The allure of David Hamilton...

Photographer: Nagib El-Desouky

Holiday time for me, so more time for blogging, time I will soon not have - be prepared for a short hiatus in the forthcoming weeks!

Following my post on Pavel Kiselev, a photographer friend whose opinion I hold in high esteem urged me to look at David Hamilton's work, which I was not fully familiar with. I know, I should be ashamed of my ignorance as it turns out that David Hamilton has been one of the most influential photographers in the English speaking world. This photographer friend is not so enamoured of Pavel Kiselev's work. He articulated, in his note to me, a dissent that is worth noting:

"Kiselev obviously knows what he's doing and also seems to have access to a great many stunning models. However, I personally don't like the dynamic that he seems to build up with his models. On most of his images they seem completely vacuous, powerless, passive. I dislike that, especially with photography that has an erotic slant to it. His work reminds me a little of David Hamilton's. Hamilton is a much better photographer but the relationship between model /photographer is similar. The photographer has all the power, the model has little or none and looks like she is there primarily because she is getting paid or some other non-creative reason. I should say though that in David Hamilton's work, there is the added factor that many of his models were actually underage. In today's climate, he would probably be arrested for the pedophiliac suggestions".


Thanks, photographer friend, for this very thoughtful comment. Let me clarify. This blog post is no longer about Pavel Kiselev. Now that David Hamilton's name has been uttered...let's talk about artistic "child pornography", for this is one of the accusations that has been levelled at him.


In 2005 The Guardian newspaper published an article which declared that David Hamilton's books had been deemed to be indecent by the Guildford Crown Court, following which the book chain WH Smith withdrew Hamilton's books from sale.

Photographer: Nagib El-Desouky


Was Hamilton really guilty of child pornography? Or was this a hysterical reaction?

Children are sexual beings, it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Hamilton's pictures of unnamed teenage girls do portray their eroticism. In his images they become erotic objects, something that is emphasised by the soft focus of the composition. But...the portrayal of children's sexuality for the consumption of adults is disturbing to the point of being unacceptable. Inevitably the relationship between adult and child involves a power imbalance, in favour of the adult. The child does not have the power, and lacks the courage, to say no to the sexual demands of the adult.

Hamilton's work is well composed. But it remains predatorial. When I look at it I am reminded of what a less famous and undoubtedly much less talented photographer told me during a shoot articulating a desire that is often not so well concealed: "I would love to photograph teenage girls in the nude. Those firm breasts..." he was positively salivating as he said it and I could not help feeling somewhat queasy about it (and totally out of place in that studio).

Photographer: Nagib El-Desouky


Hamilton's work is disquieting. I am not sure it is child pornography but it is not the kind of erotic artistic photography I am drawn to. I fully agree with the analysis given by photographer Daniel Lewis in his essay, which I urge you to read, on the child's body, and his comparison of Hamilton and Sturges:

"If Sturges photographs the naked then Hamilton pictures the nude. In his pictures we behold the mysterious and forbidden; young girls beginning to realise the changes in their body and perhaps exploring these changes for the first time. By this the pictures are made to appeal to the sexuality of the spectator and have nothing to do with the sexuality of the model. They are made to arouse and if ever there is any doubt as to whether or not this is true his books provide us with helpfully erotic quotations that accompany each image to reinforce this...his pictures apply the same techniques that have been used for hundreds of years to romanticise youth. Within them he presents us with an object rather than a person and so those he professes to represent are ignored for who they are and instead become a possession to provide gratification for the collector."

A couple of years ago I became embroiled in an unnecessary controversy over the way some photographers, mostly amateur, produce what I now understand to be a form of Hamiltonesque photography, Hamilton having been so influential on the development of art nude. They use models that are not underage, but who could be reimagined in the role of an eroticised teenager. At the time I was not able to name my discomfort and was not able to link such work with that of Hamilton, whose images I had not seen. I can now. For this, I thank my unnamed photographer friend's sharp observations on gender imbalance in erotic photography and the thoughtful essay by Lewis on the representation of children's corporeality.


(All photos modelled by Alex B.)