|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
The Jock Sturges thing is because he photographs (mostly) female models, many of whom are under the age of 18, in the nude. There are a lot of people who find it offensive. Even after they're made aware of the context in which the pictures are taken (mostly at nudist colonies where people don't feel self-conscious about their nudity, and where Jock has been a very familiar presence for many many years, so he's not sneaking around in the shrubbery snapping paparazzi-style porno-shots), they still freak out that it's exploitation and smut.
you forgot to mention
these are people he has/had been photographing for 10-15 years
or maybe longer ... they weren't strangers but good friends
-
... and with an 8x10 camera so there is no sneaking possible.
-
... plus he was most often in the nude himself, so where would he hide a camera?
-
 Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
Again? Are you a religious fundamentalist?
No, not yet. I'm not even sure that I aspire to be one. I describe myself as one who has conservative Christian beliefs and despite regular participation in a major traditional corporate religion... I don't let that get in the way of my faith no matter how cynical I seem (or are)(or am).
-
 Originally Posted by jnanian
you forgot to mention
these are people he has/had been photographing for 10-15 years
or maybe longer ... they weren't strangers but good friends
Some of his models are second (and maybe even 3rd) generation models - children and perhaps grandchildren of the very first women he photographed. I think he's been doing this since the 80s, so almost 30 years now.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
 Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
Some of his models are second (and maybe even 3rd) generation models - children and perhaps grandchildren of the very first women he photographed. I think he's been doing this since the 80s, so almost 30 years now.
thanks scott,
i knew he did this for a long time, but i wasn't quite sure how long it was ...
and it is kind of strange how people equate his work with being a peeping tom
or a voyeur when he was considered almost part of the families he photographed ...
but then again i know of someone in the boston area who was a photographer
and photographed her child, and brought her film to a lab for process only ...
the lab worker saw the negatives, made contact prints and called the police on her ...
this is kind of out there for a lab worker, seeing i know others who worked at the same lab
who used to print and process "pºrn" for people who dropped it off.
-
 Originally Posted by jnanian
thanks scott,
i knew he did this for a long time, but i wasn't quite sure how long it was ...
and it is kind of strange how people equate his work with being a peeping tom
or a voyeur when he was considered almost part of the families he photographed ...
but then again i know of someone in the boston area who was a photographer
and photographed her child, and brought her film to a lab for process only ...
the lab worker saw the negatives, made contact prints and called the police on her ...
this is kind of out there for a lab worker, seeing i know others who worked at the same lab
who used to print and process "pºrn" for people who dropped it off.
That kind of thing has happened many places, where parents have been arrested for photographing their babies in the bathtub. Its absolute silliness. A little common sense goes a long way in evaluating if a baby in the bathtub is being photographed for prurient purposes.
-
What do people think about the ethics of Sally Mann’s photographs?
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Francis Bacon
-
 Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
That kind of thing has happened many places, where parents have been arrested for photographing their babies in the bathtub. Its absolute silliness. A little common sense goes a long way in evaluating if a baby in the bathtub is being photographed for prurient purposes.
i agree it is kind of crazy and common sense goes a long way ..
this wasn't in a bathtub or an infant though, but a child at the beach
i never saw the photos, only heard about them ..
at the time this happened ( mid 1990s ) there was a huge uproar about this ...
dcyf threatened to take the kid from the parents ( from what i remember )
and the woman who was a well known and respected photographer ended up on
national tv shows and eventually got a degree in law ( from harvard ? ).
and the lab, which was a well known pro-lab was in the public eye regarding privacy &c.
i am friends of mutual friends and don't really remember what happened
after the dust settled ..
-
 Originally Posted by Katie
My boys both got guns on their first birthdays. My ten year old is now an excellent shot and goes with his Dad regularly. This was him (on the left) and his buddy last weekend (ducks).
We don't have handguns - at all. It's also pretty hard to conceal a rifle/shotgun ... so maybe that's where my point of view comes from. I don't recall every seeing my Dad in his truck without a long gun of some sort.
Attachment 57702
I don't think I've eaten that many ducks in my whole life. What does one do with so many? How many ducks does one hunter shoot in a year or season?
|
|