I Reversed My Street Tactics And A Good Start.

ampguy said:
Bill, I just don't see this "logical conclusion" happening ... given that paper, electronically stored info., and cave dwelling scribbling all last longer than average photographs.
Click to expand...

Forgive me Ampguy, I was using ironic illustration to make my point. I was not being literal.

Regards,

Bill
 
Pitxu said:
That's right Bill. Where I live it's tiny villages and small towns where everybody more or less, knows everybody. I have no problem photographing kids on the street, park or anywhere else. On the other hand, in Rubens part of the world, most women and young girls are forced to wear burka's. A bare shoulder over there would cause as much outrage as a bare ankle in victorien england.
Essentialy the question of "where" to draw the line should be "by whom should the line be drawn".
We each have to live with our own concience in our own culture.
This is where a better understanding of anothers mind-set can help us all get allong together.
Regards, Pitxu.
Click to expand...

Spot-on, Pitxu. And it is debates like this, conducted in good faith and good humour that enable us better to understand each other, whether it is on the merits of Canon vs. Leica or what constitutes a decent hemline.

I have a simple philosophy:

We may disagree, but I defend to the end your right to hold a different opinion to mine.

Regards,

Bill
 
I agree with Ruben on the Sturges photos. It's not the photos per se, and I'm not a prude, but I don't think that minors can give what in other professional arenas is called "informed consent." In the medical field, for example, doctors seek consent from a child's parents before doing a procedure, because the child is generally assumed not able to provide an informed consent (to understand the ramifications of saying 'yes' or 'no.') That an "informed consent" is sought even in critical situations (like medical emergencies, or criminal investigations) demonstrates the importance that many professions place on it.

I further don't think a photographer can really ethically get "informed consent" from a parent for nude photography because photography is not critical -- it doesn't *have* to be done, as a medical procedure may have to be done. The parent usually also has a conflict of interest -- the child poses for money, which the parent will control. This taints the informed consent process.

I have heard that Sally Mann ran into this problem after one of her children grew up, and decided that she really didn't like having nude photos of herself all over the place.

As for the Stuges photos in themselves, most of them look cold and unpleasant to me -- like the people have goosebumps and just want to get the photography done with. He certainly is a master technician, though.

JC
 
sitemistic said:
Either a parent can give informed consent or not. A parent in Texas can give informed consent for a 14 year old to marry a man of any age, which is the same as giving informed consent for statutory rape. Why would they not have the power to give informed consent for their child to pose nude?

Sturges is very sensitive to the wishes of the children he photographs, and doesn't photograph them if they themselves object. It isn't enough for the parents to want the photos done.
Click to expand...

Sitemistic, my friend, common sense please. Sturges is a star, the adolescents are just adolescents. He is abusing this gap.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
sitemistic said:
No, Ruben, this isn't a power thing. It's photographs of a nude minor. Why do you think there is anything wrong with nudity? ...... You are confusing nudity with sexuality.
Click to expand...


But wasn't you yourself who wrote at post #128:

"Nobody is having sex in the photos. There is clearly sexuality, but minors are sexual."

Or am I taking things out of context ?

Now what is and what is not having sex in a photo ? actual intercourse only ? Have you never had sex with a woman through the process of photographing her ? I am refering to the sublimation of the sexual act in one's mind, not actual sex after or before the session.

What is going on at those adolescents mind during the process of being photographed ?

What is the REAL context of things ? Isn't it the epidemic sexual abuse at all levels of life ? Isn't child abuse the worst of them ? And now this folk (Sturges) comes playing his flute as if we were living in heaven.

Sorry sitemistic, but sexual explotation isn't a minor phenomena in the world.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Alot of people think that Mapplethorp had a warped mind for his highly contraversial photographs. Helmut Newton for his nude women. Sally Mann for photographing her daughter, and then of course Diane Arbus for the type of characters she photographed. I haven't seen too much of Jock Sturges work but the photo that sitemistic submitted to my eyes wasn't vulgar, and that from a christian perspective. To a degree I think we all have a bit of carnality in our minds. Great photographers tend to take chances & buck the system. Offending prudes who don't even know nor care to here what the artist work is all about. I don't think Sturges is into kiddie porn, but I tend to hope to view some of his work to learn his perspective of why & what it is that he wants us to see. Strange that even writing this brings up fear of posting simply because there are people that tend to read into anothers thoughts and think the worst.
 
ruben said:
What is the REAL context of things ?
Click to expand...

In the case of Sturges, you have to read the words as well as look at the pictures.

Context: family and family friends; parents involved and willing participants; photographs over time - maturation and evolution into adulthood.

These aren't kids he randomly meets on the beach, or pics he snaps while they aren't looking... or being held hostage. He works with an 8x10 camera... it isn't "street".

The bottom line, Ruben, is that you don't like Sturges' work or the genre. You make that perfectly clear. There is no convincing arguement that will make you change your mind; nor is there a convincing arguement you can make to change one's mind who does like his work/genre.
 
sitemistic said:
"Have you never had sex with a woman through the process of photographing her ? I am refering to the sublimation of the sexual act in one's mind, not actual sex after or before the session. "

No, Ruben, I haven't.
Click to expand...

Me neither. In fact, I find the very thought rather kinky and offensive. That is the epitome of degrading to women - an old guy "scrrewing her in his mind" while pretending to do something unoffensive.
 
sitemistic said:
"...........Almost all sexual abuse occurs within families, by a family member. .......
Click to expand...

If you refer to sexual abuse of children and adolescents, I don't know where you take this info from. Between straight pedophilia and sexual explotation there is a whole world. Pedophilia is indeed a minor phenomena. Sexual explotation of children and adolescents is a growing internet trend, much of it based on the victym innoscence.

Whole starving countries today are being used for child and adolescent sexual explotation. Some of them are sources of human sexual export worldwide. Haven't you heard about sex tours to Thailand ?

As for sexual explotation of women, this is growing to catastrophic proportions as well. Women slavory is back, now for sex purposes, in many countries, including Israel, where some are held prisoners in underground prisons, while others are brought underground and their passports kept by their pimps.

As for the industrialized countries, I leave it to other RFF members to report.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rubens right. Child porn is huge and sex slavery is growing also but don't you think this has gotten a bit off the topic of taking pictures in the streets. I would rather read about Ruben sticking his Kneb in someones face....with flash even:D
 
Gumby said:
Me neither. In fact, I find the very thought rather kinky and offensive. That is the epitome of degrading to women - an old guy "scrrewing her in his mind" while pretending to do something unoffensive.
Click to expand...

Well Gumby, you happened to twist my intentions, but at the same time you implyied something about yourself.

The desire to love a woman to the point of dreaming sexual interaction, would be somewhat weird if it happens to you with strange women, for which no real feelings have been developed. I didn't refered to strange women.

The camera is an instrument of comunication and I don't find anything wrong for a photographer to try to reach the most inner in a woman whom he developed a relatgionship, through his camera. To make love through the process of photography.

Reducing all these to "screwing her in his mind", is of your own copyright.

Somehow the libertarians and monks seem to change positions along this thread.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
Well Gumby, you happened to twist my intentions, but at the same time you implyied something about yourself.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ruben, I just read your words. Perhaps it lost something in translation, or perhaps you were tying to be too flowery and ethereal with your words... but the written words really said something about YOU. I suppose I now see what you meant, but only if I really stretch my imagination. :rolleyes:
 
As I said, I have no problem with nudity in photos. I just don't think minors CAN give informed consent, because they don't have enough experience in life; they don't understand the ramifications. This is not a problem only for the child or the parents -- it's an ethical problem for the photographer.

As a photographer, I wouldn't take pictures of a nude minor because it's not ethical for me to do that: I don't care how eager they are to do it, or how natural nudity may be. It's also not ethical for the parent to allow it, and the child CAN'T make an informed decision, because there are too many other pressures on them, and they are not old enough to deal properly with them.

I'll give you an analogy: the (female) teacher who was arrested, several times I think, for having sex with a fourteen-year-old boy. The boy was eager enough, sex is natural enough, but it is not ethical for someone in a position of power to have sex with a minor over whom she had some power.

Sturges offers fame, or notoriety, or money, or whatever, to children and their parents. The children are too young to make the decision for themselves, so the decision has to be made by others -- and IMHO, it is not ethical for those people to make that decision.

There is nothing necessary about allowing a minor to have photos taken nude -- not necessary for their health, for their education, for their development as human beings, etc. Public nudity is not a natural condition in western culture -- perhaps some think it should be, or it has been, but right now, it's not. To allow children to become involved in something that they MIGHT regret for the rest of their lives simply is not ethical, when that action can be easily avoided. Of course, it is possible that they might not regret it; but that's unknowable.

The beauty or quality of the photos is absolutely beside the point.

JC
 
Sitemistic: I agree a lot if not most of what we discuss is personal opinion. There just seemed to be an increasing edge to some of the posts. In my estimation it was edging to the nasty side, but of course that is simply my opinion. I was just trying to ask people to be a bit more generous.
 
time to return to posting about things photographic folks!

17 pages on what started as a revelation that one can poke a flash in someone's face...

joe
 
back alley said:
time to return to posting about things photographic folks!

17 pages on what started as a revelation that one can poke a flash in someone's face...

joe
Click to expand...
LOL

A flash for a flash...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom