Sir Elton John's Pictures Seized because it showed a naked child!

[Asher Kelman]

There's an interesting thread in the Large Format Photography Forum.

This is an important subject, for while there should be freedom of expression, and as photographers we should be able to record everything, some subjects are in bad taste and others will get one in jail!

There seems to be the assumption that naked children leads to pediophilia! I think that pediophiles are just (mostly) men who are not held accountable as they would be in small caveman societies! Then, the guy only tried it once, the one strke law, so to speak!

Today, our children may be surreptitiously stalked and seduced or grabbed and then ultimately killed, in spite of being fully clothed!

It's not genitalia Paul, it's a child's genitalia. We protect children from premature sexualization because it leads to effed-up lives.

Your word, "sexualization" is an interesting term and helps me understand better some of the issues. Sexual knowledge is probably not harmful per se.

Sexual Function: In one Amazon people, children watch the hunters, when they come back with meet and are greeted by the pool and exchange sex with the young women and other men's wives for some of their haul! There's no evidence that this entertainment makes the kids sexually promiscuous or damages them in any way! The boys just think that they had better learn to hunt!

Naked Children and pediophilia: This clearly is not a generally recognised and feared risk when one considers that in most cultural groups in the world where it is warm enough small children are allowed to run around naked! I was in Munich last year and to my surprise a lot of people were sunbathing naked and a bunch of kids from oviously different families, where the adults we clothed, were running around the water and swimming naked. Older children were shy, changing into swimming costumes behind a towel!

I have travelled throughout Africa and in most places one could see naked small children playing.

If the children were at real risk, then parents would not have their young run around naked! So children being naked is not a real issue.

The innocent play of children constitutes pornography when it is displayed in this fashion - in a public place and on the Internet - because there are plenty of twisted individuals out there to pervert its proclaimed innocent intent. As long as there are sick minds in the world there will be value in "censorship".

The sick minds might be the porno police. Here in the USA, a technician in a 1 hour film processing store called the police on a grandmother who took pictures of her grandkids playing in the bath. In subsequent court battles she lost every penny of her savings and when down to nothing had to make a "no contention" plea and be registered as a sex offender to perevent going to jail and losing her home too!

Pediophiles go after clothed children, seduce them or else grab one and afterwards kill the child. The sickos only need an unprotected child, clothes or not!


The problem might be the mega-societies in which adults are not easily accountable and children might be therefore under greater threat! Cavemen probably killed or mained the pediophile on the first offense!

I don't think there's any issue showing kids genitals, however, sexually exploiting them to show young kids sexual behavior in art for our arousall is repugnant to most of us and should be the line drawn.

If Bruegel The Elder showed naked children in the back of a school yard messing around with each other, (and this was part of his scenes occuppied by 40 people doing ordinary every day things), it would, in my mind, just be art and definately not pornography. It is just whether or not the purpose is to exploit children.

Asher

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

It's context. How about if the kids in Munich were running naked round the supermarket - is that OK?

It's not only context, but culture. Naked kids in Africa, because they have no clothes? Naked kids in Thailand, 'cos they're up for auction?

It's the age we live in - half of what is found in Pompei is not for public display. We do not put stockings around our table legs.

Personally, I see no reason why anyone would want a photo of a child, related/clothed or otherwise. There is generally very little to see.....

It is the inquisition, it is the protection of the innocent, it is the religious/political agenda, it is the media hype, it is of no importance, unless you are the sodomised child.

Frankly speaking, Elton John is old enough to know better. I expect it's to get publicity as was the crying kid photographer woman (publicity != marketing), or else maybe there is no smoke, etc.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher,

It's context. How about if the kids in Munich were running naked round the supermarket - is that OK?

It's not only context, but culture. Naked kids in Africa, because they have no clothes? Naked kids in Thailand, 'cos they're up for auction?

Great point.

It's the age we live in - half of what is found in Pompei is not for public display. We do not put stockings around our table legs.

Well, I was so surpirsed to learn that whole streets were full of what we'd calll porn, from male door knockers to giant pictures in the entrance hall of a priap guy, or an coat rack made similarly! It looks like Christianity switched the obsession with males back to adoration of women again!

Personally, I see no reason why anyone would want a photo of a child, related/clothed or otherwise. There is generally very little to see.....

Pretty sad statement! "Clothed children? Why not???

It is the inquisition, it is the protection of the innocent, it is the religious/political agenda, it is the media hype, it is of no importance, unless you are the sodomised child.

That end is fine and dandy. The crime is the crime and should be punished severely. I'd even consider penectomy if it would help!

However, the other way, taken to the extreme ends up with women wrapped in black from head to toe!

Frankly speaking, Elton John is old enough to know better. I expect it's to get publicity as was the crying kid photographer woman (publicity != marketing), or else maybe there is no smoke, etc.

Well the Crown in the U.K. found that the picture in question was not pornographic! Anyway, Sir Elton, pulled the picture anyway and the entire exhibit too!

This was one minor picture in an entire collection and a person interviewed had not even noticed it.

So "bottom" line should grandmothers be allowed to photograph kids in the bath. Can one take pictures at one's barbecue? and then if they are exhibited is that wrong?

I think we have gone overboard in censorship. Perverts seems to go after kids because they are non-protected kids and available for seduction or capture. They are sickos and think they wont get caught in our mega-cities!

I doubt that ordinary non-sexual images of children, clothed or otherwise contribute significantly to child abuse.

Asher

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Two sides to the coin

Do we not have the responsibility as adults in charge of the children at risk to protect them regardless of the circumstance from predators - clothed or unclothed.

It is no different than needing a child safety seat to ride in a car. Some places require it and others do not. It is the hazard that is the problem, but, we make laws that do not leave it to the parents. Society says we have to use them to protect our children. We recall things used for years because someone has identified a single harmed child. No children should ever be injured, maimed or sexualized but the openness of sexuality in our society has caused a new panic. Do we stop photographing the cute child running in the sprinklers...

 

[Asher Kelman]

.... openness of sexuality in our society has caused a new panic. Do we stop photographing the cute child running in the sprinklers...

Precisely Kathy!

I have suspicion that a few of of the people who'd find grandma's pictures obscene would also lock up gays and close stores on sundays! It's a slippery slope between labelling art pornography, when there is no obvious sexual arousal intended, to censorship of movies and clothes.

Ask some of the religious right what laws of decency they'd bring in if they had full authority to do as they pleased to make the society decent.

For one, gays would not teach or be nurses! Next there would be standards for dress and fashion police at the beach! Evolution would be taught as a minor theory. The great thing is that the idea that woman come from Adam's rib would be the foundation of the new moral feminism!

Is it that the moral majority can't trust regular people with freedom of expression! What are they scared about?

Asher

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

originally posted by Asher

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray West
Personally, I see no reason why anyone would want a photo of a child, related/clothed or otherwise. There is generally very little to see.....

Pretty sad statement! "Clothed children? Why not???

Not a sad statement. I, personally, see nothing of interest in photos of children. I have never carried in my wallet photos of my own children. I can't think of a reason why I would need to do so. However, that is not saying that others shouldn't do it, but in normal situations, I wonder why it is necessary. But then, I wonder why most folk do what they do anyway, and in turn, I expect they wonder about my motivations too.

Different cultures, different societies, different families, different thoughts - the rich fabric of life.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Eric Hiss]

Hi Asher,
Not a sad statement. I, personally, see nothing of interest in photos of children. I have never carried in my wallet photos of my own children. I can't think of a reason why I would need to do so. However, that is not saying that others shouldn't do it, but in normal situations, I wonder why it is necessary. But then, I wonder why most folk do what they do anyway, and in turn, I expect they wonder about my motivations too.

Different cultures, different societies, different families, different thoughts - the rich fabric of life.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray,
It almost sounds as if you have a little ennui with photography. I mean if you can't imagine why anyone would want to take pictures of children, even their own children at that, then why would they want to take pictures of anything? Since I have 2 at home, I can tell you they come up with some of the most pure smiles and other expressions, and do some of the most hilarious things.
Eric

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

I have suspicion that a few of of the people who'd find grandma's pictures obscene would also lock up gays and close stores on sundays! It's a slippery slope between labelling art pornography, when there is no obvious sexual arousal intended, to censorship of movies and clothes.

Within the UK its a question of where you draw the lines. Society, to function, needs rules of some sort. It was not so long ago that if a naked person was on stage, they were not allowed to move. There were/are laws governing the angle of the penis, a fishmonger was/is not allowed to display some species of fish intact. Some books banned a few years ago, are now set books for literature exams. You have rules within our society of opf. Rules can be changed, modified, in the light of experience. In my lifetime I have seen numerous rules relaxed, other's introduced. I am uncertain as to whether overall the changes have been a good or a bad thing, it depends where _I_ am coming from, and where _I_ want to be. On the whole, I am prepared to live 'by the rules'. It's the creatures who don't that are the problem. How do you separate and deal with them, so that the society can continue to function?

It is very easy to pick on a minority, it takes the general public's attention away from the real problems.

On a scale of 1 to 100 of important things happening in the world, Elton John and his preferences rate a score of about -60 trillion, but he and his publicity machine have gotten him a following of hero worshippers and a knighthood. - none so queer as folk.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Ray West]

Hi Eric,

It almost sounds as if you have a little ennui with photography.

Probably that's right. My kids were young before digital, we have photos, of course, faded polaroids somewhere. But I never felt the desire to carry family photos with me, and I wonder why that is necessary. I mean, I could remember what they looked like. Some guys had pictures of their kids on their desk, which I thought was weird. When I asked them why, they said things like 'to remind me of who I'm working for'.....

At the moment, in truth, I see very few photos of anything that interest me. I guess I think I've seen it all before. Photos of family members tend to be very personal, and the way in which I would probably feel like commenting would probably be perceived as rude, since I do not carry the mental associations of the photographer.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Eric Hiss]

Well I partly understand you Ray, because I don't tend to carry photos of my son in my wallet but I do love taking pictures of him. I think some of the photos such as the one I posted of him running on the beach (in my Rollei post here in the medium format section) do seem to transcend just being a personal photo of someone's child.

I think the deal is that when a person has a very clearly vested interest in something they tend to have the blinders on in terms of more objective photo qualities - so that's why you see so many stupid dog/cat pictures and pictures of babies that are pretty boring.

Well I know you and I could go on and on about any of it being ART because only about 1 in 200 Million of these photos is really ART and up until about 15 years ago photos didn't rank as art in most of the museums and galleries. But that doesn't mean they don't have value. A good photo of a kid doing something silly can really liven up your life.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well I know you and I could go on and on about any of it being ART because only about 1 in 200 Million of these photos is really ART and up until about 15 years ago photos didn't rank as art in most of the museums and galleries. But that doesn't mean they don't have value. A good photo of a kid doing something silly can really liven up your life.

As a matter of interest Eric, to put things in some perspective, it 1929 when the Museum of Modern Art in New York purchased a Cezanne, that was considered quite risky. However, "the 23rd work to enter The Museum's collection, April 1930, was a photograph, Lehmbruck, head of a Man by Walker Evans."Source is Looking at Photographs John Szarkowski. So anyway by 1937 the photographic collections was well on its way to be come the major collection it has become today.

Still, Eric, your correct that many museums were behind the times. As of 2006, the Times of London bemoaned that Britain, where photography was invented, was behind in itself recognizing and promoting it as an artform. For example The Tate Modern had no proper experience, just trivial understanding of photography so it had not mounted a significant effort!!

Having said that, a good photo of a kid is to me, at least, delightful: mischief, wonder, hope, tears and more. Kids are epeople but almost a different tribe!

Ray, you are crabby sometimes, but I'm sure you'd have a piece of chocolate or a coin for the kids!

When I look at pictures, I remember more than just the child, I remember a whole time period in that childs life and my own. It's like time travel!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well I know you and I could go on and on about any of it being ART because only about 1 in 200 Million of these photos is really ART and up until about 15 years ago photos didn't rank as art in most of the museums and galleries. But that doesn't mean they don't have value. A good photo of a kid doing something silly can really liven up your life.

As a matter of interest Eric, to put things in some perspective, it 1929 when the Museum of Modern Art in New York purchased a Cezanne, that was considered quite risky. However, "the 23rd work to enter The Museum's collection, April 1930, was a photograph, Lehmbruck, head of a Man by Walker Evans.” Source is the book, now out of print, "Looking at Photographs" by John Szarkowski. So anyway by 1937 the photographic collections was well on its way to be come the major MOMA collection it has become today.

Still, Eric, you're correct that many museums were behind the times. As of 2006, the Times of London bemoaned that Britain, where photography was invented, was behind in itself recognizing and promoting it as an art form. For example The Tate Modern had no proper experience, just trivial understanding of photography so it had not mounted a significant effort!!

Having said that, a good photo of a kid is to me, at least, delightful: mischief, wonder, hope, tears and more. Kids are people but almost a different tribe!

Ray, you are crabby sometimes, but I'm sure you'd have a piece of chocolate or a coin for the kids!

When I look at pictures, I remember more than just the child, I remember a whole time period in that child’s life and my own. It's like time travel!

Asher

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

I seem to have lost my earlier reply, so this is a short version, since I'm too crabby to retripe it all again - this could be your lucky day ;-)

Ray, you are crabby sometimes,

That's an understatement - it's possibly bigger than a crab, and more frequently than sometimes.

but I'm sure you'd have a piece of chocolate or a coin for the kids!

I think, in The UK, if you were to approach a kid and offer sweets or money, there would be high chance that you would soon be taken to the local nick, and your house torn apart , or at least that is what the media would have us believe.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Ray West]

Hi Asher,

As of 2006, the Times of London bemoaned that Britain, where photography was invented, was behind in itself recognizing and promoting it as an art form. For example The Tate Modern had no proper experience, just trivial understanding of photography so it had not mounted a significant effort!!

Who do you trust to know most about art - a newspaper, owned by someone with a possible political agenda, who employs staff that support that view, an individual columnist (probably) with an eye to getting interest from the chattering classes, or a national institution, with caretakers possibly selected by their peers, with funding from the government?

Photography is not considered to be 'real' art. It never was - Eastman saw to that with his $1 camera. It never will be, thanks to the cheap digital P&S, and whatever comes next. The rules were established around 1900. We look at blurred sepia toned photos and say how great they are. Many are great only in that they were captured at the time, and still survive today. ART has to be unique, not easily xeroxed by joe public. It is perceived that smooth brush strokes are more artful than applying an action in photoshop. From the beginning, some artists use photography as a tool, instead of a sketch pad. It allowed movement to be frozen, something that until then had not been possible. There would be more merit in exhibiting those sketchbook photos (in the same way that some notable fashion photographers exhibit their polaroids.

I think that for many people, art is something they can't do, but maybe wish they can. At school, kids say 'I can't draw' - so they are taught how, and if it clicks, some may wish to develop it further. Most of them will understand the art/skill/difficulty in controlling a simple instrument to create something complex. I do not think kids say 'I can't take a photograph' - Eastman saw to that, and there is a different set of skills, less understood, in using a complex instrument to create something relatively simple.

Best wishes,

Ray PS - I reserve the right to change my view at any time ;-)

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

I can't take good pictures

I can't telll you when I show some of my travel works or a portrait how many times I hear the comment "I can't take good pictures". How many snapshots have you seen by laymen who have cut off parts of head, limbs, have motion blur? (gee, forget the term laymen)....

Just because you can point and shoot doesn't mean you can take a good picture. It's not as easy and the millions of dollars of profit to Canon, Nikon, Kodak, Fuji, Sony and Olympus comes because people are trying to create masterpieces.

 

[Edward Bussa]

... lock up gays and close stores on sundays...
Asher

hmmm... thats an interesting grouping!

It reminds me of something my co-worker said: "All types in the military - black people, gay people and people from the Bronx!". Some things just don't seem to go together when grouped together in the same context.

My thoughts on photography of naked children: If the child is in the family, its fine. The child is yours, you make decisions for the child, it is a special, trusted relationship. Can it be abused? Yes, but there is no alternative. Even photographing a child in the extended family I find acceptable.

However, photographing someone else's child naked crosses over into different territory. All kinds of societal and legal issues are raised. Its not worth the risk of misunderstanding OR potential abuse, no?

Also, you can come under suspicion these days for any photographs of children naked, but some contexts are less likely than others - a bath is not usually a posed situation - whereas Sir Elton John's pictures I assume were "posed"?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ed,

While I think it is perfectly fine to photograph children, naked or not, it's unfair to frighten people doing so. It's better to know the family and to have the most careful and responsible approach to the parents. What's important I think is a trail of moral and supervised context and intent. Also one has to think of a childs rights even if the parents would give consent!! Fine art in one place might be viewed differently elsewhere. Of course this can place a chill on creativity, but thank goodness, photographing naked children is not a key part of anyone's work!

To my mind photographing a clothed child is a challenge enough!

In the street, I avoid capturing kids faces and where possible get consent. I generally check to make sure each picture is then approved by the parent or else I destroy it.

In general this is an area one has to be careful about. In the USA, at least in the cities, kids are not running around undressed. It sort of invades a family privacy. Having said that, one should not look down on pictures of naked kids as if its per se bad. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that one better be sure that one is not misinterpreted. That's what happened in the case of the one picture in Elton John's collection. There's no evidence he has ever had any bad intentions!

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

I remember when Sally Mann was getting a lot of flak because she photographed her kids naked. I'm in favor of protecting kids from pornographers, but Sally Mann is not a pornographer.

I am suspicious of people who become hysterical about a picture of naked child. What are they hiding?

A friend of mine did a series of photographs of his naked daughter, aged three, running around the house. To a healthy person, these pictures were extremely funny and endearing. He took the film to Wal Mart to be processed and the clerk, a religious fundamentalist, called the police. My friend was frightened and humiliated by this experience, but ultimately exonerated.

 

[Eric Hiss]

I remember when Sally Mann was getting a lot of flak because she photographed her kids naked. I'm in favor of protecting kids from pornographers, but Sally Mann is not a pornographer.

I am suspicious of people who become hysterical about a picture of naked child. What are they hiding?

A friend of mine did a series of photographs of his naked daughter, aged three, running around the house. To a healthy person, these pictures were extremely funny and endearing. He took the film to Wal Mart to be processed and the clerk, a religious fundamentalist, called the police. My friend was frightened and humiliated by this experience, but ultimately exonerated.

Sad story Doug. IMHO its often the most righteous that are the most wrong.

 

[doug anderson]

"its often the most righteous that are the most wrong"

Yes, and they are often the ones with the most to hide. They project their own stuff on the world and pretend it doesn't belong to them.

 

[Vivek Khanzode]

Ray,
It almost sounds as if you have a little ennui with photography. I mean if you can't imagine why anyone would want to take pictures of children, even their own children at that, then why would they want to take pictures of anything? Since I have 2 at home, I can tell you they come up with some of the most pure smiles and other expressions, and do some of the most hilarious things.
Eric

And Eric is putting it mildly. For me, the hobby of photography was literally re-awakened by the impeding birth of my first daughter. This was the time I spent $2200 for a D60 which I could barely afford.

To me, my children are the reason for my photography. Most of the incredible images that I have in my collection are of my children.

-- Vivek

 

[Vivek Khanzode]

Sad story Doug. IMHO its often the most righteous that are the most wrong.

Well said. There have been many many instances, even in the very recent past, of those preaching from the pulpit exhibiting behaviors that are just plain antithetical to their every day pontifications to the masses.

The culprits shall go unnamed...

-- Vivek

 

[Asher Kelman]

I remember when Sally Mann was getting a lot of flak because she photographed her kids naked. I'm in favor of protecting kids from pornographers, but Sally Mann is not a pornographer.

I am suspicious of people who become hysterical about a picture of naked child. What are they hiding?

A friend of mine did a series of photographs of his naked daughter, aged three, running around the house. To a healthy person, these pictures were extremely funny and endearing. He took the film to Wal Mart to be processed and the clerk, a religious fundamentalist, called the police. My friend was frightened and humiliated by this experience, but ultimately exonerated.

Doug,

Your friend was so fortunate! The self-appointed censors in the processing labs are a terrible financial and social threat to photographers. Several grandmothers have been so humiliated. One in particular, who's story I've referred to recently, was told to wait while the found her pictures and then the police came and dragged her off as a child pornographer. Her defense emptied her life savings as she vainly fought the District Attorney (yes the type who prosecute cases like the LaCross team at Duke University) and she had to plead nole contedere and accept being labeled as some child abuser for the rest of her life! Her other choice was to continue fighting and lose her home!

We had the same issue with Charlottes pictures of her granddaughter crouching forward in the bathtub. It was perceived by enough people as boudoir style and the sort of thing that pedophiles trade.
So we pulled it in as required by our TOS. While we might show that work in a private gallery we do not wish to feed the porn trade or else suffer the same losses as that grandmother.

So have we capitulated too? I don't think so. If OPF was sufficiently wealthy, I might take on the fight.

We still are a platform for a lot of good.

Sally Mann, Barnes & Noble and the like will be the one's who can and do fight for openness.

We just want to make sure that child stalkers don't link a child's nude pictures with a home address. A picture in a gallery or museum is anonymous and there's no such huge risk.

We have to err on the side of caution. Maybe I'm overprotective?

Asher

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Maybe I'm overprotective?

Yes.

But, as I pointed out in the Charlotte thread, I can understand that. We are all afraid - and for good reasons - of the dickheads*.



*This, my dear friends, is not only much softer than my original word, it's also a quote, which may not easily be accessible to US citizens [due to their bad taste in music].

 

[Eric Hiss]

shame

It's really a shame that a very tiny few wrong or sick people can shape the whole of countries. So here now we all run around scared of the possibility that an innocent image, full of the joy of life, capable of adding a smile to everyone's face will find ill fate with either a pedo, a fundamentalist, or a DA ? Shall we all cower back into our shells, or just share the only the most banal and 'safe' images and thoughts?

 

[doug anderson]

We have to err on the side of caution. Maybe I'm overprotective?

Asher

We live in a culture that is simultaneously obsessed and appalled by sexuality. Those who are appalled by sexuality are always projecting their stuff on the rest of us. Those obsessed with sexuality are exploiting everybody, not just children. This is the ultimate puritan condition (by "puritan" I do not mean the founding fathers, but the people described by what that word has come to mean). The ultimate revelation about these extremists is that they are all hypocrites: sooner or later they get caught doing something sexual, whether it is abusing their children in the name of their religion (radical Morman sect in Texas) or getting caught with their hand in the, well, cookie jar...

I'm for protecting children, but not in the extremist sense of what that has come to mean, and not at the expense of our right to express.

Another example of fundamentalist psychosis further argues the point. Some extremist types somewhere not too long ago objected to "Sponge Bob Squarepants" because he had some gay mannerisms. What is scary about this is not that such morons exist, but that the TV producer canceled the cartoon for fear of offending a minority of his viewers.

This is how we lose our first amendment freedoms. If we don't stand up and get vocal every time something like this happens, we are not being politically responsible. If I were rich, I'd set up a trust fund to protect people from litigation from these lowlifes.