Your daughter is lovely. #2 is my favorite of the group, it is a strong portrait.
Now, here are some thoughts.
I do think your title and preface are provocative. It is a reaction to something that happened somewhere else, you came here "armed for bear". I agree with others that a different presentation here might have garnered a different reaction.
Context is a funny thing. I can go to the beach and see 15 year olds displaying far more than you presented here. I assume they do so with at least their parent's knowledge, if not permission. Yet, the sensual nature of these, with implications stemming from setting and her disheveled appearance make these controversial.
I'm all for capturing images of your children in whatever manner your family sees fit. However, if you think you're making a brave statement by posting them publicly on the internet, you may be naive about the sophistication and intent of those who would exploit your daughter. My daughter-in-law just hosted a community discussion about human trafficking presented by Shared Hope International. The size and scope of the problem is mind boggling. The bad guys use the internet to find potential victims and have sophisticated ways of gathering information so they can contact them. I'm sure your family and especially your daughter would recognize a threat, but personally I wouldn't want to do anything to attract their attention and perhaps their advances.
The images of your daughter are perceived by many as both sultry and suggestive. How would you feel if they had been taken by one of her "friends", and then distributed on every cell phone in her school? In terms of artistic impression, you've done okay, but in terms of decision making, not so much. There's a reason that 18 (19 in some states) is the age of majority, and I'm afraid you dropped the ball on this one.
dmacmillan wrote:
Now, here are some thoughts.
I do think your title and preface are provocative. It is a reaction to something that happened somewhere else, you came here "armed for bear". I agree with others that a different presentation here might have garnered a different reaction.
Fair enough. I apologize if I am a bit over-defensive. It's not really reasonable to ask for opinions on the matter and then not be prepared for the responses.
And, yes. The manner in which I raised the question brought light to the issue in the first place.
I knew someone would try to claim to be above it all. Like a I said, almost everyone - not everyone...
You're pulling all of these claims from your nether regions. My thinking is no more wishful than yours, and you have no idea what others would do.
I will offer into evidence the fact that I've been on this board for years and have seen many people post pictures of their teenaged daughters, yet only extremely rarely do I see anything like what is in this thread. So your "almost everyone" is almost certainly nonsense.
The bottom line is that you seem to be looking for "permission" or "acceptance" of some sort to post adult-themed pictures of a minor. You're not going to get it, and your attempts to rationalize your choices by claiming that others would do the same -- despite being flatly told otherwise -- are rather ludicrous.
BigIronCruiser wrote:
There's a reason that 18 (19 in some states) is the age of majority, and I'm afraid you dropped the ball on this one.
This is absurd! The age of majority in Canada is 16 and 15 in much of Europe and even less in much of South America...not that these pics would event warrant her being the age of majority...
Another example of double-standards...there is life outside your little bubble...
charlesk wrote:
The bottom line is that you seem to be looking for "permission" or "acceptance" of some sort to post adult-themed pictures of a minor. You're not going to get it, and your attempts to rationalize your choices by claiming that others would do the same -- despite being flatly told otherwise -- are rather ludicrous.
I know I am not going to get permission nor do I seek it. I asked for opinions on the matter. I don't know what thread you're reading but there are supporters here as well as detractors.
russdenney01 wrote:
This is absurd! The age of majority in Canada is 16 - the age of majority in Canada is 18 (19 in some other provinces), most certainly not 16. For you to make such a claim without checking your facts is "absurd!".
Josh Evilsizor wrote:
I think the big difference between Lisa's photos and the original is that Lisa was in no way sexualizing her daughter... Russ, had your daughter been wearing a t-shirt rather than implying she was nude, I think these images would have a whole different feel to them. I know having a daughter myself I could never imagine taking an image that looks like she just got done being rode hard and put away wet... no matter what "artistic meaning" I had to justify it.
Ditto.
Russ - I think for me, you are deliberately trying to project some ambiguity as a artist in your shots - there is a clear invitation for a sexual interpretation to your images. I wouldn't post that kind of image in a public forum, but the images in themselves aren't offensive.
You are correct in drawing attention to my error...I did check my facts, but used the wrong word...
The age of sexual consent in Canada is 16 not the age of majority...and in almost half of US states it is 16...with furthers my point...it's all relative and bullshit...
To all of you, I wanted to thank you for offering your input and opinions on the matter. I understand this may not make me everyone's hero, and I accept that.
As one of the other posters mentioned, There are a lot of young girls at the beach with much more showing than what is shown by your image of your daughter. I don't understand what the negative comments are about. Is it something about the facial expressions by your daughter in the images. Some people see something wrong in everything. What a way to go through life.
DaveOls wrote:
As one of the other posters mentioned, There are a lot of young girls at the beach with much more showing than what is shown by your image of your daughter. I don't understand what the negative comments are about. Is it something about the facial expressions by your daughter in the images. Some people see something wrong in everything. What a way to go through life.
Except for the first, the images are loaded with classical sexual themes. Naive is no way to go through life either.
The beach analogy is a red herring. You can take pictures of girls at the beach so they appear innocent and playful, or sexually provocative. Same here. It's the styling and dress (or lack of dress) that makes these images of dubious appropriateness.
russdenney01, look at the other post with the cows that I was talking about. If you want to post stuff you consider controversial, that's how to do it. Sometimes, few words are better than a lot of words. Also, better to assume nothing and let the audience reach conclusions on their own.
This is a forum of photographers, not lawyers, or politicians, or philosophers, or sociologists, or such. If your post had crossed the line it would have been removed already. But since it's still here, one can conclude it's okay. Beyond that I'm not going to comment on that side of it; honestly I find such discussion boring and useless, at least from a photographic standpoint.
As for the people who are debating publicity, everyone has their reasons for posting (or not posting) their family photos online, I may not understand the rationale but that's their family and their right. For example, my immediate family doesn't want it, and we all pretty much agree on the rationale why, so we just don't do it. But you don't see me telling others to not post their personal or family photos online, the same way we (my immediate family) would get quite offended if someone insisted that we should post some or all of our personal or family photos online. My point is that, these things aren't even a topic for debate, my family is my family, your family is your family, his family is his family, and that's that.
DaveOls wrote:
As one of the other posters mentioned, There are a lot of young girls at the beach with much more showing than what is shown by your image of your daughter. I don't understand what the negative comments are about. Is it something about the facial expressions by your daughter in the images. Some people see something wrong in everything. What a way to go through life.
because photography is an art of portrayal. the OP, the daughter's father, deliberately portrayed her in a sexual fashion AND THEN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET. sorry, dave, bad analogy.
i wonder how she feels about being the centerpiece of this debate?
DaveOls wrote:
As one of the other posters mentioned, There are a lot of young girls at the beach with much more showing than what is shown by your image of your daughter. I don't understand what the negative comments are about. Is it something about the facial expressions by your daughter in the images. Some people see something wrong in everything. What a way to go through life.
Go back and read the paragraph where I mentioned 15 year olds at the beach. It was not meant to be a defense of the photos, it was meant as an illustration that context plays a role on how an image is perceived.
Another example of context is the use of simple props: sunglasses and a lollipop. Look what Bert Stern did with them in creating the iconic "Lolita" poster.
canerino wrote:
i wonder how she feels about being the centerpiece of this debate?
I'd like to think that she is too young, too naïve, too inexperienced, and not sophisticated enough to really understand this discussion.
I believe Miley Cyrus was 17 and her parents were with her on an Annie Leiebowicz shoot, but left and did somewhat of a similar shot, minus the disheveled hair. There was a lot of controversy, obviously, about that shot as well. Cyrus expressed embarrassment later of the shot for Vanity Fair.
