Jock Sturges

[zinnanti]

A few years ago I made a graphic that might be of interest to this discussion. I took Jock's book Last Day of Summer and, using Amazon data, drew a interconnected network of other purchases made by people who bought the book, and then further links from those items.

I've moved it to my new site so the link back doesn't work--but everything else does.

http://www.makingphotographs.com/files/lolitasummer/

--Darin

All of the arrows POINT TO THE BOOK "Last Days of Summer" except for one, which points to Sally Mann's book. A reciprocal arrow point to David Hamilton's "Age of Innocence." Most of the arrows point to either Sally Mann's work or Jock Sturges's other works.

Given those facts, what's the point of this graph? Are we to be surprised that someone who looks at Jock Sturges's work also looks at Sally Mann's work?

Please clarify.

 

[darinb]

>>Please clarify.<<

Many of the arrows point both ways--double-sided. Start with Last Day and go from there.

--Darin

 

[zinnanti]

Hey there,

BobNewYork, (>>It's like saying that because I'm a fund manager, (which I'm not) I rip people off like Bernie Madoff; or because I enjoy a beer or two, (which I do) I'm a drunk driver.<<). I don't think that is analogous. There is no direct link between you and Madoff. Nor between drunk divers and you. Consider a better analogy: You make a drug that you sell (legally!) to help people interested in art smile. The drug sells well. You don't know why people are buying it but you do notice that your customers are very interested in buying other, unsavory sorts of drugs and don't seem to buy much in the way of art.

How should we think about you and your drug sales given this information?

* * *

--Darin

Someone around here is wearing patent leather shoes and has to report back to the S.A.C. Okay Sp.Agt. Darin. You got us. You get your "stat" for the filing recommendation. Our attorneys will take it from here.

Thank goodness for the "Department of Non-Controversial, Socially Acceptable, Conformist and Happy Photography."

Not to "flame" this thread, but it's highly unfortunate people need to take the debate in this direction. Your posts clearly indicate that you have an unyielding agenda.

 

[JBrunner]

Someone around here is wearing patent leather shoes and has to report back to the S.A.C. Okay Sp.Agt. Darin. You got us. You get your "stat" for the filing recommendation. Our attorneys will take it from here.

Thank goodness for the "Department of Non-Controversial, Socially Acceptable, Conformist and Happy Photography."

Not to "flame" this thread, but it's highly unfortunate people need to take the debate in this direction. Your posts clearly indicate that you have an unyielding agenda.

I have been watching this go on, and have sat by a bit to see where it goes. It's pretty obvious that a certain segment absolutely trades on fear and sensationalism, and "sees" exactly what they wish to see.

It seems to me a curious bent to label and cause guilt by association. It must be so much easier to simply categorize and pigeonhole that which may make one uncomfortable, or gives cause for thought, rather than to address a personal response to art in an objective and constructive way. What I see are a few people who are on "automatic".

 

[Pete H]

Hey there,


Pete H (>>I'm not even sure that an interpretation of the diagram would be profound. Think of the "small world" phenomenon: it is thought that you can be connected to any other person in the world through a chain of at most six acquaintances. If something like that applies to books, that diagram is almost completely meaningless.<< But that assumes that the links are randomly chosen from the list of all possible links or that they were chosen to intentionally reflect poorly upon Jock's work. What if, instead, the links not randomly chosen but were simply the top five links in each case, ranked by popularity? In that case all links are not equal. To compare it to your "small world" example, that would be like trying to link from you to me in six moves but only by using our top five friends--not drawing from the much larger list of acquaintances. Much more difficult to limit it to your top five friends (but also much more revealing of the social circles you move in).

--Darin

You are only plotting a few of the "also bought" books. This appears to be selective. For example, I have just followed the Amazon.com "also bought" links
Life Time, Jock Sturges ->
Annie Liebowitz at Work, Annie Liebowitz ->
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Niall Ferguson ->
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes ->
The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx ->
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

Photography to political extremism of 2 flavours in 4 or 5 steps. These book readers must be guilty of something. :rolleyes:
This could be made into a competition: I will give you 2 titles both found on amazon, and you have to find the shortest path between them using the "also bought" links.

 

[darinb]

zinnanti: >>Your posts clearly indicate that you have an unyielding agenda. <<

JBrunner>>...a certain segment absolutely trades on fear and sensationalism...a curious bent to label and cause guilt by association. It must be so much easier to simply categorize and pigeonhole...What I see are a few people who are on "automatic".<<

Why the personal hostility? I simply shared a graphic I had made on the topic of this thread, data that I thought would contribute to the conversation on ethical issues related to Jock's work. I take it you both don't like the data but I'm not sure how to respond otherwise.

Pete H >>You are only plotting a few of the "also bought" books. This appears to be selective.<<

As I said in my original post, I made the graphic a few years ago. It was accurate then--I plotted all five of the links that Amazon.com offered (they offer more now). No selection at all. I included everything.

I like your list of books that link from the Sturges book--either you are joking (which is very funny) or Amazon is doing something tricky with the "also bought" links nowadays--customizing them in some way to each viewer? When I checked that title just now I got a list of titles not too dissimilar from what I plotted a few years ago in the graphic. Here's the link. (None of your books are on the list that I get.)

http://www.amazon.com/Jock-Sturges-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236505009&sr=8-1

--Darin (bleary-eyed from scanning negs all friggin' day)

 

[darinb]

>>For example, I have just followed the Amazon.com "also bought" links
Life Time, Jock Sturges ->
Annie Liebowitz at Work, Annie Liebowitz -><<

Oh, wait, I see what you did now--selective indeed! I didn't see Annie's book hiding there among all the soft porn titles.

But, like I said, when I made the graphic a few years ago the list was only five items long and I used all of them.

--Darin

 

[Pete H]

>>For example, I have just followed the Amazon.com "also bought" links
Life Time, Jock Sturges ->
Annie Liebowitz at Work, Annie Liebowitz -><<

Oh, wait, I see what you did now--selective indeed! I didn't see Annie's book hiding there among all the soft porn titles.

But, like I said, when I made the graphic a few years ago the list was only five items long and I used all of them.

--Darin

Yes, I was being deliberately selective, just to make the point. Actually I set out beforehand to connect Jock Sturges to Karl Marx, and as you see I succeeded very easily. You could probably choose Einstein's theory of relativity and get there just as easily.

When you plotted your diagram, perhaps it was Amazon that was being selective. I suspect that if you were to tabulate sales of all books, the soft porn sales would be very high in the rankings anyway. So it shouldn't be a surprise if they fall into the "most popular" category. If somebody in amazon who defined the book categories also suffered from this puritannical "nudity = sex" attitude, it wouldn't be surprising that the soft porn shows up connected to Jock Sturges in the listings. It only reflects the attitude of one person, not the general public.

 

[dwdmguy]

Wow, I finally visited this thread.
I pride myself on not judging people. But I am, on the other hand a victim of a sick person during my very young years that included photographs so I have to be careful and really think about this one and not let my mind make a uninformed judgement. This is a tough one for me but I'll try.
I'll look forward going thru this thread (as much as I don't want too) and finding more infomation and resources as I can before making such a judgement on someone.

As a victim AND a protector of a young boy I'll try but no promises.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Tom

 

[BobNewYork]

Wow, I finally visited this thread.
I pride myself on not judging people. But I am, on the other hand a victim of a sick person during my very young years that included photographs so I have to be careful and really think about this one and not let my mind make a uninformed judgement. This is a tough one for me but I'll try.
I'll look forward going thru this thread (as much as I don't want too) and finding more infomation and resources as I can before making such a judgement on someone.

As a victim AND a protector of a young boy I'll try but no promises.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Tom

I would suggest that you, Tom, are uniquely qualified to comment here. My own opinions are realistically theoretical. Yours will have a true basis in experience. Thank you.

Bob H

 

[zinnanti]

Why the personal hostility?

That's easy to answer.

It's because the discussion is moving away from constructive debate and toward libel. It is moving toward libel because, without any first-hand knowledge, you aver that Sturges is producing images of young girls that appeal to the prurient interest by going beyond the "four corners" of the work.

The work within its "four corners" - or on its face - does not present a work of an underage person that appeals to prurient interest. If it did, the grand jury in the initial case against Sturges would have certainly returned an indictment.

How many people who buy books about guns also look at the "Turner Diaries" or the "Anarchist Cookbook"? Maybe we should outlaw books about guns.

Statistical character assassination is nothing new. We've done it to the Native American, the Germans did it to the Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, mentally retarded; we do it to the Arabs. You can do it to anyone you don't like.

I have had first-hand contact with Sturges, as well as a lot of experience in the legal field. It's the authorities - not him - that you should be worried about.

 

[JBrunner]

Why the personal hostility? I simply shared a graphic I had made on the topic of this thread, data that I thought would contribute to the conversation on ethical issues related to Jock's work. I take it you both don't like the data but I'm not sure how to respond otherwise.

It isn't personal hostility. What you are presenting isn't "data". Your "research" is set to a predetermined outcome by someone, perhaps you, perhaps someone else, but is presented as if it had significance. It doesn't, because it is flawed as creationism or any other "science" that sees only what it need see.

There is an incredible concern displayed here that has nothing to do with discussing Sturges work, except in the frame of the most prurient possible interpretation.

 

[MattKing]

Six Degrees of Separation?

You are only plotting a few of the "also bought" books. This appears to be selective. For example, I have just followed the Amazon.com "also bought" links
Life Time, Jock Sturges ->
Annie Liebowitz at Work, Annie Liebowitz ->
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Niall Ferguson ->
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes ->
The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx ->
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

Photography to political extremism of 2 flavours in 4 or 5 steps. These book readers must be guilty of something. :rolleyes:
This could be made into a competition: I will give you 2 titles both found on amazon, and you have to find the shortest path between them using the "also bought" links.

Where in this list is the reference to Kevin Bacon?

Matt

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

I like the photos of Sturges that I have seen, aesthetically they are not my quite my cup of tea, but I don't like the inference of the chart from Amazon though. After all it is only some kind of search engine. I did notice that Stephen Shore was on the periphery of it, I like his work a lot, doesn't have many people in it, am I boring?
Harry Callahan and Wynn Bullock had nude children and adults in their fotos, nothing wrong with that.....

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I would suggest that you, Tom, are uniquely qualified to comment here. My own opinions are realistically theoretical. Yours will have a true basis in experience. Thank you.

Bob H

Bob, Tom is one of MANY who are qualified in that aspect, including me. You need to keep in mind that if the statistics bear out here on APUG, there are already people who have posted in this thread who have similar backgrounds. Most people simply aren't so open about it.

You've already heard my thoughts on Sturges' work, so I won't restate them.

-- CJ

 

[BobNewYork]

Bob, Tom is one of MANY who are qualified in that aspect, including me. You need to keep in mind that if the statistics bear out here on APUG, there are already people who have posted in this thread who have similar backgrounds. Most people simply aren't so open about it.

You've already heard my thoughts on Sturges' work, so I won't restate them.

-- CJ

You're absolutely right Cheryl. Perhaps "uniquely" was the wrong adjective. What I really meant to say is that I am fortunate enough to be approaching this whole subject from a theoretical perspective only and not one based in personal experience. The opinions of Tom, and those with similar experiences should rightly have far more weight than mine.

Bob H

 

[Pete H]

"As a young photographer, I was always studying the work of the other photographers whom I admired in an attempt to understand how it was done. I thought then that it was most important to understand how pictures were made technically. But it pretty quickly became apparent to me that the technical engine was far less important than the photographer’s larger motivations in making the work in the first place. It was the “why” it was done that mattered, not the “how”. The how had to be there – the craft understood and perfected – but the big story in pictures had to do with what their makers knew about what they had before their cameras. That’s where their work became fascinating. Their pictures were showing me what they knew that I didn’t." (from the interview)

I think that last sentence is a key element in a good picture: it shows you something you didn't know before. It makes you think, learn something. Actually I would take it further, and say that the most interesting pictures are where the photographer leaves the viewer with questions which are not answered in the photo. "Their pictures were showing me what they knew that I still don't."

 

[Ade-oh]

One of the interesting things about this thread for me is that it is totally focused on Sturges's photographs of girls and young women. I'm an unashamed admirer of his work, but I would like to point out that he does also take photographs of boys, men, older women and, indeed, people wearing clothes, all of which are of equal artistic quality and also, for me, suggest that he is photographing in the context of the naturist lifestyle rather than simply producing titillating pictures of young women.

I've visited - with my family - several of the naturist resorts in south western France where Sturges photographs and I have to say that they are pleasant, relaxing places where nudity is pretty much universal and thus not really an issue.

 

[darinb]

When you plotted your diagram, perhaps it was Amazon that was being selective. I suspect that if you were to tabulate sales of all books, the soft porn sales would be very high in the rankings anyway.

Actually, it doesn't appear to be the case. Amazon does include a "sales ranking" number so we can get an idea about whether we are looking at popular titles or not. It doesn't appear that way--I skimmed through the listing for Last Day of Summer and it seemed to be a mix of titles that are more popular and less popular. In fact, aside from Annie's book most seemed to by slow sellers. (By the way Sally Mann's book What Remains is there--out in the desert with a ranking of less that 300,000.)

If somebody in amazon who defined the book categories also suffered from this puritannical "nudity = sex" attitude, it wouldn't be surprising that the soft porn shows up connected to Jock Sturges in the listings. It only reflects the attitude of one person, not the general public.

Maybe, but again I think the evidence is against you. The linked titles aren't just about nudity or sex (the kinds of categories you'd expect Amazon to have if this was the case) but are instead heavily populated with titles having to do with very young women and girls. I can't imagine Amazon having that sort of category in their linking criteria.

We might get to the point here where we have to conclude that many people who buy Jock's book aren't APUG members.

--Darin

 

[darinb]

It's because the discussion is moving away from constructive debate and toward libel. It is moving toward libel because, without any first-hand knowledge, you aver that Sturges is producing images of young girls that appeal to the prurient interest by going beyond the "four corners" of the work.

zinnanti, aren't you an attorney? I'm not sure if you are trying to frighten me but I'm not worried. You know and I know there's nothing libelous in this thread and certainly nothing libelous in my graphic or presentation of it.

I'm sorry the data doesn't agree with your point of view.

--Darin

 

[BrianShaw]

but I would like to point out that he does also take photographs of boys, men, older women and, indeed, people wearing clothes

Shhhh... just mentioning these things might introduce his work to a whole 'nother bunch of "perverts".

 

[dwdmguy]

Disclaimer: I am a victim of Sexual Child abuse. Perhaps the worst kind. Daily Rape by an uncle, a trusted member of the family that led me believe I was loved, that he cared for me and a host of other very sick tendencies that pedophiles do all to well. This also included him taking pictures of me.

This will be a short investment for me. I would only ask that since I will not judge your opinion of this subject you do not judge mine. Now, since I am making an investment I simply ask you, if you choose to write a post on this thread, to do the same, make an investment. The investment will be simple, after reading my opinion of this matter simply answer the question at the end to the best of your ability. Fair? If you cannot answer the question, no matter the answer, I will hold no respect for your opinion nor your position. And frankly, I feel you have no business posting in this Thread.
Thank you.

I happen to think I have a very healthy view regarding both art and sex. I am in the camp for equal rights for gay marriage, benefits and every right that I enjoy in this country and in this world. I also believe strongly, that the government has no business in our bedrooms and wish they would spend more time in the board-rooms then concerning themselves with what I’m doing in my own home.

I’m a straight man, 48 years old and a single father. I’ve have had many healthy relationships with both straight and bisexual women on a “partner” level as well as healthy friendships with both gay men and women. Please note that the key word here is “Healthy”

I trusted my uncle. I placed my trust, of course not knowing I was doing so at the age of 6 years old, (until 10) into him because that’s what children do. A child mind is not yet matured yet and will not be for many years. This, I feel, is why the role of parent, guardian, care giver and even the community is such an important one.

I have had the great pleasure of raising my brother, 10 years my junior, during his growing up from age 13 to 22 whereas he lived with me and then both my ex-wife (Jared’s Mom and a great lady) and I. I have raised my son now for 12 years, mostly on my own.

When I see a child, I see a wonderful being that I cannot put into words. I’ve tried during this writing but all I was coming up with was corny phases that were not true to how I feel or what I feel. It cannot be put into words, I see innocence for sure and I see trust when looking back but most of all I have an overwhelming sense responsibility. No doubt due to my uncle. But also largely because I am a decent human being.

What I DO NOT see is art. I do NOT see nor do I think, my gosh, that is a beautiful form, look at the way the light hits her/him. I do not think that way at all and frankly I cannot understand why any adult would.

Ladies and Gents, Children do not have a developed mind, they cannot make informed decisions like we adults can (ok, most of us) they unwittingly trust us to do that for them. Our humanity, community and society trusts us to do that for them. I trust you to look out for my child when he is out of my sight at any time. I give you that trust. Please realize how delicate and precious this is. I trust my community because my son’s mind is not completely developed and while I am, every single day trying to firm up a good base for him to arm himself with the tools that will help him made good decisions in his life, now and as an adult, that little mind is not yet developed and I trust you to help me when I am out of eyeshot or earshot.

I enjoy looking at naked women. Yup, I really, really dig it. I like looking at them in person, on a adult beach (NJ’s clothing optional beach) and in a movie but ADULT women. Adult women (or men if it pleases you) that can have matured minds and can make responsible decisions. I do get a little creeped out if the model is young, my personal preference is older. NOT for sex, I can enjoy looking at the adult opposite sex for the art of the body, for the lighting on curves and/or hair, I completely understand the difference between art and sex.

We are entrusted with these little wonderful little beings. I do not see how any parent can allow anyone to take pictures of a nude child, their child or knowledge of any other child.

I told you I would give you a little investment here. Would you please do the same? If not, and you can’t answer, I’m sorry, you have no right positing on this topic. If you can answer, no matter what the answer is, I may not agree with it but I will respect it.

Question:

Would you allow, if approached, Jock Sturges to photograph your child Nude? Photograph and then publish it in a art book or the web?

In closing, I would invite Mr. Sturges to a Adult, intelligent conversation and debate with me in any public forum. And yes, it would be recorded, I mean why not, if he can record our children in the name of art, I could record the debate of same if it is solely for the purpose of helping us understand art.

 

[BrianShaw]

Fair? If you cannot answer the question, no matter the answer, I will hold no respect for your opinion nor your position. And frankly, I feel you have no business posting in this Thread.
Thank you.

Umm, I'm sorry for the pain in your life. That wasn't fair. But who put you in the postion to broker this sort of deal. My initial reaction, BTW, was "get bent", but to be polite let me just say "who cares".

But in the spirit of fair play... yes, I would. Why not?

 

[dwdmguy]

Brian, I don't think I am brokering any kind of "Deal" but simply asking the reader a question. That seems fair if they are able to form an opnion on someone else's child why would they not be able to answer this regarding their own child? Each one of these models is someone's child!

Please remember, I placed a disclaimer from the start, as my personal history may influnce this view of mine. Now, I didn't write anything mean like "get bent" or anything childish did I? When did you take a picture of your child nude and where was it published?

Oh, big congrats on your 1,200 post, glad it was on this. Enjoy this day.
T

 

[BrianShaw]

Thank you for noticing the post count. I had not noticed since it means little to me. Congratulations on your 72nd post!

The "deal" which I refered to your statement quoted in my post, not the question itself. The question is both valid and an interesting conversation starter (or ender)

To answer your additional question: I have never published a nude photo of my children.

But that wasn't the question you asked. You asked "Would you allow, if approached, Jock Sturges to photograph your child Nude? Photograph and then publish it in a art book or the web?"

If Jock Sturges approached me I would have no problem with my children being photographed and published... if my children were comfortable with the notion. If anyone else asked, I might have to think real hard before answering... or I might immediately resort to my allegedly childish response of "get bent".

I am having a very good day, as I hope you are too!