Madder and madder - the Marcus Phillips case

[Bluechapel]

Wait: nipples on 10 and 12 year olds are bad, right? What about 14 and 16? 18 and 20? At what point does it go from "bad" to "art"? Yeah, the critics and cops are watching, but a good image that's not intended as sexual will still have that effect on some one. I've known of people who get off on morgue photos. So do we (as artists) NEVER shoot nudes-just in case some one gets off on them?

 

[DBP]

The oddest thing is to look back at photos in magazines from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, a supposedly repressed time, and see half naked or totally naked kids.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Mind boggling, but then I think one end of every public beach should be clothing optional.

Murray

 

[wilsonneal]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...0A25751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

I bought my enlarger from her shortly after the matter was settled. She pretty much stopped shooting altogether.
Neal

 

[mabman]

I only add this
In that Tichy thread people were quick to point out how perverted he must be/is/they believe him to be
Yet
to many
Taking photographs of obviously nude little children is nothing short of art

that's really strange

I don't think it's strange - the children were being photographed *at the request of and under the supervision of their parents*, and nowhere does it say they were nude, but rather only topless. The ultimate objective here, as all the articles state, was to digitally manipulate the resulting photos to turn them into representations of mythical fairies. Sure sounds like art to me (even if I wouldn't have it done to any of my future offspring, or particularly like fairies, but that's a different argument).

Tichy, on the other hand, was taking candid photos of women. A *lot* of them. Some of them visibly through fences, all of them (it appears) without their knowledge (otherwise they wouldn't be candid). We've already had a discussion on whether this is creepy or not, but I really don't see how Tichy compares in any way to the above case.

 

[jpeets]

While I find the notion of child sexual abuse abhorrent in the extreme, the pendulum has swung far too far in terms of the intolerance for any depiction of child nudity. This case is a repellant example.

I'm just waiting for these self-appointed wingnuts to stroll through the Louvre and declare this and that image to be pornographic, and to be removed and destroyed.

And yes, it is odd that we were very tolerant of innocent child nudity up until very recently. I have carefully hidden the images my parents took of me standing in the pond at age 2.... wait a minute, could I be charged for possession of child pornography - of me???????:confused:

 

[2F/2F]

Sounds like boring pix to me.



First of all, I could just slap the guy for pleading guilty! By taking what he saw as the easy road out, he has just set a horrible precedent in the courts and pretty much screwed so many others in the future.

Honestly, the fact that a stranger's level of offense holds more weight than parents' consent is repugnant to me. Wackos are everywhere. EVERYTHING is offensive and indecent to SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE.

We live in a paranoid and hypocritical time. One more reason to do your own darkroom work, especially with pix that some idiot might not like.

When I am offended by the destruction of children's lives at home and abroad by my own and other governments around the world, and find this to be indecent, will the courts do anything about it? Hell, I am sure their parents didn't even sign a release to be bombed, starved, raped, etc.

 

[nc5p]

I took Ektachrome slides of my first son bathing in the kitchen sink. I processed them myself and made a few type "R" prints in the darkroom. Today I wouldn't even think of doing this. I also took photos of my youngest daughter being born. The doctor had no issue of this, though I've been told today they forbid all cameras on the premises because of HIPPA.

I wonder if I should find those images and destroy them, else to face the wrath of prosecutors who would find normal childbirth a horrible case of child abuse. Oh, I forget that destroying that "evidence" would be an automatic five years in federal penitentiary for evidence tampering and obstruction of justice.

 

[2F/2F]

"I processed them myself and made a few type "R" prints in the darkroom. Today I wouldn't even think of doing this."

If you processed them yourself and made your own Ilfochromes, why not?

 

[sun of sand]

I don't think it's strange - the children were being photographed *at the request of and under the supervision of their parents*, and nowhere does it say they were nude, but rather only topless. The ultimate objective here, as all the articles state, was to digitally manipulate the resulting photos to turn them into representations of mythical fairies. Sure sounds like art to me (even if I wouldn't have it done to any of my future offspring, or particularly like fairies, but that's a different argument).

Tichy, on the other hand, was taking candid photos of women. A *lot* of them. Some of them visibly through fences, all of them (it appears) without their knowledge (otherwise they wouldn't be candid). We've already had a discussion on whether this is creepy or not, but I really don't see how Tichy compares in any way to the above case.

Being behind a fence doesnt mean you are protected from eyes. Certainly not a chainlink fence. Being out in the open you are subject to people
Being out in the open you are allowing people to see you ..or photograph you
Not a whole lot different from having ASKED to be photographed.


You can dress a hooker up in a gown
She's still a hooker
Saying mythical fairies yada yada doesn't mean the photographer is any less a pervert than Tichy doing what he did
He/She still had to say YES I'LL TAKE THOSE!

Where is the REAL difference?


If Tichy had altered his women into fairies etc would that make his initial photographs less "perverted"

I still see it as being very strange

 

[MattKing]

This is why they say "The law is an ass".

Ian

I guess my perspective on this betrays me, but...

For some unfathomable reason, it is the criminal law that we have assigned the responsibility of dealing with this issue.

Criminal law is oriented toward blame, egregious behaviour and punishment. It is most comfortably associated with bad intentions, and moral fault.

There may very well be room to say that it would be best if the subjects of these photographs had not been asked to pose for them, but that is very different than saying that taking the photographs was a criminal act.

Why do so many people want to rely on the criminal law to do for them so many things? Is it because they don't think it will cost them any money?

If a government orders Marcus Phillips to cease and desist from sharing these images, or taking others like them, than there would be a restriction of liberty that a reasonably rational debate could centre upon.

But a criminal prosecution - it distorts entirely the societal values issue that is actually worth considering.

Here's a question - what if the parents were nudists, and their kids wanted to follow in their tracks?

Matt

P.S. if you want to observe me being pedantic, just ask me for my perspective on the phrase "cease and desist".

 

[Kvistgaard]

1. IMHO anyone who takes pictures of children dressed as or digitally altered to look like fairies, angels, sunflowers or pumpkins should be thrown in jail for life

Well said!

 

[2F/2F]

"You can dress a hooker up in a gown
She's still a hooker
Saying mythical fairies yada yada doesn't mean the photographer is any less a pervert than Tichy doing what he did
He/She still had to say YES I'LL TAKE THOSE!"

And??? What is wrong with taking the pix in the first place? Photographers take the pix they need to take to achieve their desired end. OF COURSE he said "Yes I'll take those." I would too.

"Where is the REAL difference?"

The real difference is that these were consensual pictures for artistic purposes, not childhood eroticism, pornography, exploitation, etc. Seeing certain parts of the body, photographing them, and showing them to others does not make one a pervert. Perhaps I am mentally challenged for believing this.

At any rate, when it comes to the law, the final use is almost always what matters in published material.

"If Tichy had altered his women into fairies etc would that make his initial photographs less "perverted"

Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. The enjoyment or portrayal of the body is not perverted in and of itself.

"I still see it as being very strange"

I see the fact that ANYONE would see this as being very strange to be disgusting and hypocritical! What is is exactly that you have against people seeing the bodies of young people? The fear that SOMEONE might get off on it? Heavenforbid someone should get horny over the WRONG THING. Heavenforbid that ANYONE should enjoy looking at the human body at all, or using it as art. Jeezus H. Christ. Aren't there bigger fish to fry that what you think people should be getting horny over? Molesting a child is one thing, but you can't police thought and emotion, so why try?

 

[bnstein]

Here's a question - what if the parents were nudists, and their kids wanted to follow in their tracks?

Well you could ask Jock Sturges who pretty much does just that...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html

 

[BrianShaw]

Neal

Ahem... bared shoulders on the children in your avatar? Ahem.

 

[sun of sand]

"You can dress a hooker up in a gown
She's still a hooker
Saying mythical fairies yada yada doesn't mean the photographer is any less a pervert than Tichy doing what he did
He/She still had to say YES I'LL TAKE THOSE!"

And??? What is wrong with taking the pix in the first place? Photographers take the pix they need to take to achieve their desired end. OF COURSE he said "Yes I'll take those." I would too.

"Where is the REAL difference?"

The real difference is that these were consensual pictures for artistic purposes, not childhood eroticism, pornography, exploitation, etc. Seeing certain parts of the body, photographing them, and showing them to others does not make one a pervert. Perhaps I am mentally challenged for believing this.

At any rate, when it comes to the law, the final use is almost always what matters in published material.

"If Tichy had altered his women into fairies etc would that make his initial photographs less "perverted"

Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. The enjoyment or portrayal of the body is not perverted in and of itself.

"I still see it as being very strange"

I see the fact that ANYONE would see this as being very strange to be disgusting and hypocritical! What is is exactly that you have against people seeing the bodies of young people? The fear that SOMEONE might get off on it? Heavenforbid someone should get horny over the WRONG THING. Heavenforbid that ANYONE should enjoy looking at the human body at all, or using it as art. Jeezus H. Christ. Aren't there bigger fish to fry that what you think people should be getting horny over? Molesting a child is one thing, but you can't police thought and emotion, so why try?

I never said I was against these photographs of these children

I'm trying to understand why people saw Tichy as perverted yet whomever took these photos of children as beyond reproach

I don't think I've read a single reply in this thread stating a belief that this person is/is likely a pervert

 

[Nicole]

The recent saga with Bill Henson's work in Australia comes to mind here - and then the case was dropped. Initally this was quite a debate in my own circle of friends. Then in support to the whole farce I went out and bought myself a young looking 5' tall topless statue for my garden. All of a sudden everyone "got it" and it's no longer an issue, and I now have a muse.

Does this unfortunate outcome for the photographer in question mean I now have to remove certain images from my website? That would be a real shame, because the parents love them.

 

[wilsonneal]

Ahem... bared shoulders on the children in your avatar? Ahem.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Captain Bedworthy]

You're kidding, right?

Scandalous!
;-p

(Ha! Cute kids, cheers!)

 

[Captain Bedworthy]

Who stands to gain from such sensationalism and over-reaction?
I mean gain in a monetary sense. Obviously: A Lawyer.
So please let's do our part to shun all lawyers.
Q: How many Lawyers does it take to shingle a roof?
A: It all depends on how thinly you slice them.

 

[Nicole]

Quoted: ''It's not so much whether it's art but whether it's for the purpose of sexual gratification,''

I believe those people who consider an image of a child (that by no means was taken with sexual expoitation intent) may be pornographic or provide sexual gratification, should be the ones to stand trial - as they are the ones conjuring up these thoughts.

So, to successfully prosecute a photographer... does one search for a jury that finds photos of naked children provide sexual gratification? In that case... the jury should be on trial... and the prosecuter.

 

[BrianShaw]

You're kidding, right?

Yes, of course!

 

[Andy K]

So are my parents criminals for having photographs of me as a baby in the tub? What a sad sick world we live in if this is the case.

 

[JBrunner]

You're kidding, right?

Depends on where he is and how he was raised. Yeah he's kidding, but he's making a very important point. I certainly don't have the answer, but the point is that it is a very slippery slope to the world of the burka.

Children do need protection, because they may not make the best decisions. If there is blame in this case, I would say it goes with the parents. But that's if.

Personally, this whole thing seems stupid. The law seems to be most interested in prosecuting the above board easy to find and flay.

The real stuff, the sick stuff, the underground that almost every person would agree deserves the cruelest of punishments, and vigorous eradication, goes almost unchecked.

These are the sorts of politics that disgust me.

 

[gr82bart]

After reading all this, what JB said.

I had my own avatar banned - yes banned! - at a modeling site. The avatar is an image is me, of course. Why? Because "... it depicts a child under the age of 18, which is against our policy." The site though has 1000's of images of nude women (and few men too), which is allowed. I thought it was pretty funny. I'm glad they are protecting me from child abuse. :rolleyes:

Regards, Art.