Art (Contemporary and Otherwise)

[Mail-Moth]

Almroth, I'm sorry for what I'm about to do here, but I won't remove this picture until someone explains clearly what's wrong with this :



... Or until it is moderated. I can't stand such misguided puritanism. If people see that as an incitation to molest children, well, maybe they'd better find a good therapist. As we say in France, "Le censeur crie ce qu'il proscrit".

All I see here is frailty and innocence. How is this pornography ? How is it sexually arousing ? Maybe it was for the photographer, I am not in his head. But aren't we here supposed to know enough about art not to give in those stupid shortcuts ? Are we supposed to suppress any image that could be seen as a source of arousement for a pedophile ? If this is the case, well, there are plenty.

I remember seeing some months ago a japanese advertisment for some diapers. At the end of the clip you could see an adult's hand giving a small pat to a baby's butt. And I suddenly realized that this very innocent gesture would certainly be censored on french TV. And believe me or not, I felt extremely sad. There's something going wrong here, very wrong.

[Faust]

Attempts to control art is nothing new. I posted just a few days ago (in randomness, i think) that the British police forced Tate Modern to remove a picture of 10 year old brook shields (something akin to this one, but done up in make up - maybe the make up makes the difference). There also has been a bit of a witch hunt on Sally Mann.

Still, the judgment should be left to the viewer. If someone told me that Larry Clark's fascination with naked adolescents borders on perversion, I'd have a hard time arguing against that.

[Vanna]

For M-M:

^I understand where you are coming from (And personally have no problem with children's nudes), but there is a cross-cultural, base instinct that dictates the protection of children, and that's not going to change.

Sexual representations of children in art are oftentimes misinterpreted as pornographic because painting/photographing children in the nude perpetuates an oppositional idea of them, one of frailty, and innocence, as you put it.

I also think that JoniF has a right to his opinion; and that it's not invalidated because we deem it anti-progressive, or without merit.

Some men/women, when they get that feeling, want sexual healing.

[Faust]

I am not saying that JoniF shouldn't have an opposite opinion. On the contrary. He should back it up with a good argument, however. My argument would be that children are not formed individuals, and because they cannot make judgments the way adults can, they should not be subjected to controversy, since they can be easy prey.

[Vanna]

^Exactly. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Mail-Moth]

You've got a point, both of you, and the risk of children's manipulation always exists. Unfortunately it even exists far beyond the only domain of sexuality, but that's another subject.

Just to stick to that particular case, the question is : will you completely forbid the display of pictures like those ones because of the risk of a "misuse" (i.e. : some wacko shaking the bishop over them), which is obviously degrading for the models when they're old enough to realize that that sort of things can happen - or will you have faith in their aptitude to understand that yes, there are some seriously fucked-up minds around, but that doesn't, by any mean, signify that this is the way every adults react when they see a naked young girl ? I only speak for myself here, but I see much more in those pictures than the basic question of sexuality. Especially in the one with the old man, which I find deep, and tragic.

I know it sounds unrealistic, but I don't want people to live in fear, and when I see some friend of mine asking himself if this is right for a father to give bath to his own children, that frightens me. That's the kind of climate that feeds on those polemics. Some parts of us are not very clear, that's a fact, but trying not to face them by avoiding any confrontation doesn't sound like a solution to me. Rather the source of much bigger problems.

And, Faust : Larry Clark's obsession with youth obviously borders on perversion. But what is the mots important : this, or what his films reveal about youth ? I mean, Sade was far more perverse than him, and yet his novels have a lot more to teach us than the plane display of his obscene fantasies.

[Faust]

Surely, Mail-Moth. Where I come from, kids go naked to the beach, up to the age of the girl displayed in the picture, and no one bats an eye lash - it's completely innocent and NORMAL. Not the case in the puritan US of A. The first time a life guard here asked me to put a bathing suit top on my then-3-year old daughter, it actually took me a few seconds to process what the hell his problem was. Such a thought would never cross my mind.

I am with you on this particular image - I was simply pointing out possible arguments against it. But, if you do take someone like Larry Clark, I think things become much grayer. With the Brook Shields picture, where she is done up in makeup, it's also much grayer.

[Mail-Moth]

I've never seen this picture of Brooke Shield, but I can believe you. I understand the purpose of the photographer was not exactly the same.

The anecdot you're relating is... well, I can't even find my words.

[philip nod]

Spiritual America is a photograph of a photograph. The original – authorised by Shields's mother for $450 – had been taken by a commercial photographer, Gary Gross, for the Playboy publication Sugar 'n' Spice in 1976. Shields later attempted, unsuccessfully, to suppress the picture.
Prince used the image as the source material for his own 1983 piece; he placed it in a gilt frame and displayed it, without labelling or explanation, in a shopfront in a then rundown street in Lower East Side, New York. The title comes from a photograph by Alfred Stieglitz from 1923 of a gelded horse.
Prince has described the image as resembling "a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it's got a different birthday."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Gross

this picture has been controversial forever.
also related:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/fashion/25facebook.html

[Fuuma]

Spiritual America is a photograph of a photograph. The original – authorised by Shields's mother for $450 – had been taken by a commercial photographer, Gary Gross, for the Playboy publication Sugar 'n' Spice in 1976. Shields later attempted, unsuccessfully, to suppress the picture.
Prince used the image as the source material for his own 1983 piece; he placed it in a gilt frame and displayed it, without labelling or explanation, in a shopfront in a then rundown street in Lower East Side, New York. The title comes from a photograph by Alfred Stieglitz from 1923 of a gelded horse.
Prince has described the image as resembling "a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it's got a different birthday."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Gross

this picture has been controversial forever.
also related:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/fa...5facebook.html

Can we worry about something else, something like this instead (Pnod article):

"The possibility always exists that pedophiles are lifting such pictures, Professor Finkelhor says, but it is not something he has encountered. And, he said, it’s unlikely for a discomfiting reason: actual child pornography is so readily available that pedophiles aren’t likely to waste time cruising social networks looking for less explicit material."

Naked kids don't shock me or if they do it's within the scope of the piece. Blatantly exploitative imagery, obtained in conditions better left unsaid are another matter entirely. Even some freak like Clark (perv!!) can't top that.

[Fuuma]

Surely, Mail-Moth. Where I come from, kids go naked to the beach, up to the age of the girl displayed in the picture, and no one bats an eye lash - it's completely innocent and NORMAL. Not the case in the puritan US of A. The first time a life guard here asked me to put a bathing suit top on my then-3-year old daughter, it actually took me a few seconds to process what the hell his problem was. Such a thought would never cross my mind.

I am with you on this particular image - I was simply pointing out possible arguments against it. But, if you do take someone like Larry Clark, I think things become much grayer. With the Brook Shields picture, where she is done up in makeup, it's also much grayer.

I now use the bathing scene in the movie innocence as a litmus test. I can guarantee you that, with no additional info, you could spot americans just by reading reaction to the scene (it's just little girls bathing).

[Mail-Moth]

Naked kids don't shock me or if they do it's within the scope of the piece. Blatantly exploitative imagery, obtained in conditions better left unsaid are another matter entirely. Even some freak like Clark (perv!!) can't top that.

I strongly agree with that.

[almroth]

I have to admit I enjoy clarks fascination with youth and sex, although almost entirely his previous work from his youth. those photos are as raw as it can get. everyone should own a copy of tulsa.

his more recent work makes me wonder what's really going on in his head at times.

http://museum.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/larry_clark/tulsa.html

[Silver]

Been after David Noonan's book 'Pagent' for a while now, and I finally found a copy of it this weekend.. some unbelievable work.....

[Faust]

I've never seen this picture of Brooke Shield, but I can believe you. I understand the purpose of the photographer was not exactly the same.

The anecdot you're relating is... well, I can't even find my words.

Yes, I was quite speechless myself. I then considered giving the guy a piece of my mind, but it'd would've been like talking to a monkey.