IMO it really depends on the intentions of the photographer, and the use
to which they allow their images to be put. If the images in any way
portray the children as sexual objects (ie for the sexual gratification
of the viewer), then I don't consider that acceptable. This is vastly
different from the "what a cute kid you were" view espoused by Lex and
others.
I personally find the Hamilton photographs quite unsettling, as they
portray sexually immature girls in a style normally reserved for
'erotic' photography of women. In real life, you wouldn't be seeing
girls of that age nude at all, let alone in alluring poses, so
portraying them that way is both unnatural, and to a degree dangerous.
Men should not be encouraged to view girls of that age as sexually
attractive.
OTOH, I have no problem with family shots of the baby running around
starkers (well, unless they're pictures of me!), as babies will do that
quite unselfconsciously. I don't think 99.90f much maligned 'child
protection officers' would have a problem with those pictures either. If
however the naked kids were photographed in soft focus, on satin sheets,
prominently displaying their genitals, it would be entirely a different
story.
Unfortunately, there are too many people in the world who do use
children (and photographs of them) for sexual gratification.
Distressingly, for such people age is no object (or rather, the lack of
adulthood _is_ the object), and lines are not always drawn at any
particular age. I know about this because an immediate family member
works in the forensic psych field (with convicted sex offenders, in
jails), and some of them have committed physical offences with children
too young to even talk. The stuff she deals with on a daily basis is
enough to make me physically sick. Many of the inmates are involved in
organised rings that distribute child-pornography, from anywhere they
can obtain it - including innocent family websites. It _is_ a real
problem.
For all those who do take photographs of their kids in the buff (as do
all parents, and I will too when the time comes), I would suggest you do
the utmost to keep those pictures in your private family album, and
nowhere else.
Dylan
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:16:47 GMT
> From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [OM] [OT] And for Your Next Assignment -Reply
>
> I suppose I have mixed feelings about David Hamilton's photographs.
> (Ambivalent enough for you?) On the one hand, they're beautifully and
> tastefully done. OTOH, as the father of daughters ... well ... what *is* on
> the other hand now? My daughters are adults now and if they chose to engage
> in such modeling how could I object? Not if it were executed as well as
> Hamilton's. When I see my daughters, however poorly we may sometimes get
> along (the youngest is still cutting the apron strings, with the attendant
> attitude problems), I can't help but think, "I, their mother, and God helped
> to make these beautiful creatures."
>
> So while I *wouldn't* photograph children nude beyond the age of 3 or so,
> nor allow another to do so of my kids, I must confess that I have wanted
> annual nude photos (or paintings) of all the kidlets in my family (grandsons
> included).
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|