I think this is an interesting and appropriate discussion. I do wish it could be done without name calling blah blah blah. I agree that America is too up tight, but that doesn't mean that the original post reply was intended to be so. Someone mentioned Jock Sturges. Indeed he did run into trouble (see below) but was cleared of 'child porn' charges. Even the Barnes and Noble caught the heat. Maybe photographers can use the boards to articulate a difference between porn and art and THEN educate the masses.

(Below is a direct quote from Salon.com)

Not surprisingly, Sturges has faced legal threats throughout his career. In April 1990, FBI agents raided his studio, confiscated his equipment and work, and charged him with child pornography. Both the art world and the naturist communities publicly came to his defense. After more than a year of investigation, a grand jury threw out the case against Sturges. An expensive lawsuit eventually got Sturges his work and equipment back, though some had been damaged beyond repair.

In the mid 1990s, his work came under attack again, this time from christian conservatives led by Operation Rescue (led by Randall Terry, best known for anti-abortion protests) and Focus on the Family (led by James Dobson). Protesters picketed major bookstores around the country for carrying books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton and others which included photographs of nude adolescents. At some stores, protesters committed civil disobedience by openly vandalizing the books. And in two cases (both in the South), they managed to convince prosecutors to indict Barnes & Noble bookstores on child pornography and obscenity charges. Again, Sturges received strong public support from artistic and civil libertarian organizations. Sturges himself aggressively defended his work in a series of talks and interviews.

It is funny how we in the US of A try to protect children from natural things such as Nudity, but instead we feel it is okay to display on public TV un-natural things such as a guy getting his head blown off or his throat slit in half on a TV show. Go figure.. Why doesn't Child Protective services go after stuff like that in the media, but instead waste tax payer's money trying to dictate how parents should raise their kids. It is sickening to think that peopel are afraid to spank their kids in public when they do something wrong. And you wonder why we have so many children who has no care for law and order in society, its becuase they have agencies such as Child Protective Services preventing their parents from parenting them. In my honest and humble opinion, all those working for Child Protective Services don't care about the child, they care more about what they need to do to a child and parent so that their "effort" would land them 5 minutes of fame on the local TV news.

I have to say, that I do not like the photos either. Just my opinion. I agree that the child is too old to be naked with his mother, or anyone else. There is nothing 'natural' about a naked child of that age.... short of it being shot in their natural surrounding's in a place like Africa, I don't think its natural for France either. Would this scene play out naturally anywhere?

This is not to say I don't understand it. I do. I get the whole last-hour/desperation-protect-him-with-my-last-breath theme. but I think it could have been conveyed without nudity. It's just 'easier' with nudity. An un-nessisary additive that basically just distracts from the point of the image.

All this being said, what does this do to the child? Does it tell him it's ok to be naked and see older authority female figures naked? At his age, he absorbs everything, and if mom says it's ok, in his mind it's ok. What if he gets curious as to what others look like naked? Is it ok for him to pick up a penthouse magazine? Why not? He's seen his mother naked. UP close and right next to things. What's the difference? How do you explain the difference to a child his age?

And yes, America is a little up-tight. That's America. Europe is looser. China is WAY uptight. It's a cultural thing. Just because we're uptight does not make us wrong.

shootThis wrote:
And yes, America is a little up-tight. That's America. Europe is looser. China is WAY uptight. It's a cultural thing. Just because we're uptight does not make us wrong.


It does not make us right either..

Hangman,

I think you are having one of those knee jerk reactions, no offense I hope. CPS exists because dead children are found in garbage containers in basements. In Chicago. Because abused kids act out later, and shoot up schools. Because when we did not have CPS parents would beat and abuse their kids, and now those kids are parents today, and DON'T have a clue as to how to parent children, so they resort to what they know, and the cycle starts over.

I don't think a key ingredient in parenting is spanking or any other hitting. Kids today, or 'yesterday' have no respect for the law because, they were raised not re respect anything. When was the last time you heard of an Amish kid shooting up a school? Now or ever in the past. They don't need CPS, now or then, because of how they raise their children. And yes spankings are probably used in their parenting practices, but in limited usage.

As far as public TV is concerned, everyone likes to cry atrocious violence, but where is it? is it on your main channels or on the extra cable channels that you have chosen? And who lets their children watch that stuff at an inappropriate age? You, the parent. The difference is choice. You can choose to ignore your child while you're on the computer and let them watch the sopranos or you can sit down and do something with them. Sorry, rambling now.....

And another thing that makes me laugh about living here in america is that my wife will sometimes breastfeed in public if the baby is hungry.. and even though she has special breast feeding shirts that show absolutely nothing many people will come up and ask her to stop because its indecent, even though most of the women that come up to my wife (which my wife is wearing a long dress, or long skirt, past her ankles and a nice short sleeve non-low cut breast feeding top) they are wearing halter tops with their belly button rings showing and their boobs pushed up almost to beer maiden standards (think wenches from the middle ages)... I don't get it.. here in america the breast is not for feeding our children its for selling beer! Now don't get me wrong, I love my country but I am sometimes confounded by its hypocracy!

Charles

hangman wrote:
It is funny how we in the US of A try to protect children from natural things such as Nudity, but instead we feel it is okay to display on public TV un-natural things such as a guy getting his head blown off or his throat slit in half on a TV show. Go figure.. Why doesn't Child Protective services go after stuff like that in the media, but instead waste tax payer's money trying to dictate how parents should raise their kids. It is sickening to think that peopel are afraid to spank their kids in public when they do something wrong. And you wonder why we have so many children who has no care for law and order in society, its becuase they have agencies such as Child Protective Services preventing their parents from parenting them. In my honest and humble opinion, all those working for Child Protective Services don't care about the child, they care more about what they need to do to a child and parent so that their "effort" would land them 5 minutes of fame on the local TV news.

Wow. So many informed and edifying opinions on internet forums! Child abuse should not be stopped but TV violence needs to be censored? People work in child services in search of fame on local TV news? In any case Child Protective Services aren't the people who censor media be if child porn or violent TV They use a tiny bit of taxpayer money to try to stop children from being harmed or killed.

Anyway I agree the images in question are perfectly legal, but do think it is a bit creepy given the age of the kid.

Charlemagne; too funny! Good for your wife though. I hope she tells the to sod off. I think it's fantastic that she breast feeds. It's 10 times better for the child. But a lot more work for mom. Good for her.

Millsbury. Great points.

what amuses me are the posts that say they don't like it because a - the child is too old or B - its not natural.

then the quick look to the left and of course the location is United States on every one of them.

I was born here and lived here all my life but I have a european view on the world I guess. I find the images powerful and not a thing 'wrong' with it.

Some of you people probably shower with your bathing suits on when nobody is in the house. At least thats how it sounds just to hear you speak.

At least my bathing suit is a speedo...just like the European old guys. I'm not uptight about nudity. I think it's great, but I guess I don't understand the overall point of the shot. I agree it's well done (lighting, etc) but I guess I'll have to dig out the college art books to gain a better understanding of the image.

Francois, Ilove "The cry of the jungle" Great expression!!
Also like "The little devil".
And I agree, the composition of one of the images reminds me of "La pieta".
You must be laughing your head off reading this crazy discussion.

Hello everyone...Sorry to be so late in answering, but I posted this pix just before going to sleep and wake up just now....

I am not so innocent as to think that this picture would not create a debate, but I didn't expect it to be so intense with so many participants.

FACTS : Stephie is not my wife but that is her 6 years old child to be seen here. Stephie - no one who knows my work will be surpised by that - has no qualms about nudity. She is proud of what she does and shows all the pictures made by her photographs, on a regular basis, to her two child ( 6 and 3) who freely comment them. She says : "l will not make a picture that I wouldn't like to show to my kids". In their home, like most people, they live dressed but are often in the nude. In the morning the two kids run naked in her bed where she is naked too. There is nothing more natural and, though I've never witnessed it, probably nothing more beautiful.

INTENTIONS : Obviously, in my mind, this pix as well as the whole serie is about the different facts of motherly love, nothing else. Nudity may have sexual connotations to some, but in my mind it also have connotations of transparency, healthynes, open-mindedness. Nothing fosters love, true love, pure love as well as nakedness.

COMMENTS : what strikes me is that the discussion is not as much about the photo that about yourselves as Americans. I found this conversation, by and large, of a very high and candid level. Who are we ? Are we right to be what we are? These are sane questions asked by sane people. I am very proud that this picture was the starting point of this discussion. I believe that it is what good art should do. On that angle -the ability of a work of art to foster a debate - this is probably the best work I've done....

Thanks to all for telling me that

Your facts: That honestly just seems very strange to me. Just like it seems strange to you that we call it a trunk, and you call it a boot. so I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

Intentions: I would not associated nakedness with love quite so directly... not like I would associate it with passion or desire... which is what most of your nude photos usually convey... I don't mean to be critical but it seems you use nudity as a pretty broad brush to cover many things in many of your photos.

Comments: I know what you mean. due to 9-11 we as Americans are not sure who, or what we are. Half of us are terrified, half are mad, and some are something in between, but in all cases it's all new to us, and we're trying to find our way, and find out who we are. We demand our freedom, but want our protection. And those two collide in many aspects, on many different 'fronts'.

Shoot this :

Facts : it takes not-quite-usual poeple to have an original vision that some call "art". Stéphie is certainly one of those. I have never said she is mainstream

Intentions : Nakedness means many things. Not just sex. That's all I mean.

Comments : I like your analysis and I agree with it. I just wouldn't date the trauma o 9-11-2001 but to 12-02-1941 (If i'm not mistaken in my dates), Pearl Harbor..

fb101:

Facts: I like, and agree with the first part. I am strangely glad to hear she is not mainstream. But along with that, wouldn't that make this shoot that much more unnatural. But I suppose you can repeat the first part to answer that, but I would not agree with that..... of course that comes down to a matter of personal taste.

Comments: Thank you for remembering that date as well, with the usual animosity America receives it begins to feel like we're kind of alone, and people forget that we have taken our lumps as well. But I would not date it back to then though. It was pretty different. Back then, while we were in shock, and hurt, we had a direct enemy we could face, and fight, and eventually defeated, and we got closure, and felt pretty good about it, being one of the victors. but with 9-11 it came out of nowhere, and our enemy is not so obvious, and to make it worse, the enemy could be our own neighbor, and the next threat could be the next airliner flying over our house. It's kind of terrifying. But there's the gov't right there to say, "Don't worry Michael, we will protect you... we'll just need to take some of your civil liberties away to do it".

Whoa... sorry for the rambling.

I suppose my overall point is this: Would the photo have had the impact if they were clothed? Maybe, but certainly not as much. But I don't think the nudity helped tell the story, it just seems like it was thrown in to make the photo stand out that much more. but again, that is my personal opinion based on my culture.

I suppose the nudity is just too much of a stumbling block for us Americans to see the photo as you see it. where you might see it as a small percentage of the photo, we see it as a large percentage of the photo, and that unbalances the photo for us, and then we don't understand it the way you wanted it to be seen. I guess we just see things differently.

We probably do, yes...

But I'm no innocent. The nudity is a major part of the pix and was intended so. But with no hidden agenda. It is what it is : a nude that does not mean sex, but which means love. Is there less love to be seen, or a different love when mother and hild are dressed ? I think so, yes. But it is for you to say when you watch the serie on my site...

Nice shot.

Pirate wrote:
My wife and I were looking at this shoot and she let me know quickly that in this country, you'd go to jail for this content. She works for Child Protective Services for the state. And due to the age of the child I'd remove this if I were you. Don't mean to be an ass, just looking out !

I am sure that in you country you don't have no more "free" places in prisons.
So no more space for him.
You have put millions of people in prisons and even more are homeless.
And if you are such hypocrite or you just don't know what the porn is; go to porn shop.

Kind Regards,
Damir Spanic

hangman wrote:
It is funny how we in the US of A try to protect children from natural things such as Nudity, but instead we feel it is okay to display on public TV un-natural things such as a guy getting his head blown off or his throat slit in half on a TV show. Go figure.. .

Very interesting post and interesting replies. Firstly I like the lighting of the shot but not the pose so much. It looks a little strained to me in the way the boy is lying. I like the pose of the mother however.

As for the furore I cant believe this could be taken as porn. Why is the natural state of the human form so difficult for people? The important issue here is intent - and the intent has nothing to do with sex.

I agree with hangman and deplore the overload of senseless violence we recieve here from US tv. It seems every night there is a csi style show with serial killers, disections and murder. I believe this has an enormous impact on people and is of far greater concern than nudity.

In Australia we have a very liberal society which has of late been getting more and more paranoid and right wing due to American influence. I only hope that it is a passing phase and common sense prevails.

Nice post, I think anything that stirs the emotions and creates social commentary such as this should be encouraged.

Cheers, Dean


Edited by deanwh on Sep 05, 2006 at 12:18 PM GMT

Wow, unlike everyone else who seems bothered by opinions in this thread, I find all of the opinions on either side VERY interesting. At first glance of the photo I did not see anything wrong with it. It is natural for people to be nude, maybe not in out culture (USA) but as human being in general (we are not born with clothes). I am not disturbed by the photos, BUT, I pose this situation / question.

A father has every bit of love that a mother has for his children. I know being a father of a three year old girl. So...

Would this image work if it was a man holding his 6 year old daughter, both nude?

savone wrote:
Would this image work if it was a man holding his 6 year old daughter, both nude?

It would for me. In fact it would probably work better for me as a father of two girls.

I suspect that if this image were posted on a European based site (hopefully it will be) that it wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
If this image would seriously be against the law in the States (and I'm hoping it wouldn't) then you guys are seriously out of whack.

malum wrote:
savone wrote:
Would this image work if it was a man holding his 6 year old daughter, both nude?

It would for me. In fact it would probably work better for me as a father of two girls.

I suspect that if this image were posted on a European based site (hopefully it will be) that it wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
If this image would seriously be against the law in the States (and I'm hoping it wouldn't) then you guys are seriously out of whack.


So you often hang out in the nude with your daughters? And do not get me wrong here, the image doesn't bother me at all, just having a conversation (freedom of speech is also something a lot of us whackos believe in). So please do not attack me.

I personally try to hide my personal parts from my daughter, and maybe that is wrong. Maybe that leads to more questions, curiousity and experimentation than if I just explained life as it is. I dont know to be honest.

Edited by savone on Sep 01, 2006 at 04:47 AM GMT

savone wrote:
Wow, unlike everyone else who seems bothered by opinions in this thread, I find all of the opinions on either side VERY interesting. At first glance of the photo I did not see anything wrong with it. It is natural for people to be nude, maybe not in out culture (USA) but as human being in general (we are not born with clothes). I am not disturbed by the photos, BUT, I pose this situation / question.

A father has every bit of love that a mother has for his children. I know being a father of a three year old girl. So...

Would this image work if it was a man holding his 6 year old daughter, both nude?


The important question to ask is intent. What is the intention of the shot and the participants? If to show a father's love, then nude or not, I think it is 100% acceptable.

So you often hang out in the nude with your daughters?
Er yes.

I have absolutely no problem being nude around my kids, they are almost 4 and 19 months old. I will have no problem being nude around them as they grow older. I suspect that as they reach adolescence they will naturally have a problem being nude around me, which is also fine.
A naked body is nothing to be ashamed of or hidden. None of this has anything to do with sex or sexual intent.


I personally try to hide my personal parts from my daughter, and maybe that is wrong.

I find it terribly sad that you think you need to do this.

malum wrote:
So you often hang out in the nude with your daughters?
Er yes.

I have absolutely no problem being nude around my kids, they are almost 4 and 19 months old. I will have no problem being nude around them as they grow older. I suspect that as they reach adolescence they will naturally have a problem being nude around me, which is also fine.
A naked body is nothing to be ashamed of or hidden. None of this has anything to do with sex or sexual intent.


I personally try to hide my personal parts from my daughter, and maybe that is wrong.

I find it terribly sad that you think you need to do this.

Nicely said Malum, the voice of reason. The way for kids not to grow up with hang-ups about nudity is to show them that nudity is natural. As malum said, the onset of adolescence brings privacy issues for kids but up until then I believe it is a parent's responsibility to exhibit a mature approach to nudity and sexuality- where else will the learn it?
Cheers, Dean