Honi soit qui mal y pense

 Photographer: Mark Varley

I first encountered Sally Mann's photography  following her controversial solo exhibition Immediate Family in Philadelphia in 1992. It was impossible at the time, whether one was or not into photography, not to be aware of the furore her pictures had unleashed. Her detractors thought that putting her own naked children on display was tantamount to pornography. Earlier this year  a retrospective of Mann's photography was on show in London  and this provided  an opportunity to re-examine her work and the hysterical opposition it  provoked.

In a recent interview, one of her children, Jessie, now 23, says that collaborating with her mother had made her understand  the power of art and how those photographs in particular make one ask questions about reality and fantasy. Where  does one end and the other commence? Photography can often blur that boundary. Such is its power.

Sexualisation of naked children is one of the greatest anxieties of our time.  As curator Pauline Hadaway told  Tiffany Jenkins for The Independent a' propos Sally Mann's photographs, "we live in an age when the child-protection regulations instruct us to put ourselves into the place of the paedophile when we look at images today. Thus we are no longer assessing the piece, or the subject, but instead how it could be interpreted."  Once we begin to think 'like a paedophile' our children's innocence is forever lost.

Pictures of my naked child playing in the sand, if put on show, could get me arrested.  My child is now an adult but images of him taken when he was little while playing wearing no clothes  on a Mediterranean beach could still get me into serious trouble if I were to upload them on the internet.  I, you, most of us, would see them as beautiful childhood moments. A small minority of adults would see them differently, investing them with an eroticism that my maternal eye is unable and unwilling to see.

Photographer: Marc Wainwright

Reclaiming that childhood innocence is not made any easier when  photography sexualises children, portraying adolescent/pre-pubescent eroticism by using older models camouflaged as much younger girls. Use of lighting, posing and expression can blend into creating the right kind of effect, something advertising has fully exploited.  Calvin Klein consistently used the child like Kate Moss from when she was still only 14, well into her twenties,  as well as other models, often as young as 15, sometimes older but  looking like pubescent girls,  showing them  in provocative poses in controversial ads.  From time to time  they had to be withdrawn for the outrage they sparked - viewers were troubled by the sexualisation and commercialisation of children which such ads seemed to be endorsing.

Whereas pictures of nude children in suggestively erotic poses are illegal and immediately classed as pornography, pictures of child like nude models in eroticised child like poses and expressions are not. I have seen pictures on  public sites including  deviantArt of child like girls in a state of half undress, portrayed as awkwardly and tantalisingly erotic young things.  A recent one is by an accomplished photographer who claims to have been inspired by Sally Mann in his portrait work. It shows a child like girl who appears to be feeling awkward, almost reluctant to pose without her top and yet complying, looking like a real pubescent girl would  if she were before a much older man and this man insisted she should undress for him.

It is all make believe, the model is acting like a  teenager, her hair is styled simply pinned to one side with a plain girlie slide, and she totally looks the part, so much so that some viewers have articulated their discomfort in tactful comments. One of them says  "It's technically a good photograph. There was no suggestion from me that the model was underage, merely that she appeared to be so. As a result of this, and her very youthful look, there was something inside me that told me that I should not be looking. To be honest, I'd be more concerned if I didn't have that reaction. Certainly thought provoking! " That is a very English  understatement.

I am not a prude and I know that teens do explore their sexuality and sensuality. But it is one thing to see them do it with each other, another thing to photograph them doing it and yet another thing to get a child like girl to interpret a bashful and confused teenager about to disrobe for a much older man. "

 These images can be freely downloaded.  Because of the context in which they are found  these nude portraits of an imagined highly eroticised teenage subject are distributed for public consumption. Their viewers are mostly adults. It makes me wonder.

 Photographer: Owen Gruyfedd

This is and will remain a controversial topic and here I can only sketch out my argument. I am neither condemning nor praising. I am asking questions.  Are  photographers who circumvent  the legal problems they would encounter if they were to use real underage models to be viewed as courageously pushing artistic boundaries? Are they  reclaiming 'adolescent eroticism' as a fit subject for art nude, and in doing so attempting to extricate it from its commercialisation?  Or, by eroticising young nudity and ensuring it is done within legality, are they making it impossible for photographs of nude children to be viewed as charming and emotive childhood memories, something that could be argued Sally Mann or Bill Henson were actually attempting to do?

(All photos modelled by Alex B)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

  1. First of all, the lead image by Mark Varley is beautiful work! I enjoyed doing some Fetish work as well. Mark's lighting is sublime. Congratulations to you both.

    The industry producing child pornography is the most insidious imaginable. I don't even want to get started on how pervasively damaging this type of work has been to legitimate artists as well as, rightly noted, to parents and children. When my son was young, no one questioned something as sweet as the first-time-on-the-potty pic whereas today it truly could get us arrested. In the U.S. you could get on a sex offender list for such an image, and some parents have.

    U.S. Section 2257 managed to be put into law as an effort to clamp down on child porn; however, it is a reporting law that affects each and every photographer and model who posts images in any online context. If you haven't kept the requisite records (and doing this by the letter is virtually impossible), then you have committed a felony punishable with prison time and a large fine.

    I do not understand grown men who feel compelled to photograph underage females in the ways 2257 describes as being in violation. I do not understand why an artist would want to create such a scenario even if the model is, in fact, over 18. I do not understand the men who want to look at either of these types of photography for sexual titillation.

    Clearly, U.S. law considers this behavior to be illegal, abnormal, and harmful. I am opposed to the way 2257 goes about dealing with child pornography - it is completely unlikely to do a thing regarding the ugly world of criminal abduction of child and their use in online porn. The people in this gutter industry do not have above-ground places of business so could not be randomly or routinely visited by the authorities. If someone reports them, they generally will be gone before the FBI arrives. This was the situation before 2257 and remains the situation afterward.

    The people who are most vulnerable to enforcement of 2257 would be the amateur photographers who post their work on sites like deviantART.

    I hope this doesn't seem off-topic, but in fact people like the photographer you mention, who push the line with real children or play games with such images, really do hurt the art community as a whole by giving conservative lawmakers a basis on which to pass legislation as potentially harmful to freedom of expression as 2257.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you UL for complimenting me about the photo taken by Mark, it is indeed beautiful. It was taken on my first shoot with him.
    As for the rest of your comment it is illuminating, it explains what 2257 is and actually does. I agree that it might not be as effective as one would want it to be and it ends up hitting those people who compared to the criminals you mention are not making hugely transgressive work.
    I was however checking out what the CPS says in the UK about indecent photography and it would appear that here pseudo-photographs are illegal and it would seem that this is a category of images where in fact the child is 'interpreted' by an adult with the intention of conveying the impression of a child. Pseudo-photographs are not illegal in the US. This confuses matters even more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alex, I am not an attorney, but from my understanding, 2257 does indeed cover pseudo photographs. It doesn't matter whether the act portrayed is simulated or actual. You can't legally play these games.

    Simulated sexually explicit content is prohibited by 2257 just the same as actual:

    It includes "conduct engaged in by performers that is depicted in such a manner that would cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the performers engaged in the actual act, even if they did not in fact do so."

    Criteria for sexually explicit behavior includes "the setting of the visual depiction" if it is "sexually suggestive, i.e., a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;

    the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activities."

    I understand the above criteria derived from a child pornography case.

    These quotes are from "A Photographer's Guide to Section 2257" by Stephen Haynes (his blog Truth and Justice For All is linked at my blog http://drlightness.blogspot.com)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you UL. By this definition the thought provoking pictures of an imagined eroticised teenager are against the law. I remain as confused as I was and still full of unanswered questions.For example are the models also committing an offence if the photographs are deemed to be portraying a 'child'? I have the feeling that models who already seem to have few rights would be left out on a limb. What if the photographer claimed to be photographing 'what is there', as offered to him by the model?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the U.S., child pornography laws have been extended to include mobile phone images. I posted some time ago on teen girls whose lives were ruined when they sent cell phone images to their friends of themselves that need not be nude but only sexually suggestive. Some of these girls have been arrested for disseminating child pornography on their cell phones even though the law is meant to protect them, not prosecute them. Any model who posts such images of herself certainly could be prosecuted.

    One girl I read about was 12 and photographed herself in a "granny bra" at a pajama party and sent it to friends. She was indeed arrested and prosecuted.

    All it takes is for someone to be offended and report you to the authorities. These are all laws dependent upon on citizen reporting, which I have written about numerous times.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There have been legal proceedings concerning drawings depicting underage eroticism/pornography, such as hentai and comic books as well a fiction written on it. In America, Hustler magazine has a sister magazine and adult film series titled "Barely Legal".

    Young adult, even middle school fashion is getting highly "sexualized". Halloween costumes are getting more risque every year. Last year I had the uncomfortable experience of opening the door to a neighbor's 13 year old daughter in her "naughty nun" outfit - lots of cleavage, skin tight black skirt, and fishnets.

    My concern is how is the spectrum the kids are living in affecting their sexual development and health. On one side, the repression of nudity and sex is scary by sending the message that all sexuality is wrong, on the other side, the celebrity "sexualization" of youth pushes back. How is all this affecting the adolescents?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is a conumdrum, Karl. Adolescents are in the process of discovering sex and that is not unhealthy, yet it is most disturbing when their budding sexuality and sensuality is exploited for the pleasure of much older men, and to a lesser extent, women. I do wonder whether saying 'I am portraying this to raise questions' is enough to make it art.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Though we need to be careful about condemning people out of hand. Photographers like Sally Mann photographed her children and presented the works as art pieces. These fetch high prices at auction and are present in many museum collections.

    Jock Sturges has been photographing with a 10 x 8" plate camera in the south of France for the last 40 years, photographing families (which includes children) on nudist beaches, and then as the families grow up he is now photographing the families of the children. Again his work is well respected and shows many innocent and beautiful photographs of children.

    In the UK a few years ago a female TV presenter was arrested for making photographs of her daughter in the bath. The chemist reported her.

    Annelies Strba, a Swiss photographer took photographs of her children and these were accepted in exhibition, but ran foul of the law in the UK.

    Sexualising children is a dangerous thing to do. However it is important not to take a broad brush and smear every photo of a naked child with the taint of pedophilia. I suspect most parents have stroked their children's skin, or looked at a baby's clear eyes without having thoughts that they would feel embarrassed about.

    The recent Metropolitain police Operation Ore, the result of an investigation by the FBI uncovered many people around the world who had accessed child porn, many are UK residents.

    So whilst not wanting to condone the sexualisation of children, I urge anyone to look at the photographs of the people I mention above and then tell me that there was a malign intent lurking there.

    All best and happy Christmas Alex


    Hugh

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Hugh
    thank you for your thoughtful comment. Absolutely, my point is that Sally Mann certainly and Hensen did not photograph nude children to sexualise them. I am actually more concerned with photographs which seem to be above board because the model is not under age but which portray her as a child and which eroticise her. Even more perturbing to find such photos in collections entitled The Art of Orgasm. Are such photos legitimate erotic art, boldly reclaiming the eroticism of the very young? Are such photos preventing us to view children's nudity as innocent? My question remains unanswered. I am not judging, just wondering

    ReplyDelete
  10. I made a probably longer post on UL's blog post on the same topic (sorry that I keep doing that).

    I think, on deviantArt at least, there's a danger where we assume someone is underage merely because they LOOK underage, and it gets the model and her photographer into trouble.

    One particular model I know of works frequently with a photographer called fourlizard, and despite actually being in her twenties, this model looks much younger.
    It's a source of annoyance for both of them when they come under accusations of child pornography.

    On the other hand, you might be aware of Styush, a woman who documented her pregnancy on deviantArt by having herself and her under aged daughter pose for nude photographs in a non-sexual context.
    The dA policy became more strict, and suddenly all of her photos were flagged and removed.

    I would prefer that both of those cases be left untouched.

    On the other hand, the photo you described strikes me as being too close to the line for acceptability.
    fourlizards' work is not meant to make one think the model is a child. Styush's work is no more upsetting than a look through a family photo album (where the photos are all amazing).
    But in the case you described, the image is meant to imply that the model is underage.

    As far as I know, in both Canada and the US, if it is implied that the model is underaged - even if she isn't - it constitutes child pornography.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for this Hatebunny. I absolutely do not think your photos or Stuyush are pornographic. I am also wondering whether the image I refer to should be in fact viewed as a bold artistic nude reclaiming teenage eroticism. This seems to be the way most people are viewing it as.I am confused and I seek clarity

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think I need to have the phrase "reclaiming teenage eroticism" explained to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well Hatebunny, I am always trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. So I was trying to get into the head of an art photographer that wants to portray a teenager and sees her as erotic and tries to infuse that in her portrait. In other words saying that teenagers are/can be erotic and that it's all right to have artistic depictions of that eroticism. However I realise that in saying this I feel uncomfortable the moment I ask the question erotic for whom?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, that's an interesting discussion - and a bit of a dangerous one, I suppose.

    I can't imagine any reputable photographer attempting to recreate child pornography for any good reason. I can easily imagine one trying to push some boundaries, without actually thinking about the REAL reason for having used the concept other than that it was 'cool.'

    That said, when you ask "who is it erotic for"...

    Well, before I get into that, let me say that using a word like 'eroticism' to refer to the sexuality of young people seems skeazy on its own. Despite what many people in these circles seem to think, as far as I'm concerned, "erotic" is an adjective best reserved for pornography (the vagaries of softcore and beyond), rather than art. Whereas, sensuality and sexuality are somehow necessarily distinct from both - at least in my mind.

    Anyway, back to that question:
    When I was a teenager, not so long ago, I was certainly sexually active with teenage girls.
    I was certainly privy to the sexuality and sensuality (eroticism) of a teen.
    And, I [may or may not] have practiced artistic nude photography with a teenage girlfriend, which [may or may not have] captured a bit of that.

    That said, eroticism/sexuality of a teen is best saved for another teen, or nobody.
    There is something to the inexperience and the naivety of those underage that is safety when shared within itself. Something that is inappropriate to share with those even younger, or those who have experience.

    In this case of this photo you've been talking about, I feel as though the content of that photo couldn't possibly be meant to indicate the reclamation of underage teen sexuality/eroticism, because a) the model is not underage, b) the photographer is not underage, c) the image depicts reticence and hesitation - which is hardly any kind of reclamation.

    Teens open up sexually to eachother because they know they are the same, and because in their hormone addled brains, they believe they are in a secure romantic relationship.

    It is merely a sad development of the internet/digital age that teens put their nude bodies and their sexual energy out to a broad and anonymous audience in the hopes that somebody out there will love them, despite how stupid a plan that may sound to the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Excellent points here, Hatebunny. In the case of that photo it is all a bit disingenuous because the model was picked in that she looked as much as possible to a teen and in having her everything was above board. But there is no doubt that the eroticism of that photo is determined by the reticence and the teen look, which makes me wonder why it would be welcomed in a collection called The Art of Orgasm (not by teems for teens)that makes no qualms about being about erotic art (and good quality photos too). Again erotic for whom.
    Reticence and hesitation are the hallmark of teenage eroticism for an older man/woman. It comes down to a power trip and that is scary.The photographer in question who is currently very irate about anyone questioning his artistic composition uncharacteristically communicated directly with me about the photo and said it was all about pert breasts and the erotic appeal of youth. There you are.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment