Thank you for stating your intent and I appreciate you engaging in discourse on this topic. You state "You ask a valid question and my goal, as an artist, was to evoke the range of conclusions that could be had from such a look..." I have to ask if you are ok if others perceive her look in a sexual context? Also, with the stated intent, isn't posting them here exploitative?
Maybe I wasn't clear, but my stated intent is for the viewer to come to what conclusions they will with such a photo(s)...not one conclusion specifically.
Having said that, I am okay with the range of possibilities? I would have to be before posting such work...
You can't stop someone from looking at a beautiful girl and thinking what they will. Am I supposed to keep her under lock and key? Granted, I am doing just the opposite, but I am not going to let the fact that there are some sickos out there that make this an issue in the first place stop me.
Am I exploiting her?--no more than any other photographer exploits a model in his/her work that conveys the particular look or feel they are going for. By your account, it could be argued that any model used for the purposes of photographic art is being exploited.
Did Jodie Foster get exploited as a 13 year old when she played a slapped around prostitute in Taxi Driver with Dinero? I bet if you asked her, you might be surprised to hear she considers it a defining moment in her career...
In her own words, "It was the role that changed my life."
she goes on...
"I think it’s one of the finest films that’s ever been made in America. It’s a statement about America. About violence. About loneliness. It’s just classic. I felt when I came home every day from the set that I’d really accomplished something."
One of the real issues for me is how flawed we are as a society in our logic...
A soft-drink company comes under fire for advertising their soda is "Fortified with Vitamins and Minerals," yet your average kids "Sugar Coated Sugar Balls" breakfast cereal does so every day and is loaded with complete horse shit from a nutritional stand point.
These photos of mine draw some criticism as crossing the line, but a 13 year old playing a whore in a Hollywood production is now seen as ground breaking.
I would bet you a buffalo nickel that almost every one of the detractors on this thread would pony their kid up in a heart beat for the same role Jodie Foster got. Somehow that's okay...
The first time I started a s&^t storm on this forum was when I started a thread about only wanting to take photos of beautiful subjects--man that got people worked up!
Now, I am posting some admittedly controversial photos and defending my thought processes in some regard...
I think the difference between me and a lot of other people is, they're thinking it, and I am saying it!
My problem is not the photos themselves, my problem is the way in which you're trying to gather views for those photos. Rather than posting them and simply asking viewers to critique them, you went ahead and prefaced your post with a rather long winded commentary with keywords/suggestions of under age sexual exploitation thrown in to stir the pot.
Had you left well enough alone and posted the photos without the commentary, I really don't think there would have been such 'controversy' as you're so keen on having. You purposely set the tone in a very negative and disturbing manner. The only reason for setting such a tone is because you knew very well others would run to see what all the fuss is about, and in turn see your pictures. For you to reference sexual exploitation in the same breath as showing off your little girl, is quite disturbing and comes across as sleazy. Come on man, your job is to protect her, don't use her in this context just to generate views for your "work" - let your photos stand on there own merit. If they're good, people will let you know - they don't need disturbing commentary to get their attention.
You had no reason to 'justify your work' or 'tell your side of the story' to begin with - I think you do now.
russdenney01, I'm not sure where the controversy is, or if it's just claimed / manufactured controversy to try to get attention. There's a picture of a bunch of cows posted in this forum and (IMO) that's way more controversial than this one. But the poster didn't insist on such discussion, he just gave it a name, posted a sentence or two to clarify his intent, and let people reply (or not reply) however they chose.
As for my commentary, if I were setting up a photo like this, I would have to leave more clues as to what is going on. The lack of signs or anything else dark or ominous in the photo makes it seem like it's just an ordinary photo. The expression looks like simple depression rather than disgust or contempt or fear. There are no signs of drug use, lack of sleep, or abuse. Sometimes even a tiny bit of context will go a long way.
canerino wrote:
I'm no prude. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out any benefit to posting photos of your fifteen year old daughter, in a sexualized fashion, on a public internet forum.
The images are pleasant. I just don't get the story being told. The only think I can think of is that you are trying to interpret her as a "young woman" even though she is just "a young girl". To me, this is an inappropriate conflict in an artistic sense (nothing moral / amoral about it).
People grow up in "seasons". Each season adds to the final product of what defines the person. These images seem to be caught "between seasons" and do not (IMHO) work cohesively.
3 Pages!! You are correct, it turned out to be controversial.
I say don't sweat it. I see genres here that don't please me (tattoos, metal peircings, semi gore shots etc.) What I try to do is concentrate on the photography. I critique each without a judgement comment about how I like the photo.
I try to stick with: Did the photog do a good job? How could it be better.
Whether it is "appropriate" or not is subjective. There are many people, many opinions.
Another thought: The folks who object to Dad taking pics of the 15 year-old - would they rather another photographer do it?
Age doesn't bother me.
Technically there good.
But it did jolt me when I found out you took the pictures and you're her father....Odd.
And I also vote no on the angle of number one.
For those of you that think I did this to draw attention to my work, I understand how you could come to that conclusion. I really don't care if you think that is the case so I'm not going to start a dialogue on that fork of the conversation.
I do find it interesting to see the range of responses...
I see absolutely nothing wrong with these pictures of your daughter. People who say otherwise are just imagining her nude. I did see one of these pictures yesterday, I think Megan in the window light? I thought I saw it here. You have a very attractive daughter and I think she will appreciate these pictures even more as she gets older.
russdenney01 wrote:
These photos of mine draw some criticism as crossing the line, but a 13 year old playing a whore in a Hollywood production is now seen as ground breaking.
"Ground-breaking" doesn't necessarily mean "good" or "recommended". You're bringing up a movie almost 40 years old, and acting like it's no big deal at all. Well, the casting of Foster and her role in the movie were controversial at the time, and still are today.
russdenney01 wrote:
I would bet you a buffalo nickel that almost every one of the detractors on this thread would pony their kid up in a heart beat for the same role Jodie Foster got. Somehow that's okay...
And I think you'd quickly find yourself short a whole pile of buffalo nickels.
When my son was a preschooler, someone we know who's in the entertainment industry suggested he'd be a natural to do commercials. We said "no", period, because we didn't want him exposed to that kind of life, nor did we want to exploit him in that way. And that was a boy, just doing commercials. If I had a teenaged daughter, no, I would not allow her to play a role where she was being exploited due to her sexuality. Whether or not you want to believe it, not everyone in the world lives just to get as much money and fame as possible.
To make it clear, I personally don't care that you posted these photos. I just think you're well in the category of "he who doth protest too much". They may not be "porn", but portraying them as just "portraits" is really a half-truth. They are deliberately sexualized images of a minor, and why you would be surprised that they would be viewed in a negative light is beyond me.
canerino wrote:
I'm no prude. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out any benefit to posting photos of your fifteen year old daughter, in a sexualized fashion, on a public internet forum.
Jim Rickards wrote
Another thought: The folks who object to Dad taking pics of the 15 year-old - would they rather another photographer do it?
I think you're missing the point here. Dad, mom, Uncle, friend, stranger it doesn't matter whose taken the pictures. She's too young to be posing in photos like this.
. Don't blame you for playing it safe.