The funny thing about this statement is that Jock has been taking these photos for decades. He has not always been old, he was once a very attractive young man/photographer. Was it okay for him to photograph his leggy models then?
The funny thing about this statement is that Jock has been taking these photos for decades. He has not always been old, he was once a very attractive young man/photographer. Was it okay for him to photograph his leggy models then?This comment annoys me on so many levels. An older male photographer obsessively photographing and objectifying leggy nude models on the beach bothers me to a degree. Yes... he's doing it quite beautifully. Whatever, :rolleyes:
Have you ever had an older man take a good long leering look at your breasts?
Creeps me out... hmm, does that really make me a creep because sometimes his pictures remind me of those moments?
This comment annoys me on so many levels. An older male photographer obsessively photographing and objectifying leggy nude models on the beach bothers me to a degree. Yes... he's doing it quite beautifully. Whatever, :rolleyes:
Have you ever had an older man take a good long leering look at your breasts?
Creeps me out... hmm, does that really make me a creep because sometimes his pictures remind me of those moments?
The funny thing about this statement is that Jock has been taking these photos for decades. He has not always been old, he was once a Very attractive young man/photographer. Was it okay for him to photograph his leggy models then?
Have you ever had an older man take a good long leering look at your breasts?
I think the interesting word in this statement is the word "objectifying." That word connotes a disrespect of a subject, implies that he is using his subjects as nothing more than a thing to stare at. That's directly at odds with the working methods he describes, particularly the fact that the subjects are almost always long-time friends of his.
We DO have to keep in mind that these people are sitting for him willingly, and most over long periods of time. That's distinctly different than having your breasts leered at by a stranger. (I'm not sure what the "older man" idea has to do with anything; is it worse to be leered at by an older man than a younger one? Is it less uncomfortable to be leered at by a good-looking guy?)
I'm not saying it's wrong to think he's "creepy". I just want to explore the perspective behind it.
I think the interesting word in this statement is the word "objectifying." That word connotes a disrespect of a subject, implies that he is using his subjects as nothing more than a thing to stare at. That's directly at odds with the working methods he describes, particularly the fact that the subjects are almost always long-time friends of his.
We DO have to keep in mind that these people are sitting for him willingly, and most over long periods of time. That's distinctly different than having your breasts leered at by a stranger. (I'm not sure what the "older man" idea has to do with anything; is it worse to be leered at by an older man than a younger one? Is it less uncomfortable to be leered at by a good-looking guy?)
I'm not saying it's wrong to think he's "creepy". I just want to explore the perspective behind it.
I'm sorry, Jamusu, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this line of thought. To impose our own views of morality onto a person from a vastly different culture and background is irrational at best. You must keep in mind, among other things, the fact that the children and adolescents Jock Sturges has photographed are from naturalist families; the photographs are of these people (all ages) living everyday life according to their own values. To document those lives, with the full ongoing permission of all his subjects, is simply honest. He states emphatically that he has never instructed his subjects to undress, or really to do much of anything.
In most parts of the world outside the US, children run naked on beaches, happy in their most natural state; I would no more pass judgment on the work of a photographer like Jock Sturges than I would on those children's parents. I have some "natural state" images of my kids and nephews; have I done something morally wrong?
In these times, we must all be VERY careful about the word "pedophile." It's got such ugly connotations, and unless you are certain of what you're talking about, it's best not to throw it around lightly.
- CJ
Suzanne, it's funny how subjective art is. I've always found Weston's nudes a bit cold and technical. (Heresy, I know.) I don't connect with them at all, not in any way. But many (not all) of Jock Sturges' images speak to me.
(As always, I remain curious about the definition of a "pornographer.")
Exactly. And remember that his models live and breath in a much different culture than most of us. He has photographed generations of some of the families. Obviously, they are comfortable and quite enjoy the work. Does that make them creepy, too? That they would let their children be photographed this way? One of the things I took away from talking to his models was how humorous they found the negative reactions to Jock's work and our culture's fear and paranoia of the naked body. We are so backwards in so many ways.
I'm curious how people respond to Sally Mann's or Mona Kuhn's work? Would the response to Jock's work be different if he was a woman?
Well, I have some issues with the idea that he or his models are merely amused at negative reactions. Perhaps, they are a little judgmental, too, and not open to others views.
I'm trying to follow the line of thought here, because it's confusing to me.
Kerik: The models find humor in the negative reactions to photographs of themselves from people who don't understand their culture (and could be considered closed-minded).
Suzanne: The models are being closed-minded because they find amusement in how a culture not-their own doesn't understand their culture. They should be less judgmental in regards to how they view an ignorant culture (not used in a pejorative manner, just that they don't understand the culture) who does not give them the same benefit and instead wants them to be censored and/or imprisoned.
These are my words trying to understand this argument and not those of the original posters.
***I did want to add that Kerik never said they are "merely amused", i.e. "only amused", in his post Suzanne responded to.
I think you've vastly overstated my point. I don't equate a negative response to the work with wanting to imprison him or his models.
At the same time, they may well be ignorant of the cultural baggage anyone might bring to the work... seems presumptuous to me to find amusement in people who are different.
Round of beer, everyone???
I've heard the correlation from people before about photographs of nude children being automatically pedophilic in nature stacked against the right to bear arms.
You can own a gun, but unless you kill someone with it you are breaking no law. Whereas with pictures of nude children you are breaking the law just by owning the image regardless of your action.
Yes, but in the case of actual pedophiles, and the kind of things they collect, children were harmed in the production of the material. There is a gulf of difference, just as there is a gulf of difference in Sturges work and the work of pornographers.
Owning pictures of nude children isn't illegal, unless the are overtly sexual, or feature sex acts. Sadly, in the US nude is confused with sex.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?