Trying to deny that nudity doesn't have sexual connotations is a mistaken direction in such arguments. Do we as humans try to deny sexual stimulation as part of the pleasure of art? Actually, we should enjoy the sexual aspect of nudity when viewing all art including Renaissance art such as Michelangelo's great paintings that decorate churches ( many such works of art include nudity). We should quit trying to pretend that we are saints when faced with a nude image. And specifically to photography, how do we distinguish a Jock Sturgis or Sally Mann image from child pornography? Maybe the element of intent or suggestion of violence? I don't believe viewing a Sally Mann image has led someone to committing sexual violence against a minor.
Doug On Mar 25, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Shannon Stoney wrote:
I recognize that there are people, especially in TX and in the South, that are offended to an unreasonable degree by nudity and sexuality in photographs. I don't think I am one of those people. As I said, I like Mapplethorpe's pictures. I think they are ok because they involve consenting adults. Most of the Puritans and Southern Baptists would be much more offended by the Mapplethorpe pictures than the Sally Mann pictures. The problem I have with SM's pictures is that they are of *children.* Maybe this is a more sensitive issue for women than men. Most women remember growing up being confused and uncomfortable with the fact that as soon as we reach puberty, we feel as if men and boys are always looking at us. And there is pressure to look sexy, but not too sexy. And there is the fear of violence. If you added to that the experience of being photographed in the nude by your mom, in provocative poses, I can't imagine what that would do to your head.As you say, not every moment with nudity is a sexual moment. I think that is basic and most educated people understand that. It doesn't have to be explained to me. SM claimed that this was JUST nudity. But it clearly was not. Jessie was posed on a sofa in the nude as an odalisque, like the Ingres odalisque painting, which represented a prostitute. She had her hand over her crotch in exactly the odalisque gesture. How can anyone claim that this is not sexual?It's true that media is a bigger force for evil exploitation of little girls than one woman with a camera can be. But SM claimed that her daughters vamp it up in front of the camera because "that stuff is just in the water." She seemed to deplore the fact that sexualization of little girls is "just in the water." But rather than examining that critically, she then uses it, peddles it herself, and thus poisons the very waters that she claims are poisoning her little girls.This is just inexcusable. I think that the fine arts culture is too often so worried about being hip and about frightening the bourgeoisie and being "transgressive" that it doesn't see when it is being abusive and crossing a line that should not be crossed. I don't think the art world should countenance this k ind of stuff. Does that make me a Jesse Helms look-alilke? I don't think so. Again, pictures of adult sexuality are fine in my book. I just think it's really wrong to corral kids into catering to adult sexual fantasies.As for the APA study, it is hardly psychobabble, and debate about the sexualization of little girls in the media (which photography is definitely part of) belongs in the political arena. Women's issues are political issues.Here's a good test: would you want your eleven year old daughter to be ogled in the nude, hanging from a hay hook or splayed on a couch, in an art gallery or a coffee table book? I have a son, and I wouldn't do that to him, but it makes me literally queasy to think of doing that to my niece for example, who is about the age of the little girls in Immediate Family.--shannonShannon, I think what you are getting into is a very complicated area ofhuman interaction and cultural values. One very strong aspect ofcommunication is intentionality. Here in Texas for example, I find that there is backwardness to the idea of limits of the human form; presentation, acceptance of, and thoughts regarding. Whether they are played out in the media through Puritan values, Southern Baptist values, or some undefined blending of those values I find them to be overly restrictive to a healthy mind and body. A very crucial part of the dialog that is missing in the conversation about the human form, nudity and sexuality in photography, is where do the subjective values of the "masses" come from and where they arediscussed? Do people really have open conversation about nudity and sexuallality? Or do they mostly reintroduce constructs from theirupbringing? The proposal in law playing out down in Austin to put to death sex offenders is an example of good intentions run a muck. I certainly don'tcondone a wide variety of sexual interaction that some individualsperpetrate on others, there is a point where people have lost context intowho they are and their own limits to pass judgment.Did Sally say that her photo with just nudity? Can she control your mind as to what you feel when you look at them? In part perhaps with a title, but your own feeling are going to be projected on to those moments of time. Not every moment of nudity is a sexual moment unless that is how YOU see it. Context in life's moments is more likely to play a roll in how you see a scene if you can get it. Without context, you are left to your own thoughts and life's experience to make them up. You will sometimes get it right andsometimes get it wrong.AS far as mentioning what psycho babble is out there on the subject of exploitation, I think that is a topic for a different forum. Studies of fartoo many things have been taken into political arena and out of thescientific arena where they belong. A much bigger boggy man in the world of exploitation are TV advertisers than those us that use a still camera tocapture a moment of the human form involved in a moment in time. Eric Eric Neilsen Photography 4101 Commerce Street Suite 9 Dallas, TX 75226 http://e.neilsen.home.att.net http://ericneilsenphotography.com Skype ejprinter-----Original Message----- From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pure-silver- bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shannon Stoney Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 12:28 PM To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [pure-silver] Sally Mann lecture in Houston I'm ready to talk. --shannon==================================================================== =========================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to youraccount (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.===================================================================== ======================================== To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.====================================================================== ======================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
