A distant complicity (NUDE)

FM Forum Rules
Rules: One new topic per day

FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10 11 end

Archive 2006 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

sots
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #1 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

This is entirely off topic... well actually its on topic, but off tangent, but anyway I just wanted to say that I love the 'growling' photo on your website. Fantastic.

Sep 05, 2006 at 07:19 AM

20DNoob
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #2 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Wow, the OP kinda walked up to a hornets nest and gave it a whack with a stick with this thread, lol.

I admit, I was kind of taken aback when I first viewed the pic and intially had a somewhat knee-jerk reaction as never being exposed to images of the like. I see nothing wrong with it myself, just not used to seeing this type of material.

I think the crux of it is that the majority of Americans can't seem to think of the world more than a few miles beyond their noses let alone it's borders. And to top it all off, they generally think the rest of the planet should act the same(sad isn't it).

It may be different if Americans had the opportunity to travel to other countries as easily as those in other parts of the world do. Hopefully, America hasn't infected to much of the world with it's narrow puritanical views to date.

Sep 05, 2006 at 07:42 AM

finster1018
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #3 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Phil Bonner wrote:
If you have to split legal hairs to decide whether or not an image constitutes kiddie porn then in the name of prudence, if not simple common decency, don't splash the image of an unclothed innocent child all over the internet.

well here is a voice of reason and good judgement, but I think it always helps people to know where the boundaries are so they don't come out looking like an idiot when someone says ..."you're going to jail for that!!!"

lordarka wrote:
[The US Supreme Court has made the Miller test substantially broader than you imagine. The objective person standard in this case has been changed from 'the average person in the U.S ' to 'the average person in the community.' Using contemporary community standards, it might be a lot easier to convict someone in Utah, but not so easy to convict that same person in Los Angeles.

Good point Arka, but the community term applies specifically to the first test in the Miller decision and not to the third test which brings the literary, scientific, or social value to the work in question. This test does not restrict itself to the local culture. Thus all three would have to be 'yes' before a work is deemed 'pornographic' in nature. This is exactly why a person wouldn't be convicted in one place and not the other.

We might even go one step further and examine the decision in the 1989 review of Mass v. Oakes which added to the definition defined in NY v Ferber of "lascivious intent" which broadens the definition even more. This of course does not restrict the requirement to the local culture either.

Sep 05, 2006 at 03:01 PM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #4 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

It may be different if Americans had the opportunity to travel to other countries as easily as those in other parts of the world do. Hopefully, America hasn't infected to much of the world with it's narrow puritanical views to date.

Have you ever been anywhere outside the U.S?

Did it ever occur to you that Americans who have been to other parts of the world prefer to deter, rather than to encourage, the trafficking and sexploitation of women and children that routinely occurs abroad?

A line needs to be drawn which protects children. IMO opinion the child's right to privacy is more precious than anyone's right to exploit them or their innocent sexuality. I prefer that the line be drawn giving the child a higher degree of protection rather than giving the individual wider artistic latitude in regards to children's sexuality.

Personally, as an adult I would feel betrayed by my parents/guardians, if I learned they had exposed me as a child to strangers. No matter tjhe artistic intent, some things, like a child'e privacy and innocence, should be regarded as sacred.

BTW I've spent most of my adult life in Asia and speak, read and write the Thai language.

Sep 05, 2006 at 05:36 PM

Vlad_10D
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #5 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

The minute I saw the pictures I thought, hmm... nothing special, IMHO. But then I thought, oh, wait. They are both nude... That'll couse huge debate as usual.

I made it only to the page 4... but I can guess the rest.

Just wanted to state my agreement with those who think that children should be protected from violence, not nudity. Unfortunately religion rules USA and religious moms don't like nudity for some reason. One can argue that if nudity was bad why would god make people born naked? But of course it's pointless to argue with church.

Intrusion of all sort of protective servises into process of childraising is also very sad. How many years those people need to realise the fact that american kids has huge atitude problem, and IQ level is dropping rapidly. All because american kids are given right to tell everybody, including their parents to f**k off while they busy with the process of becaming more and more stupid.

Sep 05, 2006 at 08:04 PM

mhayes5254
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #6 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Phil Bonner

If this were a typical American family it WOULD be exploitive. The boy would be totally confused because he never would have been in such a situation before.

That is not the case here at all. The cultural differences described are well known to all and the context is all-important. Understanding the context (and seeing the expressions/poses) shows that this is not a sexual image, therefore there is nothing to protect. Nudity does not equal sex. (I sadly did not learn until later in life, not a tragedy but a mild disappointment). No sex = no porn.

There is no need to split hairs to justify this image. However once the legal card is played, people (from both sides) start pulling up all kinds of obscure legal crap to justify their view. I am sure that there is legal precedence to “prove” either side of this one.

I am sure France also has many people who would not pose for this picture but I suspect (hope?) that the debate is a bit more reasoned than what we typically experience in the US (INTENTIONALLY inflamed by the liberal AND conservative press, in my view).

Clearly there are children who are in desperate need of protection. The international sex tourist trade involving children is a prime example. France is much more up-front in fighting this than the US, as anyone who has taken a shuttle bus from Charles DeGaul airport will know. However, lets not fall into the trap of casting too wide a net in the name of justice. This is somewhat like the problem of photographers being harassed after 9/11 (photographer = suspicious). I can appreciate that people may not like this picture. However, in my view, there is no way that it can be in any way associated with inappropriate behavior.

Sep 06, 2006 at 02:40 AM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #7 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Adults have the power to give consent to release their image. Kids don't. They are at the mercy of their parents and guardians.

How many adults would give consent to have nude pictures of them circulating around the internet? Not too many that I know of.

Irrespective of the context in which the photo was taken and published, it is now problably residing on dozens of harddrives being circulated and used and abused in the worst depraved context imaginable. But to you that may be "art."

Would you want your child to be the object of such abuse? What makes you think that the child in that photo fully realizes the implications of having his nude image broadcast over the internet? It may or may not be no sex=no porn to you but you would be naive to presume it will not be as artisticaly interpreted and will not abused by others.

Why subject innocent children, even their images, to such depradation? Why
feed the perverted grist mill of these depraved monsters out there? Just so yoi can say you have heroicly pioneered the boundaries of art/porn? Rubbish.

When it is done at the expense of a kid's nude image, there are certainly no heroes here in my book. To the contrary it is exploitation of those too young to fully understand, and who should remain innocent of such understanding.

Use someone who is old enough to give consent to test the boundaries of porn/art..

Sep 06, 2006 at 03:25 AM

andrewhed
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #8 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

I am disgusted to the point of actual physical neausea that this thread is as silly , reduntant, sterotypicical and to me personally Horrifying.

Everyone has thier right to thier opinion. Im all about that.

But please dont base your optionions on one Americans' comments. No one American speaks for me. That im sure of.

I look at this picture and see a Mother and a child, both nude. What the hell is wrong in that? Its art you bunch o freaks! I aint like she's tickleing him with feather!

What is wrong with any mother being nude with thier son ( and no i didnt grow up in a commune, i grew up in really uptight Catholic family, but hell compared to the uptight people that posted that the child is going to be emotionally scarred NOT THAT UPTIGHT)

And to the one English fellow that thanks god He's not here in the US - Spare me your pity. Are you perhaps one of those English folks who counts themselves as "European" only when it suits you? You spending euro's or Pounds Sir? Spare me the "we are so liberal here in the UK" attitude. Ive spent enough time in England to know you cannot sling mud at us Here.

And the Child protection agency. Are they going to come after me if I shoot this of my wife and child? Bring em on. Id be glad to familiarize them with another American tradition we are all famous for...

This forum needs moderation and it needs it bad. It needs it to keep me from running my mouth as much as anyone else. This is a photography forum. Its about art. If you cant take it, go visit a site for a Zoo or something. Just make sure the monkeys are clothed so your kids dont get "emotionally scarred" you imbaciles.

FB - A very different shot from you, and I like it. It is difficult to grasp in regards to your other work, but in my opinion is thematically simular. Many of you nudes are nude but not sexual. This is another one in my opinion.

Child protection. Scarred for life.

Im gonna be sick. You meatballs are the real freaks.

Edited by andrewhed on Sep 06, 2006 at 12:01 AM GMT

Sep 06, 2006 at 04:54 AM

andrewhed
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #9 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

By the way FB , that whole series on your site is really nice. It shows a real connection between mom and child and does it very well. I love it.

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:00 AM

Shelby White
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #10 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

for the people that are complaining about rights, just knock that off and appreciate the quality of these photos.

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:17 AM

SWMorales
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #11 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

andrewhed wrote:
I am disgusted to the point of actual physical neausea that this thread is as silly , reduntant, sterotypicical and to me personally Horrifying.

Everyone has thier right to thier opinion. Im all about that.

But please dont base your optionions on one Americans' comments. No one American speaks for me. That im sure of.

I look at this picture and see a Mother and a child, both nude. What the hell is wrong in that? Its art you bunch o freaks! I aint like she's tickleing him with feather!

What is wrong with any mother being nude with thier son ( and no i didnt grow up in a commune, i grew up in really uptight Catholic family, but hell compared to the uptight people that posted that the child is going to be emotionally scarred NOT THAT UPTIGHT)

And to the one English fellow that thanks god He's not here in the US - Spare me your pity. Are you perhaps one of those English folks who counts themselves as "European" only when it suits you? You spending euro's or Pounds Sir? Spare me the "we are so liberal here in the UK" attitude. Ive spent enough time in England to know you cannot sling mud at us Here.

And the Child protection agency. Are they going to come after me if I shoot this of my wife and child? Bring em on. Id be glad to familiarize them with another American tradition we are all famous for...

This forum needs moderation and it needs it bad. It needs it to keep me from running my mouth as much as anyone else. This is a photography forum. Its about art. If you cant take it, go visit a site for a Zoo or something. Just make sure the monkeys are clothed so your kids dont get "emotionally scarred" you imbaciles.

FB - A very different shot from you, and I like it. It is difficult to grasp in regards to your other work, but in my opinion is thematically simular. Many of you nudes are nude but not sexual. This is another one in my opinion.

Child protection. Scarred for life.

Im gonna be sick. You meatballs are the real freaks.

Edited by andrewhed on Sep 06, 2006 at 12:01 AM GMT

AMEN BROTHER!

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:38 AM

fb101
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #12 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

I said I would not come back on this thread but I've changed my mind and would like to make two points :

M Hayes wrote : I am sure France also has many people who would not pose for this picture but I suspect (hope?) that the debate is a bit more reasoned

I have posted this pix on 5 different french forums : there has been no debate as to childn porn. Considerations were elsewhere and, frankly, that picture didn't attract much attention.

Phil Bonner : Not only did the mother was fully in agrrement with this picture but the original idea came from her. Her son has been asked, he's been told he would pose in the nude ( as well as dressed) and he has been asked three times over the course of about a month. The day before the shoot, Stephie told me "if he is in the least reluctant we won't do it". Not only was he not reluctant but he was anxious to do it (the shoot as such, both dressed and naked).

What does that tell us ?

In my opinion, that he fully embraces her mother's values and that he sees nothing wrong in the making of those images (like most people here). You migh object that he may be too young to have a free will, In which case I will object that you're probably too old (mentally) to have one as well

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:59 AM

lordarka
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #13 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

andrewhed wrote:
Everyone has thier right to thier opinion. Im all about that.[...]

I look at this picture and see a Mother and a child, both nude. What the hell is wrong in that? Its art you bunch o freaks! I aint like she's tickleing him with feather!

So, you profess to respect the right of others to have an opinion, and then qualify those that have an opinion different from yours as 'a bunch o' freaks?' Forgive me if I'm not convinced of your sincere appreciation of other people's views.

Clearly, your seemingly universal assertion that what we see here is art is not something that everyone has assumed a priori. That is part of the discussion, and the content is integral to that discourse!

That doesn't make anyone a freak or a meatball. You're right about one thing though.... your indiscriminate 'running of the mouth' is as deserving of 'moderation' as any of the views on here you disagree with.

And to the one English fellow that thanks god He's not here in the US - Spare me your pity. Are you perhaps one of those English folks who counts themselves as "European" only when it suits you?

Something we can agree on, as Americans....

And the Child protection agency. Are they going to come after me if I shoot this of my wife and child? Bring em on. Id be glad to familiarize them with another American tradition we are all famous for...

People have been taken to court for far less. Fortunately, they didn't introduce the plaintiffs to your unspoken tradition; otherwise they might've been on trial for something far worse than suspected child abuse.

This forum needs moderation and it needs it bad. It needs it to keep me from running my mouth as much as anyone else. This is a photography forum. Its about art. If you cant take it, go visit a site for a Zoo or something. Just make sure the monkeys are clothed so your kids dont get "emotionally scarred" you imbaciles.

Once again, you state as fact what many people here have been debating... whether the content of artist's intent render these as art, so to speak. And you refer to anyone who believes otherwise as an imbecile. So much for respecting the right to have differing opinions...

And if you're going to insult people for being stupid, do make sure you spell the word 'imbecile' correctly. It's good form, and insulates you from snide comebacks like this one.

Arka C.

Sep 06, 2006 at 06:03 AM

andrewhed
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #14 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Arka, I guess your post actually illuminates what I was trying to get across, albeit not in the best or most reasonable way possible. I do respect the opinions of others. I guess what I was trying to say regarding moderation is that if people kept thier comments ( including mine ) in regards to the image and not to cultural morals, I wouldn't be seeing red and going on a typing rage. See, this debate goes on endlessly here, and it's a Photography forum, not a moral forum. My point was that after reading that whole thread, I was drawn right into it myself, and reacted as others have done. im Human. My knee jerk response came from the dribble and debate over cultural morals and the usual "all Americans are repressed, all Europeans are free and don't get caught up that" Makes me feel like that Character from "a fish called wanda" that goes on and on about the English. Im horrified over the generalizations made about whole cultures based on one or two posters. Its BORING ( did i spell that right?)

That doesn't make anyone a freak or a meatball. You're right about one thing though.... your indiscriminate 'running of the mouth' is as deserving of 'moderation' as any of the views on here you disagree with.

Your dead on correct there man. As soon as i typed freak i should have been reminded to stop. Or my post could have been deleted. I admitted it was wrong even in my tirade. I accept that.

I just fail to see how this image can evoke such a bunch of horror, it looks the pictures in Church or Classical art to me. I personally feel its not worth talking about. And you need to be a little closer to the field of Child Protective Services to realize this - They dont have time for stuff like this. They are dealing with really , really horrific stuff. Not nude moms and thier child. Picture the worst. Thats what they do all day. Trust me. I know. Most of them would kill for a case like this, one with a mother who appears to love her child. It would make thier day to screen this out.

And come on now, meatball and freak are kiddie insults, like calling someone silly or a bonehead. It wasnt like I referred to them as treading water in a sea of repressed sexuality. But your right, it is not indicitive or respective of other peoples right to an opinion. You are correct.

As for the spelling, ah....this is a photo forum. It's not a spelling bee, although I would grant you when calling someone stupid you might want to spell it correctly....Darn I hate it when Im just flat out wrong.

Thing is , there are 24 pages to this thread and very little said about the photo. But then again , thats what this forum is now isnt it. A bunch of keyboard warriors, me included. What a shame. If politics and insults (and as admitted I AM GUILTY) were kept off here, we could debate the artistic value of the image.

Sep 06, 2006 at 03:17 PM

zoomzoomrpm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #15 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

True art disturbs from time to time. There is no need for you to defend your art against narrow minded individuals. Your pattern of producing quality images speaks for itself.
Carry on!

Rich

Sep 06, 2006 at 04:07 PM

zync
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #16 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

mhayes5254 wrote:
Clearly there are children who are in desperate need of protection. The international sex tourist trade involving children is a prime example. France is much more up-front in fighting this than the US, as anyone who has taken a shuttle bus from Charles DeGaul airport will know. However, lets not fall into the trap of casting too wide a net in the name of justice. This is somewhat like the problem of photographers being harassed after 9/11 (photographer = suspicious). I can appreciate that people may not like this picture. However, in my view, there is no way that it can be in any way associated with inappropriate behavior.

Like Francois I am done with this thread, but I would like to mention that you might want to read Susan Sontag's work regarding the photographer. She mentions this photographer = suspicious debate way before 9/11. I would also like to mention that while I don't always completely agree with her views, it is an important read. You'd read her in nearly any contemporary art history class, dealing with photo or even other subjects.

Edited by zync on Sep 06, 2006 at 07:36 PM GMT

Sep 06, 2006 at 04:30 PM

MSB1
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #17 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

zoomzoomrpm wrote:
True art disturbs from time to time. There is no need for you to defend your art against narrow minded individuals.
Rich

It amazes me that morals and character and principles are looked down upon these days, and that anything goes as long as it is labeled as "true art".

And as far as bashing Americans for being prudes.... good for us. Bash away. I am glad we still have some sense of decency in our society, and that we can stand up for what is right. It is one of the things that has made America and American's great. Lord help us if we become like the rest of the world.

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:29 PM

fb101
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #18 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

MSB1, what if you told us what you think of the picture, and if possible, why ?

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:31 PM

zync
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #19 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

lordarka wrote:And if you're going to insult people for being stupid, do make sure you spell the word 'imbecile' correctly. It's good form, and insulates you from snide comebacks like this one.

Arka C.

Haha, someone else said it. I didn't want to be that crass

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:53 PM

SWMorales
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #20 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

MSB1 wrote:
zoomzoomrpm wrote:
True art disturbs from time to time. There is no need for you to defend your art against narrow minded individuals.
Rich

It amazes me that morals and character and principles are looked down upon these days, and that anything goes as long as it is labeled as "true art".

And as far as bashing Americans for being prudes.... good for us. Bash away. I am glad we still have some sense of decency in our society, and that we can stand up for what is right. It is one of the things that has made America and American's great. Lord help us if we become like the rest of the world.

Just like Warren Jeffs and the FLDS right? True Moral pillars are us Americans. These people are great example of self-righteousness and unwavering morals and decency. How bout that one woman who pickets millitary funerals with her Church and yells that the fallen soldier “will burn in hell”, and that “God hates (them)”. She’s standing up for her MORALS. She and her family are standing up for what they think is right. Lord help us if we become like these people. Id much rather be an artistic LIBERAL (God forgive me!) European than a polygamist American or a bible thumping hate mongrel.

That sir is also a part of America, dont discount it when proudly waving your flag and ALL the things it stands for infront of our faces.

Sep 06, 2006 at 05:58 PM

zync
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #21 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Sep 06, 2006 at 06:02 PM

Coops_101
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #22 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

fantastic work, as usual Francois...

Sep 06, 2006 at 07:01 PM

Vlad_10D
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #23 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

And what seems decent and moral in one subculture may very well look stupid and totally pointless from outside

Like religious America's fight against nipple and (god forbid) penis on TV... while killing and torturing is totally okay.

Sep 06, 2006 at 07:08 PM

liberator
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #24 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Wow... I read through 20 pages of this before I couldn't take it any longer. I mean... it was interesting (at least for 20 pages) to see how passionate people are about this subject. It was fun for a while - some of the comments made me laugh, some made me embarrased for the author then... somewhere on Page 20, it just got old. Sorry to add to the comments of an already long thread.

Great work - loved the lighting, composition and processing. Thanks for the opportunity to view and comment.

Sep 06, 2006 at 07:11 PM

Allen42
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #25 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

zync wrote:
And please don't stand up for being prudish, it is not a good thing.

You understand that's pretty subjective, right? One person's "prude" is another's "conservative" or even "modest." If my kids want to call me a prude because I won't let them make out (or whatever today's euphemism is) with a girl on my couch, label me "Mr. Mega-Prude". :-)

Sep 06, 2006 at 08:16 PM


FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10 11 end