Off topic, yesterday I went to Waterstone's after a morning shift, meaning to buy 'Hold Still' - I even checked they had it in stock before going. But once I was there I bought Robert Frank's 'The Americans' instead. I think it's because I went after work - why read long text when I can just look at some pictures?
I haven't seen what the museum wrote - I may have missed it in the thread? Rather, I was relying on the Open Letter, which states: <<A museum plaque shockingly describes the collection as showcasing "children naked, moody, and in suggestive situations" to "evoke an edgy, dark side of childhood.">>If I’m not mistaken, the museum’s caution was referring to nudity rather than sexualization of children or pornography. Perhaps they should have specified “non-sexual nudity” to be more specific?
Not to leave a stone unturned, I also checked Genesis 9, cited in the Open Letter. Although Noah's sons were evidently embarassed when they found their father drunk and naked, there is no mention of any comment on the matter by God. One could infer that clothes were required dress code in that post-deluvial society, but it is inference only, and arguably it was drunkenness that was censured. There is no mention of children, except in the sense of genealogy.
That (Pretty Baby) was an earlier show.
…However, I read that the people objecting to the photographs include a judge Tim O'Hare; and a state-representative-elect David Lowe said 'It is crucial that our legal framework leaves no room for predators to misuse the realm of art to display child nudity. Should any loopholes exist, we are prepared to address and eliminate them in the upcoming legislative session in Texas'. So if the photographs don't break state law yet, some of the objectors mean to change the law so they do. Note the guy said 'child nudity'; no test for obscenity required……
Well said. And I find those pictures uncomfortable as well.I guess what made her children a subject to share for Sally Mann (and others before her) is the whole ‘before the fall’ concept: that mish-mash of liveliness, sensuality, innocence, freedom, trust and vulnerability. It’s been a subject for wonder and discussion in most religions for millennia.
Are we going to have to turn them in for shredding?
I don't. The war pictures of Lee Miller make me uncomfortable and enraged. As do those coming out of Ukraine. Why should happy, naked children make anyone uncomfortable?Well said. And I find those pictures uncomfortable as well.
There are some who become sexually aroused by underwear, even shoes. There's no accounting for how people react to any given image or object.I think we'll have to admit that virtually any depiction of nudity can be sexually arousing, regardless of inclusion of sexual activity. I also think we may be due for a reexamination of the relationships of "fine art" (as VincelnMT mentioned), pornography and obscenity.
I think you answered your own question, didn't you?I don't. The war pictures of Lee Miller make me uncomfortable and enraged. As do those coming out of Ukraine. Why should happy, naked children make anyone uncomfortable?
Although it does not address child nudity per se, here's a quote from my opening essay in my book, Flesh & Bone. "Images of nude figures often evoke a wide array of emotions, influenced by cultural climate and the photographer’s perspective. The portrayal of the nude form can elicit feelings of admiration, desire or discomfort, depending on the context and the viewer."
There are some who become sexually aroused by underwear, even shoes. There's no accounting for how people react to any given image or object.
Perhaps we are conflating your comments about the Texas show and your comments about photographs that include nudity and children.
That is several allusions now to Alan and individuals expressing concern, having problems of their own or suggestions that one wonders what it is about that person's mind that takes them to that place, etc.
Enough weasel words; what are you all implying that requires phrasing things with deniability. Speak plainly or can the rhetorical smears.
That's two times you're calling me a "secret pervert" and I demand the moderators remove your posts. Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here.Good one BrianShaw ( I would do a happy face but my settings here don't seem to allow for that) - although I said "within the norm" which since this discussion has been going on for decades, I think is still a fair statement; but yes, I don't know the norm where you are.
MattKing comments are eminently correct, but do not address the suggestion which questions "a mind that takes him to that place."
We are free to fill in what that place is, according to our own preconceptions. Rhetorically this is often intended to suggest the individual is actually secretly guilty in some way of the offense they decry or that their mind is not quite right.
At least that is how my poor mind thinks.
I'm more focused on why the TX authorities should wait until the show is over. They should decide the fate of the allegation(s) much sooner than Feb 2. Either they are going forward with prosecution or not...
I think you and others are misinterpreting many things I said. The law clearly states that nudity of children has to be lewd to be child pornography. I mentioned that many times. I also state many times that the definition of the word lewd is open to interpretation. It's not clear to me what the interpretation is nor what its limits are. Maybe it is to others. Because of the iffiness of interpretations especially to a jury, the point I was making to the photography community in general is you better be careful if you intend to shoot nude children. Even if you are ultimately found innocent, if some District Attorney anxious to make a name for themself charges you, it will become costly monetarily and emotionally to defend yourself. Just a word of legal caution.
Regarding my personal beliefs, I don;t think shooting children nude is appropriate except in a family shot of maybe a baby that's innocent and certainly not for publication. The whole category just doesn't appeal to me at all.
The difference could be about ten years in jail. And who here would want to leave that up to a conservative Texas jury to decide that difference?I guess it's likely to be hard to tell what sex a child before puberty is from a photo that doesn't include the face.
I see the comparison to Julia M Cameron (althoughI think she would have made it clear what she was getting at - 'Miss Elsie Thompson as "Flora" ' or some such). I don't think the photo is at all obscene by any test that you could write down. No sexual parts are shown; and the child, male or female, does not have breasts even if you could see them. There is something decidedly sensual about the draping of the large flowers over the body - maybe a joint effort by Julia Margaret Cameron and Robert Mapplethorpe? There is a difference between sensuality and sexuality. Imagine the sensation of those large heavy flowers on your body; and just the lushness of the warm environment that lets plants like that grow. I guess the intent is related to that described for 'Child in Forest' - the child in contact with and at home with lush, wild nature.
Were I to take the photo (it's not the sort of photography I do) I would have the flowers in sharper focus.
Editing to add: I looked up cereus, and its a genus of cactus, native to South America; so 'wild' is perhaps not strictly right; these might be garden plants, though I don't think it matters much. What we see in the photo are only the flowers on their long stems.
I mentioned that in my post because the DA may feel the pictures are questionable. But, they don;t feel they can get a unanimous decision in a trial or just feel it's not worth it with 33-year-old photos that have been around so long. There may have been discussions between the DA and museum officials about it and some agreement was made with the museum forgoing using the material and the DA not making charges. Who knows? Also, I don't think anyone from the museum has demanded its return. That indicates maybe a deal was made or they're too frightened to put their personal names on the demand fearing being charged personally. If I was a museum official, I'd be backing off associating with these photos to avoid potential legal involvement. In any case, all these things we should find out later.
I think you answered your own question, didn't you?
Yes, many things can make one uncomfortable, and many things can be arousing. But we're not talking about that here. We are talking about something quite specific, and those analogies don't apply. It's not about war pictures, concentration camps or shoes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?