A distant complicity (NUDE)

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Rules: One new topic per day

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Image Upload

1 2 3 … 8

10 11 end

Archive 2006 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

sergio saurio
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #1 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Hello Francois:

Wonderful, creative and artistic Portraits.

Cheers, Sergio.

Sep 06, 2006 at 08:23 PM

lordarka
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.9 #2 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

andrewhed wrote:
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.

That's where it pays to be understanding of other perspectives. I seriously doubt you could find a church or classical painting that portrays its subjects in this way. Maybe that makes it pioneering... maybe that makes it out of bounds. The point is, the content, and the moral discussion surrounding it, is integral to any discussion of the work as art. it's not like we can debate brushstrokes or lighting for pages and pages! besides, art is defined as much by its content as it is presentation.

Not nude moms and thier child. Picture the worst. Thats what they do all day

I'm not talking about CPS. Believe it or not, this sort of image can get you attention you may not want from law enforcement or others. Don't be so dismissive just because you can't see what makes others uncomfortable.

Thing is , there are 24 pages to this thread and very little said about the photo.

Quite the contrary. A lot has been said about the photo. The photo causes a lot of people to react in different ways, and those reactions matter more than a stale discussion about how big of a softbox was used.

Arka C.

Sep 06, 2006 at 08:57 PM

dennysb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #3 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Good grief,

Is this still going......

Sep 06, 2006 at 10:36 PM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #4 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Once again the so called "liberals" who profess the loudest to be broad-minded, including the OP, have exhibited the least tolerance of others' views and have resorted to the worst personal insults and infantile name calling.

Grow up. If you want ot make a point about porn then leave the kids out of it. Use consenting adults, not kids who do not know any better, shouldn't know any better and shouldn't be exposed to this at such an early age in order to learn about it. It's sick.

It's photography like this and creepy people lie you that give photography a bad name.

Sep 06, 2006 at 11:09 PM

joekraft
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.9 #5 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

The fact is, Europe is dying. It can't sustain itself, so maybe we don't want to emulate it.

Secondly, I can go to singapore and offend everyone by offering to shake with my right hand and call it performance art, but that don't make it art. Using cultural differences to create friction is an easy out. And no, I'm not saying art doesn't cross cultural boundaries. But if you are going to talk about it's ability to promote discussion, to me a truer test is whether it promotes discussion within the culture it was created. The OP said themselves this wouldn't cause a stir in France, so IMHO he is riding the coattails of this conversation to try and attribute some artistic meaning that wasn't there originally. Just my opinion

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.

Sep 06, 2006 at 11:17 PM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #6 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Allen42 wrote:
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". :-)

Very true. However, I mean prude in the sense of "these people are nude and that makes it wrong."

In your case it would depend on a few things. How old are these children? What is the reason behind your rule?

Obviously it IS subjective, but to some degree it has to be objective for this image. First of all, this particular kid isn't even nude.

If you won't let your kids (boys I assume) make out on the couch with girls, that might make you an uncool dad, but I digress

It may not seem so but I truly meant that in jest!

Phil Bonner wrote:
Once again the so called "liberals" who profess the loudest to be broad-minded, including the OP, have exhibited the least tolerance of others' views and have resorted to the worst personal insults and infantile name calling.

I have been completely tolerant of others and I am pretty liberal, thank you. It's such blanket statements that make us look bad to the rest of the world. If we can't realize our own diversity, how can we expect people thousands and thousands of miles away to?

Sep 07, 2006 at 12:34 AM

EltonTeng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #7 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

zync wrote:

I disagree. We are no greater than anyone else. We are no worse than anyone else. Every culture has their virtues and their vices. And please don't stand up for being prudish, it is not a good thing.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh don't judge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are judging others as soon as you take a stand. Please do not violate the 11th Commandment - thou shall not judge.

Oops I don't mean you to be religious or anything.

The notion of non-judgment/all points of view equally valid really enhances people's need to do whatever that please themselves. We're all guilty of looking to fulfill our own needs, make ourselves look good, and do whatever looks good to ourselves that we don't care about anyone or anything else.

We are all guilty of selfishness as such and there is really no way to eradicate it from the human condition.

I love it that each time moral discussions come up the cults like the FLDS and Heaven's gate become leading examples all that is wrong with religions. Should we also mention Communists as the ultimate atheist organization that is responsible for killing the most people ever?

Edited by EltonTeng on Sep 06, 2006 at 05:28 PM GMT

Sep 07, 2006 at 01:03 AM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #8 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Believe me I am all for diversity. We should err by being too modest, respecting children's privacy totally and treating them with too much decency, rather than to err by being overly diverse and reckless with our children's innocence.

Just my unwelcome opinion. I can see this photgrapher only wants to hear praise and hero worship.

BS!

Sep 07, 2006 at 01:15 AM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #9 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

EltonTeng wrote:
zync wrote:

I disagree. We are no greater than anyone else. We are no worse than anyone else. Every culture has their virtues and their vices. And please don't stand up for being prudish, it is not a good thing.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh don't judge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are judging others as soon as you take a stand. Please do not violate the 11th Commandment - thou shall not judge.

Oops I don't mean you to be religious or anything.

I wondered if someone would say that. It's the 21st century. The original puritans have been dead for nearly 400 years

Nudity is not wrong.

Phil Bonner wrote:
Believe me I am all for diversity. We should err by being too modest, respecting children's privacy totally and treating them with too much decency, rather than to err by being overly diverse and reckless with our children's innocence.

Just my unwelcome opinion. I can see this photgrapher only wants to hear praise and hero worship.

BS!

I hope you're not mistaking his leave of this thread as not being open to opinions. He put this image up and has accepted all of the comments so far. He has not been rude—which is more than I can say for your last statement.

No one has said that we should take children's innocence away. This kid is not even nude! I've seen more nudity in people wearing clothes!

Sep 07, 2006 at 01:19 AM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #10 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

The OP, not I, resorted to personal insults in this thread:

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

If you or he cannot tolerate divergent viewpoints then you should avoid U.S. majority websites.

What I am saying is that children have a right to privacy that is not subject to anyone's artistic whim or other reason to exploit and to violate - not even their parents. That is one reason that children are taken from their parents.

BTW did Roman Polanski flee statutory rape charges in the U.S. to France because France is such a bastion of protection of children's rights? Such nice open minded people those French.

Sep 07, 2006 at 02:05 AM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #11 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Phil,
I believe you left out the smiley in Francois' comment that made it obvious he was making light of the situation. I can tolerate divergent viewpoints—unless they're utterly stupid—and as you can easily research I have not made a single statement of ill will towards anyone in this thread, even the comments that were obviously designed to push people's buttons.

This image has nothing to do with Roman Polanski—I know nothing of charges against him nor do I care—or the French, though it does seem that you are equating the French as a people with their government which is just wrong. While a democratic government is a representative body, it may represent as much as 100% of voting residents or slightly over 50% of voting residents—in our case with George Bush. It is the government's decision on whether to deport criminals or harbor them.

Everyone has a right to privacy that isn't subject to artistic whim (and yes I do realize that permission is needed to publish the image of a child unlike adults). I think we might all want to go back and take a look at the image that was linked back on page one of this thread. This kid would be more naked on a beach in a speedo, and yet if this were a picture of a boy in a speedo on a beach standing next to his nude mother no one would say a single word as far as child abuse goes. Also, as far as having the child strip to be photographed, it is entirely possible that he did so only with his mother—as they have already noted to be living at home—posed and Francois could have come in, adjusted lighting and pose, and taken the picture without ever seeing the boy nude.

Sep 07, 2006 at 02:55 AM

Donquixoate
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #12 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

I don't see anything wrong about those pics. It's art... we respect the beauty.
fb101 I wonder how could you have those kind of idea... awesome. I love all of your pics.

Sep 07, 2006 at 03:20 AM

EltonTeng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #13 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

zync wrote:
Phil,
I believe you left out the smiley in Francois' comment that made it obvious he was making light of the situation. I can tolerate divergent viewpoints—unless they're utterly stupid—and as you can easily research I have not made a single statement of ill will towards anyone in this thread, even the comments that were obviously designed to push people's buttons.

Boy - not very tolerant at all if you feel it is utterly stupid? Isn't his perspective just as valid, he may have a different cultural upbringing compared to you?

Still judging to me. Don't judge - you are being intolerant.

Sep 07, 2006 at 03:35 AM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #14 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

EltonTeng wrote:
Boy - not very tolerant at all if you feel it is utterly stupid? Isn't his perspective just as valid, he may have a different cultural upbringing compared to you?

Still judging to me. Don't judge - you are being intolerant.

I did not meant to imply that his point was utterly stupid. I explained what I meant by 'utterly stupid' by the end of the sentence you quoted. I have actually explained that I agree with him and that it is only the degree that we differ upon. We both agree children's rights should be protected.

Having discourse where I explain my point as compared to someone else's is not being intolerant or judging. If I do not explain my point then why should I say anything? Please do not think that I am being intolerant of you, I am merely asking you a question. I have never been accused of being intolerant. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the world. I have not flamed anyone for their beliefs. I may have said that those beliefs should not be aspired to—such as prudery—but I did not verbally assault anyone for bringing up their point. I have even tolerated comments that have only been posted to rile people in this thread. Are you just attempting to rile me up? I hope not as you will surely be wasting your time and energy.

I have accepted your view. That does not mean that I have to agree with it.

Disclaimer: If you only wrote that I was intolerant due to mistaking my explanation about 'utterly stupid,' disregard everything after my first paragraph.

Edited by zync on Sep 06, 2006 at 11:21 PM GMT (Reason: Added disclaimer)

Sep 07, 2006 at 03:51 AM

darinp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.9 #15 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

not art. it's simply not appropriate. Nudity is not porn, but naked women wrapped up around their naked son isn't art.

Sep 07, 2006 at 04:03 AM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #16 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

darinp wrote:
not art. it's simply not appropriate. Nudity is not porn, but naked women wrapped up around their naked son isn't art.

Well, I guess I'll never leave this thread as I had supposed. This thread might have reached its limit of discussion—I hope it hasn't—but I may as well ride it out to its completion at this point.

That said...

Whether something is art or not is entirely subjective. Why don't you offer a reason that you think a naked woman wrapped around her naked son isn't art. There are similar orientalist images from undeveloped parts of the world that would be considered art by most. Why is this image not art? What if Francois were entertaining the ideas of orientalism? What about the image is not appropriate?

My point is that we should not ever make assertions without at least giving some reasoning behind it. That's like telling someone 'nice image' without explaining what about the image works. I understand knee jerk comments, but if we are to be taken seriously, we should provide reasoning behind our comments. Think of anyone you admire on this forum. Do they ever say things like 'nice image' without explaining why they like the image? I doubt it.

Understand that I truly want to hear your reasoning. I know it will never coincide with my views, but I would like to at least know why you think what you think.

Sep 07, 2006 at 04:32 AM

fb101
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #17 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

naked women wrapped up around their naked son isn't art

I have no problem with that statement for I have but a vague idea of what "art" is. I know that a pack of dried noodles bought at my grocer's is not art, but some people have succesfully turned a can of soup into art....so....

To the best of my abilities and using one of those vague statements which lead nowhere, I can guess art is what people make of what they see, or hear, or touch, or taste, or a combination of all those... Here, we have a clear majority of people who seem to to think it is art indeed (I think it too, by the way) and some who don't. Usually, that is the way an art form is recognized (or labelized) as such. May not last, though...Some famous artists of the past are today seen as mere donkeys painting with their tail dipped in a pot of paint.

Phil Bonner. If I have offended you, please accept my apologies.

I would however underline the fact that by admiting that I have offended you, your whole argumentation weakens a lot, for it seems you're juste taking a personal revenge...

If I set that suspicion aside, concerning a potentail invasion ot the child privacy, who are you to judge if it has been invaded or not? You don't have to believe me, but the child has been asked more than twice if he felt like doing this. His mother was very concerned to be sure if he felt like doing it or not. During the shot he had a lot of fun and showed real desire to do "more". We shot a full hour and when I decided to stop he asked to continue. He felt good about the whole thing.

And if you argue that he is still naked on the Internet and that this is the whole point, I would answer a) he is not naked to the point of indecency ( take a bimbo in a bikini and tell me a bout decency) b) nakedness does not equate invasion of privacy.

Sep 07, 2006 at 05:38 AM

gheller
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.9 #18 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

I gotta put a chime in here. technically, it is fine (lighting, background, etc.)

The most profound thougt in all 28 pages (IMO, of course) is what sick, twisted-minded people could do with it.

for that reason (and that alone) i wouldn't have posted it. no matter what your feelings about the image (art vs. not art) is irrelevant.

greg

Sep 07, 2006 at 06:57 AM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #19 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

gheller wrote:
I gotta put a chime in here. technically, it is fine (lighting, background, etc.)

The most profound thougt in all 28 pages (IMO, of course) is what sick, twisted-minded people could do with it.

for that reason (and that alone) i wouldn't have posted it. no matter what your feelings about the image (art vs. not art) is irrelevant.

greg

Sick and twisted people can do a lot with a little. Some people get off on just images of children, so should we never post images of children smiling? Honestly, the thought of some pervert getting off on an image of my (future) child(ren) is a little off-putting, but honestly I will never know what people do behind closed doors and I'm not going to sit around imagining it.

It's kind of like the tree falling in the forrest, only I'll never find the wood. Honestly it really doesn't make a difference whether someone gets off on an image as long as they don't then post about it afterward, you know? Sure it's completely sick and wrong, but like many things, I'll never know for sure that it exists.

Sep 07, 2006 at 07:13 AM

gheller
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.9 #20 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

you make a valid point, Joe...where to draw the line is a tough one. i guess an image of a grown woman with a naked non-infant boy stepped over the line for me.

Sep 07, 2006 at 07:21 AM

zync
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #21 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

gheller wrote:
you make a valid point, Joe...where to draw the line is a tough one. i guess an image of a grown woman with a naked non-infant boy stepped over the line for me.

Thanks. That's always the tough part. I generally ask that question rhetorically, since it always feels like a cop out question. Someone always asks "where do you draw the line?" Really you just sparked my thoughts about perverts and what they can do with imagery.

I understand your feelings, which I don't entirely agree with, but they're perfectly valid. I would like to thank you for being one of the most agreeable people on this thread however. I hope that we should agree on something else one day in the future

Sep 07, 2006 at 07:29 AM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #22 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

fb101, you were correct when you said that children do not have their own will insofar as they are not yet intellectually and emotionally qualified to make such decisions for themselves.

That is why they call them "children below the age of consent." By U.S. law they cannot have sex, marry, vote, purchase alchohol, operate a motor vehicle etc. Therefore, I do not believe they are empowered to decide for themselves whether or not to pose and perform nude for public display.

IMO any adult who leads a child to perform nude or to otherwise pose nude for public display has committed an act of moral turpitude that is not mitgated in the least by any incidental artistic appearance of such a display.

fb101, I do not need your apology to validate my opinion of you or of your exploitation of juvenile sexuality.

Sep 07, 2006 at 08:13 AM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.9 #23 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

Phil Bonner wrote:
That is why they call them "children below the age of consent." By U.S. law they cannot have sex, marry, vote, purchase alchohol, operate a motor vehicle etc.

I did not see anything like this in the OPs picture and I think such posts are insulting.

European churches are full of paintings with naked children/angel, they stand for innocence and have nothing to do with child abuse. There is a difference!

Sep 07, 2006 at 09:08 AM

EltonTeng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #24 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

zync wrote:
Having discourse where I explain my point as compared to someone else's is not being intolerant or judging. If I do not explain my point then why should I say anything? Please do not think that I am being intolerant of you, I am merely asking you a question. I have never been accused of being intolerant. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the world. I have not flamed anyone for their beliefs. I may have said that those beliefs should not be aspired to—such as prudery—but I did not verbally assault anyone for bringing up their point. I have even tolerated comments that have only been posted to rile people in this thread. Are you just attempting to rile me up? I hope not as you will surely be wasting your time and energy.

I have accepted your view. That does not mean that I have to agree with it.

Disclaimer: If you only wrote that I was intolerant due to mistaking my explanation about 'utterly stupid,' disregard everything after my first paragraph.

Edited by zync on Sep 06, 2006 at 11:21 PM GMT (Reason: Added disclaimer)

Each time you outwardly express an opinion based on your internal set of core values you are in fact, expressing intolerance towards another view. Your tone of expression has nothing to do with it. Intolerance in any form is not acceptable, even when it comes across calm and even as you have been. Surely a Klan member will calmly discuss with you his equally valid perspective.

You have invalidated the Puritans (dead for 400 years?), those people who feel nudity is wrong, implied that I do not understand the world, reserved the right to be intolerant to the utterly stupid, and openly disagreed with several people on the board.

Those of us who had been through the UC system in the Left Coast here know that wherever we encounter disagreement, we should take one of the following course of action:

- be a pacifist and walk away from the situation
- turn the page
- shut off the TV or the radio/change the station or channel
- click on the back button of your Internet browser
- look to the Euros for guidance and acceptance.

Please do understand that I am trying to help you to become more liberal & progressive and thus I am taking the risk of coming across as intolerant or insincere myself. Obviously you're disagreeing with me so I will cease my efforts.

Sep 07, 2006 at 01:35 PM

Phil Bonner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.9 #25 · A distant complicity (NUDE)

did not see anything like this in the OPs picture and I think such posts are insulting.

European churches are full of paintings with naked children/angel, they stand for innocence and have nothing to do with child abuse. There is a difference!

Just stating the plain facts about "children under the age of consent." How could you find that insulting? Is compulsory schooling insulting too? Do you think that, given the choice to excersize their free will, kids would go to school everyday?

Back when the churches were being filled with depictions of naked children, there was also forced child labor as well. Chilren were subjected to horrible abuse. In lieu of any child protection whatsoever, who knows what else children were subjected to in those days.

I would think that even French society has instituted some reforms to better protect their children than during Medievel Times.

Or, are you and the OP suggesting that we should return to those Medievel Times and routinely have our children entertain us wirth public displays of nudity? Not my kid buddy. And if you did it to your kid then I would feel compelled to act to protect your kid from you too.

The question remains: Is this child nudity somehow enlightening or artisticaly liberating as you and the OP would suggest.

IMO it's child exploitation, and in this case, for cheap shock effect.

Sep 07, 2006 at 02:49 PM


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