographed on the beach , she was looking straight on , I think it's the only one , but some of his clothed Charis photographs are more naked then when she is nude...
ILYA

 

[jamusu]

Cheryl.

Sally Mann's work gives me the same feeling as Sturges', but that is a whole other topic in itself. It is hard for me to deem a nude photograph of a child/children in provocative situations as art.

Neither of their work in my extolls the virtues of childhood in my opinion. She in the beginning faced lots of scrutiny just as he has and is. Rightfully so? I do not have the answer to this question.


Jamusu.

 

[Jeremy]

Well, I have some issues with the idea that he or his models are merely amused at negative reactions. Perhaps, they are a little judgmental, too, and not open to others views.

I'm trying to follow the line of thought here, because it's confusing to me.

Kerik: The models find humor in the negative reactions to photographs of themselves from people who don't understand their culture (and could be considered closed-minded).

Suzanne: The models are being closed-minded because they find amusement in how a culture not-their own doesn't understand their culture. They should be less judgmental in regards to how they view an ignorant culture (not used in a pejorative manner, just that they don't understand the culture) who does not give them the same benefit and instead wants them to be censored and/or imprisoned.

These are my words trying to understand this argument and not those of the original posters.

***I did want to add that Kerik never said they are "merely amused", i.e. "only amused", in his post Suzanne responded to.

 

[SuzanneR]

I'm trying to follow the line of thought here, because it's confusing to me.

Kerik: The models find humor in the negative reactions to photographs of themselves from people who don't understand their culture (and could be considered closed-minded).

Suzanne: The models are being closed-minded because they find amusement in how a culture not-their own doesn't understand their culture. They should be less judgmental in regards to how they view an ignorant culture (not used in a pejorative manner, just that they don't understand the culture) who does not give them the same benefit and instead wants them to be censored and/or imprisoned.

These are my words trying to understand this argument and not those of the original posters.

***I did want to add that Kerik never said they are "merely amused", i.e. "only amused", in his post Suzanne responded to.

I think you've vastly overstated my point. I don't equate a negative response to the work with wanting to imprison him or his models.

At the same time, they may well be ignorant of the cultural baggage anyone might bring to the work... seems presumptuous to me to find amusement in people who are different.

Round of beer, everyone???

 

[JBrunner]

I quit beer. Too weak

I think calling it cultural is a point to be taken too far. The most extreme of the negative reactions aren't cultural at all. While the models finding it amusing may a reaction from a permissive and enlightened culture, calls of pedophilia accusations are hardly that. More like a lack of culture. There are some persons who don't like nudes, and that is fine, but that doesn't make them dirty, and that's what we are dancing around- are they dirty?

Only if you want them to be. It's on you.

 

[Jeremy]

I think you've vastly overstated my point. I don't equate a negative response to the work with wanting to imprison him or his models.

At the same time, they may well be ignorant of the cultural baggage anyone might bring to the work... seems presumptuous to me to find amusement in people who are different.

Round of beer, everyone???

Oh, Suzanne, I know I'm taking it to an extreme, but I just wanted to follow the logic of the statements. I don't think negative = imprison, either, but with this specific case it did happen as Joe Semien was imprisoned. Sturges was never imprisoned, but he had the money to hire a lawyer.

Source: Dead Link Removed (which is a great repository for information on censorship).

 

[Jeremy]

I've heard the correlation from people before about photographs of nude children being automatically pedophilic in nature stacked against the right to bear arms.

You can own a gun, but unless you kill someone with it you are breaking no law. Whereas with pictures of nude children you are breaking the law just by owning the image regardless of your action.

 

[Kerik]

I'd prefer Lagavullin, but a good beer will do in a pinch.

I think they found it amusing in the same way I would find it amusing if someone was offended or questioned my motives after looking at my landscapes. They weren't being judgmental, to them, it's just life. And to put a fine point on it, the models found it amusing, not Jock.

Now, if someone thinks I'm a little creepy after looking at my skulls, clowns and dollheads, I'm still amused, but I get it.

 

[JBrunner]

I've heard the correlation from people before about photographs of nude children being automatically pedophilic in nature stacked against the right to bear arms.

You can own a gun, but unless you kill someone with it you are breaking no law. Whereas with pictures of nude children you are breaking the law just by owning the image regardless of your action.

Yes, but in the case of actual pedophiles, and the kind of things they collect, children were harmed in the production of the material. There is a gulf of difference, just as there is a gulf of difference in Sturges work and the work of pornographers.

Owning pictures of nude children isn't illegal, unless the are overtly sexual, or feature sex acts. Sadly, in the US nude is confused with sex.

 

[Jeremy]

Yes, but in the case of actual pedophiles, and the kind of things they collect, children were harmed in the production of the material. There is a gulf of difference, just as there is a gulf of difference in Sturges work and the work of pornographers.

I would disagree with the first sentence here because, as Cheryl said, a pedophile may find a picture of a child fully clothed in a Sears catalog (do they still print those?) to be highly erotic. I fully agree with the statement that there is a gulf there and also add the distinction of intent.

Owning pictures of nude children isn't illegal, unless the are overtly sexual, or feature sex acts. Sadly, in the US nude is confused with sex.

I would say that depends on who is looking through the photos. For example, see this website: Dead Link Removed for Marian Rubin's book Naked Truths. In the book she discusses how she was arrested for taking pictures of naked children dancing on a bed.