Jock Sturges

[Arvee]

Brian Shaw wrote:

"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 understand your perspective to this point but let's look at the bigger picture: Would you have no problem with some sick dude 'fantasizing' over nude pictures of your children?

I, as a responsible parent, would be extremely 'bent' over that possibility.

My personal opinion is I still feel that that segment of 'photography' is mercenary and exploitive, pure and simple. Those motivational aspects of the business far outweigh the 'artistic' content, in my opinion.

-F.

 

[BrianShaw]

Fred, this isn't about me or my beliefs; I was simply trying to respect Tom by answering his question.

I respect your opinion about how you protect your children but I, too, am a responsible parent... please don't challenge that unless you know more about me than you've read in this thread. I know as much about the "bigger picture" as I imagine you know. I don't look upon the work of Sturges quite in the same way as I look upon the works published in porno magazines.

Regarding sick dudes fantasizing (and more)... I believe that is why Sears and other catalogue companies stopped using photographic illustrations of children's underwear about a decade ago. Those photographs were neither nude or sexy... but apparently someone thought so. The line art that replaced the photographs were probably enough for a "sick dude" to get off on too.

There are plenty of "sick dudes" out in open society and many of then (I hear) get off on some pretty mundane stuff, like shoes.

 

[dr5chrome]

Stop and think

..while Stuges work is top notch, it is not the work that should be published in the Us market..

We will never quite Know what goes through ones head when they pick a subject to photograph. All of us here, or at least most, are photographers. Photographers are obsessed when they pick a project to peruse. One has to wonder why Sturges is obsessed with children. This is why he is in trouble.

It is a stupid notation to claim this obsession as an art. While this Obsession may be completely innocent and he just may want to photograph this part of life, this needs to be expressed so there is no room for doubt in anyones mind that this is his only intention.

In Europe this type of work is not such a shock. Only in the Us do we take this kind of offense.

I think there is nothing wrong with the human form, child or adult, in good taste. With Sturges it was the "volume" that set off the alarm bells.

dw

 

[BrianShaw]

... and we'll never really know for sure what goes through other folks heads as they look at a photograph.

 

[Arvee]

dw:

"I think there is nothing wrong with the human form, child or adult, in good taste. With Sturges it was the "volume" that set off the alarm bells."

I think it is pretty obvious what is the driving motivation. If, for example, Sturges were to suddenly get a conscience and switch to Architectural Interiors for a livlihood, cash flow would undoubtedly be in the commode. It's 'all about the money' and turn a blind eye to what may be happening downstream at the 'user level.'

I have to thank Tom for opening up and sharing his ordeal. I have a sister who, as a young child, was abused by an uncle and it caused the family, not to mention my sister, a huge amount of emotional pain. Unfortunately, it was 'hushed' up back in those days. It was discovered also that he had a 'collection' of photos (very tame compared to today's offerings) to amuse himself when not being a predator. Tom has very openly presented the realities of this situation.

There are a ton of speculators posting this thread, but 'reality is when it happens to you,' and these are the real facts, pure and simple.

-F.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Having a similar background to Tom's (and more negative experiences as a teen and adult) I absolutely can separate the actions of one individual from the work of another. One must not forget that parents DID give Sturges permission to photograph their children both nude and dressed, and I feel it inappropriate to second guess those parents. You have to keep in mind that these children were raised in naturalist families, where nudity is NOT absolutely connected to sexuality, and is no way unusual or shameful.

The fact that various people in my life had no self-control and a possessed a desire to control others does not automatically make nudity (or photographs of nudity) shameful, no matter what the person's age.

I find it offensive, as both an abuse survivor and a photographer of children (who sometimes happen to be in their natural state) that people would assume work like Sturges' to be motivated by greed, pedophilia, or any other inappropriate objective. Honestly, I find the statement "If...Sturges were to suddenly get a conscience and switch to Architectural Interiors..." to be excessively accusatory, self-important, and (worst) assumes that everyone must see things as YOU do in order to be branded as not having a conscience.

Fred said, "There are a ton of speculators posting this thread, but 'reality is when it happens to you,' and these are the real facts, pure and simple." Really? I have lived this reality, and I do not find myself anywhere near agreeing with your "facts". The world is larger than you are, and you cannot speak for everyone. Speak only for yourself, and realize the validity of other points of view.

- CJ

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I am going to add that when I posted this thread, it was to bring attention to what I thought was an excellent interview with a very interesting photographer who has been through a lot. It was not my intention to cause the artist any harm, and I feel many in this thread have assumed the worst about him in a manner which has been uncalled for. I am all for debate and the exchange of ideas, but I feel this thread has gone outside the boundaries of good manners and common sense on several occasions.

I don't like censorship and would never call for it, however I would like to request that anyone posting in the remainder of this thread please keep in mind that words on the internet live forever and can have a very real effect on the people being discussed. Please consider that fact before posting inflammatory and unproven "facts" about a fellow photographer.

- CJ

 

[BrianShaw]

Thank you, Cheryl. That needed to be said, and you said it well.

 

[dwdmguy]

Hey Cheryl, sorry to hear about the childhood. Sux and then we move on. Some don't tho. Glad to see your surviving. I've found that the more I've shared thoughout my life the more I hear "hey, me too" I think that there is a stage where it becomes healthy to share, so, nuff said as this is not a child abuse thread.

Now, I don't want to discuss the issues of the parents giving the permission to have this done as well. It's not the place for it. But, Mr. sturges knew the issues with placing such a subject into his lens, on paper and then on the web. He had to and there is no way that I cannot accept that he was surprised with the feedback it draws.
Sans the parents permission, some would think, myself included, that when you put such images out there you have to deal with all that comes with it. I asked the question to the posters in this forum not to be mean, rude or hurtful, I just wanted to see if anyone would put a pound of flesh into the issue.

You see, it's so easy for each one of us to type behind the firewall of our router but to have to look into ourselves and ask such a powerful question of ourselves and then write it well.... to me, it's not so much the answer that counts as if you can have your 2 cents entered into a thread that could "live forever" roll off your finger tips, then put the pound of flesh in. I would not judge the person by the answer. I don't know them and I'm not closed enough to think my answer is always right. I just wanted to see the pound....

MOST important I understand someone if they first said it's art but then would answer, even to themselves, that they would not let their child do it because of what sick issues some form of human out there may have. But, why should someone else's child pay the price? Why should that person be allowed to protect their child at the expense of another? Anyone that wants to enjoy the liberty we have, ok game on, but get some flesh in there. But I am not going to allow anyone to sit back and say it's art, it's natural et. al., and expect someone else's kid to be posted on the internet.

So, if one can post here that to them personally that this issue is ok and art then they can post the answer to this question. Just wanted to see that pound..... as it speaks volumes, as well does the silence.

Cheryl, if I may, I despise censorship as well, but you too must have known what a hot and ligit. topic this would be.

 

[nemo999]

...

I find it offensive, as both an abuse survivor and a photographer of children (who sometimes happen to be in their natural state) that people would assume work like Sturges' to be motivated by greed, pedophilia, or any other inappropriate objective. Honestly, I find the statement "If...Sturges were to suddenly get a conscience and switch to Architectural Interiors..." to be excessively accusatory, self-important, and (worst) assumes that everyone must see things as YOU do in order to be branded as not having a conscience.

...

I hear what you say, but there is one undeniable fact - the output of a visual artist is judged by his/her images alone in 99.99% of cases - it is a vanishingly smalll minority of viewers who will make an effort to gather background information on the artist in question, read interviews, etc.

My impression, gained from viewing maybe 25 to 30 of Sturges" images, is that his subjects (to judge by their facial expressions) are comfortable with their nudity, comfortable with their environment (very often a naturist beach) but anything but comfortable with, or understanding of, Sturges' reason for making his images (and I say this having read numerous interviews in which subjects claim to have understanding of and sympathy with his motivation). It is furthermore my impression that Sturges. despite his many pronouncements, himself does not really know why he produces his images (I just can't hear arguments about a "hymn to innocent beauty" and keep a straight face).
Finally, it is sad but inevitable that any explicit images of nude teenagers will somewhere down the line be used as an aid to masturbation. As far as I am aware, naturists are fairly robust about this, since they recognize that some people also visit naturist beaches to masturbate, and as such I do not feel that anyone is likely to be psychologically damaged by being photographed by Sturges. However, at the end of the day, I personally can find no good reason why this work should be produced, and I am all the more suspicious because the reasons that are given ring so false to me.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Tom,

I would like to know what "price" the children in Sturges' photos have paid? What is it that you think they have suffered because of his work?

And no, I did not in any way anticipate that this thread would run nineteen pages and include the sorts of posts it has. Because I do not see his work as being truly controversial. I really don't. I am very surprised at many of the posters in this thread, and more than a little disappointed, to be honest.

 

[BobNewYork]

I've thought long and hard overnight about answering Tom's question - because I believe he's made a legitimate point. I must also qualify my answer by saying that my kids are now all in their early twenties and the issue just never actually arose. My answer today is yes, I would permit Jock Sturges to take photographs of my kids naked and I believe that my answer would also have been the same 15 years ago. This answer is conditional however on knowing the photographer and knowing his or her work - it would not apply to a stranger who approached out of the blue. Now, because I would say yes - that doesn't mean that everyone should - that too would be censorship. I would also suspect that the parents of Sturges' models would find this thread laughable - it was likely a complete non-issue to them.

Cheryl has made what I believe is a crucial point and that is what harm did the models suffer from the photographs? And perhaps this is the crucial question that should be asked of all photographs - not just those of human beings.

Bob Hall

 

[dwdmguy]

Bob, thank you for your honest and well thought out answer. I not only respect it but admire you for backing up your viewpoints with some meat. That means a lot.

Cheryl, we both know that there is no way of telling what any of the children's price was for this. You and I both know that. But please tell me the price that a child has paid for being in a pornographic picture with the intent of having the sick people view it. You can't as well. You may be able to tell me one child's price, perhaps two, but not many.

And Cheryl, do you mean to tell me you had NO idea that this would be a bit of a heated thread? Are you serious? You honestly thought that everyone would share your views on a subject such as this? It sounds like your close to taking the thread down. I'd be very sorry If you did because that would be clear censorship.


The point is, the big point, is that children TRUST us. I trust my community with my child because there are some wacko's out there. I'm not going to judge you or anyone else view on this because you are an adult. (my god, you might think I'm a freak if you were a fly on my wall) but please, please understand, the Child's mind is not yet developed nor matured. They cannot make nor do they understand the view of this on ANY level. They trust you and I for that.

I do not, can not see any wonderful artist value in viewing a child's naked body.
I'd really like to get your view point, on the art of a child's naked body in public display. Not the "don't be ashamed" or "it's natural" viewpoint that to me is an escape. But when I see a wonderful landscape photograph that registers in my mind as a subject of art. How does a nude child, with the light hitting just right, or at the beach with his/her parents strike you as art?
Please share, I am not being combative here, I am truly, honestly curious. And you did start the thead. PLEASE do not think I am being a wise guy, I am being honest here.
Thanks
Tom

 

[BrianShaw]

One must not forget that parents DID give Sturges permission to photograph their children both nude and dressed, and I feel it inappropriate to second guess those parents. You have to keep in mind that these children were raised in naturalist families, where nudity is NOT absolutely connected to sexuality, and is no way unusual or shameful.

Cheryl,

Would you please repeat this, again, for Tom's sake... he either did not read this or perhaps he doesn't believe it.

There is no indication that the relationship of trust and respect between Sturges and his models was anything but mutual. Sturges self reports that trust and respect exists and none of his models seems to have ever disputed that assertion. How can anyone claim otherwise, given that?

There is no indication that Sturges profited exorbinately from the photographs he took. (I have yet to see him listed as one of the richest men in America, or France, or wherever he may be today).

It should also be noted that Sturges is not a "hit-and-run" photographer. Most, if not all, of his models (child and adult) are reported to be friends who he has known over an extended period of time. Most have been photographed over extended periods of time so if there were any misgivings about consent, I would think they (the parents or the child) would put an end to the situation. Sturges generally used a 8x10 camera so it's not like a quick grab shot; each photo took time and effort and most photos were "pre-planned" and rehearsed with Polaroid test shots.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Tom, I would definitely like to address and clarify several issues you've touched on in this last point.

First, of course I expected debate. That's why I put this thread in the Ethics and Philosophy forum, and I explained that in my original post. Perhaps you didn't read the original post? I simply stated that I was surprised and disappointed at how far the debate has been taken.

Second, I do not and have never had any intention of removing this thread. In fact, I encouraged others posting in the remainder of this thread to please do so with thought and empathy. I have already stated that I am not in favor of censorship, so I am unclear why you are under any impression that I would censor a thread I started.

You said:

Cheryl, we both know that there is no way of telling what any of the children's price was for this. You and I both know that. But please tell me the price that a child has paid for being in a pornographic picture with the intent of having the sick people view it. You can't as well. You may be able to tell me one child's price, perhaps two, but not many.

I think you must go back to the definition of a truly pornographic picture. An image of a nude person is not porn, unless it depicts the person in a sex act. In a truly pornographic image of a child, you certainly can know that the child has paid a price. It is clear and obvious. The photograph is immoral because of its content. You will not find a single image of Sturges' that shows a child in a sex act. It is simply showing (in a beautiful way) his subjects in their natural state. And has been pointed out already, his work has never been limited solely to adolescent girls. It has included young children, parents, boys, men, and women as well.

It appears from your quoted text above that you believe Sturges creates these images with the intent to sell the work to sick people. I am curious what you are basing that opinion on? And how can you possibly know a person's intent? Is it the intent that makes the image wrong? A pedophile can photograph a child fully clothed from afar -- do his intentions make the image pornographic?

I'll make a point I've made before: Sturges does not ask his subjects to undress, and he does not pose them. He photographs people who choose to live a lifestyle that includes public nudity, which they find completely moral and natural. In his work, there is no coercion, and there is no asking them to do anything they don't feel comfortable with, which indicates no violation of trust. (In fact, Sturges takes the unusual position of not getting model releases signed. He has stated that his work is based on trust with the models and their families, and he would never publish an image they were uncomfortable with. That means the families at any time can legally prevent Sturges' from displaying / selling their images at any time now or in the future.) I cannot see that as pornography. He is, in essence, a documentarian.

I do not, can not see any wonderful artist value in viewing a child's naked body.
I'd really like to get your view point, on the art of a child's naked body in public display. Not the "don't be ashamed" or "it's natural" viewpoint that to me is an escape. But when I see a wonderful landscape photograph that registers in my mind as a subject of art. How does a nude child, with the light hitting just right, or at the beach with his/her parents strike you as art?

Out of curiosity, do you find art nudes of adults to be beautiful? If an adult's body can be art and is beautiful, why wouldn't a child's body be the same? Does the body only become beautiful when it's eighteen years of age or older? I don't think so. I think children are inherently beautiful, whether dressed or undressed or wearing a clown suit.

In my opinion, there is art and beauty in everyday moments, the slices of life that pass us by if we aren't paying attention. A nude child, playing happily in his natural state, making happy memories with his parents, all illuminated with beautiful light and captured by a family friend? Absolutely that is art to me. I can think of nothing more beautiful than that. And in fact, I HAVE photographed a scene just like that. Am I a child pornographer?

- CJ

 

[SuzanneR]

I do not, can not see any wonderful artist value in viewing a child's naked body.
I'd really like to get your view point, on the art of a child's naked body in public display. Not the "don't be ashamed" or "it's natural" viewpoint that to me is an escape. But when I see a wonderful landscape photograph that registers in my mind as a subject of art. How does a nude child, with the light hitting just right, or at the beach with his/her parents strike you as art?
Please share, I am not being combative here, I am truly, honestly curious. And you did start the thead. PLEASE do not think I am being a wise guy, I am being honest here.
Thanks
Tom

This may be the wrong question. The human figure, no matter how old, can be rendered as art. Has been throughout history. Like you, I'm not keen on Sturges' work as I think he sexualizes his subjects in way that doesn't sit well with me, and is, frankly, a little shallow to my mind. This reaction is my own. I'm responsible for it, and I must say I resent anyone implying that I'm somehow not "enlightened" by finding his work a little off. That was the source of my irritation earlier in this thread, and I swore, I was finished posting here! haha...

I have no objection to nudity, or to people living in such communities, but I think the real question has to do with how he makes his pictures. Clearly, they resonate with many people here, and clearly they bother many people. I think it's a leap to say he's engaged in pornography. I don't know him, or understand his intentions, so I'm uncomfortable making assumptions about him.

I find it difficult, based on the work of one photographer, to make a blanket statement that no child should ever be depicted without their clothes... that it's a subject that can never be art... when a quick glance through my Jansen's History of Art reveals many examples.

 

[bill schwab]

But please tell me the price that a child has paid for being in a pornographic picture with the intent of having the sick people view it.

I am curious as to what any of this including your confessional has to do with Sturges? This statement seems slanderous, as if you are saying he makes these photographs with the intent of having "sick people view it". I have not seen where he has been charged with any crime whatsoever, let alone child pornography.

The point is, the big point, is that children TRUST us. I trust my community with my child because there are some wacko's out there.

Playing devil's advocate here... In your attempt to be so trustworthy of your child I find it interesting you would take the stance you have, yet use him basically in a self-promotion for your BLOG right here in this very public site. Taken out of context, I don't think it a stretch to think the photograph you posted could in fact be found to be tittilating by the very "wackos" you seem to be so concerned with. I also don't understand the contradiction of using a fuzzed out photograph of him in your avatar... "I always use that as my avatar as I don't like putting him out there too much", yet making no attempt to hide his identity or likeness in the McNally photograph used in the (there was a url link here which no longer exists) promoting your site. I am curious as to whether you considered the possible impact your statements here in this public forum in conjunction with the use of his image may have on him?

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't know him, or understand his intentions, so I'm uncomfortable making assumptions about him.

Most of us are in the same situation. This is why these conversations often degrade. Sturges has expressed his intentions in the introduction of each one of his books, and published an entire book on his intentions/methods. Those not liking his work might not be well exposed to his "artist statement". Some who have been exposed might not believe it... that's more difficult to resolve.

 

[brummelisa]

I have no objection to nudity, or to people living in such communities, but I think the real question has to do with how he makes his pictures.

I assume you don't mean technically, but more that why he takes his pictures and why he shows them on gallery and such?
Or am I wrong?

Since I'm not Jock, I can no way speak for him, but more assume his intentions.

First of all, he has photographed people for more than 30 years which most of the part is nude human beings. He usually starts taking pictures of children at a young age and then continuously photographing them as they grow.

One doesn't have to like his work, but this is what makes his work stand out. You will literally follow the development from young children to adult. Not just physically, but you will see pictures of the same girl over and over and you will almost feel as you know her. Which naturally is not true, but anyway I think that it's more of an interest when a photographer follows his/hers subject than just take a couple of pictures and move on. At least to the viewer.

He has said in many interviews that taking photographs is a very little part of what he do. He becomes true friends with his subjects and their families. And spend lots of time with them and helping them as a friend do. And that trust shows in the images.
Sure, the models are nudist and has grown up in nudist-camps, but still they present themselves with no shame whatsoever and they try not to cover up or anything and that too is what makes his images so special.

When it comes to his generosity you'll have to admire him. He prints usually 40 16x20" prints and each of every model that is within the image will get a print. Whenever he wants to use the image (for gallery, book or whatever), he calls the models (he has said that he has really high phone-bills) and ask for their permission - every time. He could have used a release-form which ensure him to use it, but he knows that his models may change how they feel about a special picture and it has actually happened that he has removed some pictures from a gallery during a show when the model changed their mind.

I think that it's these reasons that his models and their families have no problems being photographed by Jock.

And his intentions?
Well, he may just want to share what he feels is true beauty and don't we all want to do that? And obviously he doesn't see nude children as bad.

/ Marcus

 

[brummelisa]

One more thing.
I don't remember if I have posted it here, but Amadelio has made a wonderful movie about Jock.
You'll find the information here and can get a sneak preview.

For you who don't have it and love his pictures it's a great film.

http://www.amadelio.org/

/ Marcus

 

[gandolfi]

One more thing.
I don't remember if I have posted it here, but Amadelio has made a wonderful movie about Jock.
You'll find the information here and can get a sneak preview.

For you who don't have it and love his pictures it's a great film.

http://www.amadelio.org/

/ Marcus

I have that film - seen it recently, and I am afraid it will "put wood on the fire" for those, that don't like him in the first place...

I personally don't find this a great film - rather bad actually. I can't recommend it if you have reservations about him.

If you don't have reservations about him, it is proberly ok.

(I promised I wouldn't add to this lengthy thread, as I think it has turned away from what it originally was supposed to be about (?).. but there you go..)

 

[dwdmguy]

Well, Bill. That is just silly, silly silly. I think it's most important that you read my Disclaimer in my first post here. I specifically wrote that the views are my own, that them or leave them. Now, How dare you write that I am using my child for self-promotion of my blog. For what reason would I do that? I retired years ago, I don't need the money from a blog. I find it so interesting, no thats a cop out, I find it corwardly that someone would even suggest that. Shame on you. 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. But what happens when someone else presents their view that you don't agree with, you attack, just like a cave man.

And Cheryl: "A nude child, playing happily in his natural state, making happy memories with his parents, all illuminated with beautiful light"

All beautiful light, wow, good for you. I have not seen your work so I cannot comment. I have seen Mr. Sturges work, and find it to be the quality of snapshots.

He never askes his models or subjects to undress? Ok, fair enough. That's not nearly enough for me but since it is for you, That's cool.

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

I think I'm going to explore this further on my own. Understand what Mr. Sturges has gone thru. And then see what else I can do because I feel that, while I am the most open person out there, this is just plain wrong. But did you expect everyone to agree with your views or did you think some would not? I do not, but I've been nothing but respectful doing it.

It seems that so many people had free thoughts that they could write so safe behind a keyboard but can't answer the question if they would like a photographer take pictures of their child nude. WHy not? But it's safe to form a opnion from the keyboard is it not?


Bill, The point of trusting the community was taking completely out of context, but you know that already. But, if it makes you feel better, attack away, I choose to have an adult viewpoint and an adult conversation.

 

[dwdmguy]

Cheryl et. al., my statement about "porn" with the children was communicated incorrectly, I did mean children that are photographed for the intent of sexual pleasure of the viewer. But that's a matter of view also, which is sad. Everyone has their view on it. But I want to be clear on that. There are so many victims out there that had no say in their younger years.

 

[BrianShaw]

Cheryl's work is very nice. She posted her website link. Have a look!

 

[Ed Sukach]

First I will apologize in advance for replying to messages not addressed to me. I view "Ethics and Philosophy" as open to all.

Bob, thank you for your honest and well thought out answer. I not only respect it but admire you for backing up your viewpoints with some meat. That means a lot.

Having been a student of Freud for lo, these many moons, I can't help but react to certain phrasing, usually indicative of deeper motivation. In this case, the referral to "meat". You seem to demand that all those answering supply "meat". Seems to me to be unusual, if not downright strange. I am not a butcher, nor do I equate photographs of people, in any stage of dress (or lack of it) as meat. Let's see ... if I fail at meat supply I am not worthy of participation ..? How am I supposed to know if my answers are sufficiently "meaty" to satisfy your criteria?

Cheryl, we both know that there is no way of telling what any of the children's price was for this. You and I both know that. But please tell me the price that a child has paid for being in a pornographic picture with the intent of having the sick people view it. You can't as well. You may be able to tell me one child's price, perhaps two, but not many.

Let me simplify a tad... "You don't can't know/ tell me /... We both don't can't know ... Please tell me ..." Tell you what? What you both don't know?
This is an old attempt to dominate a conversation . the only conclusion that could be drawn was that, in some way - NOT SUPPORTED - that the questioner was RIGHT!!
Let me put it thins way: No, I disagree.

... And Cheryl, do you mean to tell me you had NO idea that this would be a bit of a heated thread? Are you serious? You honestly thought that everyone would share your views on a subject such as this? It sounds like your close to taking the thread down. I'd be very sorry If you did because that would be clear censorship.

It is entirely possible that Cheryl did NOT expect any great heat - certainly I did not, either. At least she is/ was not alone. I expect that a few others shared the same expectations as well.

The point is, the big point, is that children TRUST us. I trust my community with my child because there are some wacko's out there. I'm not going to judge you or anyone else view on this because you are an adult. (my god, you might think I'm a freak if you were a fly on my wall) but please, please understand, the Child's mind is not yet developed nor matured. They cannot make nor do they understand the view of this on ANY level. They trust you and I for that.

Agreed, There ARE whackos out there. Our course of action should be - what? Should we all wave our magic wands and eliminate them from the face of the earth? (I've tried mine - direct from Harry Potter Supplies - nothing happened). We have to live with their presence. We should prepare our children to defend themselves, and that would require their awareness of the problem - heavy insulation and denial would seem to be logically counterproductive.

... I do not, can not see any wonderful artist value in viewing a child's naked body.

Interesting statement. Let me do the same ... I do NOT, can not see any wonderful artistic value in viewing a Norman Rockwell illustration.

Oh, if only I were King over everything. I'm not, so anyone reading should regard that for what it is; an expression of opinion from one person.
Come to think of it... wasn't one of Rockwell's works a study of an underage boy with his trousers down around his ankles, studying the Doctor's diploma on the wall ... ?

... I'd really like to get your view point, on the art of a child's naked body in public display. Not the "don't be ashamed" or "it's natural" viewpoint that to me is an escape. But when I see a wonderful landscape photograph that registers in my mind as a subject of art.

Oh, simple. You want me to direct your vision to use the same receptors you wold use in viewing a landscape - indefinable aesthetiscs - to change your apprecaition of nudes?? Far beyond my modest capablities.

How does a nude child, with the light hitting just right, or at the beach with his/her parents strike you as art?

I don't have a clue as to why, or how ANYTHING "strikes me as art". I only know that I am struck, occasionally.

Now... risking the "absence of meat": Would I allow one of my children to appear in a book by Jock Sturges?

From the information I've gleaned until now... Yes I would. I'll include my wife, and this beat up body of mine as well.

I refuse to be ashamed of the work - any of the work - of the Great Creator.