I am very aware of the fact that sexual abuse is rampant, children are trafficked around the world for sex and subjected to the most horrific tortures for sexual gratification. I am also very aware that children in our culture are sexualised from a very early age, they learn in school about being 'sexy' well before reaching puberty and sometimes people very flippantly would describe a cute outfit for a child as 'a sexy number', forgetting that children should not be seen by adults as sexy, it is the wrong mind set.
But I am at a loss for words to describe how I feel about what happened in Paris a couple of days ago. Photographer Diane Ducruet, an established artist whose work has received much acclaim, saw her work removed from the Gallery that had invited her to exhibit because of some anonymous online accusations of paedophilia and some threats.
This is Ducruet's offending photograph, showing a mother and daughter intertwined, yet the piece is abstract because it is a composite so what you think you might be seeing is not necessarily what it is
Apparently even more offending was the invite where again you see the mother kissing the daughter:
I don't know about you, but I do remember playing a game with my son when he was a toddler - way back, does time not fly? I would pretend to eat him and he would do the same to me, have you never played this game with your children? I would not put myself in the category of paedophiles for doing that nor would anyone else (I hope!). The point I am making is that the picture on the invite reminds me of that game.
I can see that what some people may find disturbing is the nudity, real or imagined. Actually we don't know whether they are naked and here the fact that Diane is an artist does kick in because art often rests on ambiguities and it's meant to be provocative. It should make you think about what you see.
I do not think there is anything untoward in any of these representations and I personally find the embrace very moving. When mothers are with their very young children they may at times be naked with them. They might take a bath with their toddlers. They might hug their young children while wearing just a bra and knickers or even topless. Nudity should not always be construed as indicative of sexual activity.
The people who objected to these pictures are probably the same kind of people who object to breastfeeding in public. Enough said.
You can read about Diane Ducruet here and also visit her website to see her body of work
But I am at a loss for words to describe how I feel about what happened in Paris a couple of days ago. Photographer Diane Ducruet, an established artist whose work has received much acclaim, saw her work removed from the Gallery that had invited her to exhibit because of some anonymous online accusations of paedophilia and some threats.
This is Ducruet's offending photograph, showing a mother and daughter intertwined, yet the piece is abstract because it is a composite so what you think you might be seeing is not necessarily what it is
Apparently even more offending was the invite where again you see the mother kissing the daughter:
I don't know about you, but I do remember playing a game with my son when he was a toddler - way back, does time not fly? I would pretend to eat him and he would do the same to me, have you never played this game with your children? I would not put myself in the category of paedophiles for doing that nor would anyone else (I hope!). The point I am making is that the picture on the invite reminds me of that game.
I can see that what some people may find disturbing is the nudity, real or imagined. Actually we don't know whether they are naked and here the fact that Diane is an artist does kick in because art often rests on ambiguities and it's meant to be provocative. It should make you think about what you see.
I do not think there is anything untoward in any of these representations and I personally find the embrace very moving. When mothers are with their very young children they may at times be naked with them. They might take a bath with their toddlers. They might hug their young children while wearing just a bra and knickers or even topless. Nudity should not always be construed as indicative of sexual activity.
The people who objected to these pictures are probably the same kind of people who object to breastfeeding in public. Enough said.
You can read about Diane Ducruet here and also visit her website to see her body of work
Pedophilia..NO, but also art, not so much..for me anyhow..!!
ReplyDeleteBut the main point of your observation is spot dead on.
Why oh why do we Westerners so cling to the ever more erratic swing of the moral and political pendulum. What was ever wrong with the simple sane center.
and so it goes.....
I see nothing that indicates that the welfare of the child was endangered. No. This isn't child pornography. Of course, I'm starting with my general philosophy that simple nudity isn't inherently sexual, which I think is doubly so for children. They don't have the requisite hormones to be thinking about sex the way adults do. They would have to be coached to be sexualized. A toddler wouldn't think twice about streaking a cocktail party. It's a behavior that actually needs to be taught to them as inappropriate. Then you have the familial relationship aspect. People see their family members naked, sometimes. And the relationship between a mother and child is a strong one.
ReplyDeleteThere is clearly nothing explicitly or implicitly sexual being portrayed in that image.
And it's abstract, to boot.
Nope. People are overreacting.
Thank you both for your commens. I am also pasting below a comment left by The-Darkwolf on my dA page:
ReplyDeleteThere's an old anonymous quote that "Obscenity is whatever gives the judge an erection" that seems to come into play here. In one way, it is a good thing that our society has finally overcome the Freudian misconception that childhood memories of sexual abuse are fantasy, and has taken a stance to protect children from such activities. The downside is that it now becomes such a prejudice that all human interaction between children and adults, even family, is suspect. In the photos you showed of the exhibit, this was the play and bonding of mother and child, one of the most basic and sacred of social development, one of the six Jungian "Supersymbols" which all human cultures share. However, for those who judged it and anonymously complained, they essentially identified themselves not so much as protectors, but as those who would find such an act to be sexual in nature.Over-reaction or projection on their part, it matters not. What truly becomes offensive is the reactions of those who were supposed to show judgement and sense. For the curators to withdraw the piece because someone didn't like it, to act as though somehow photos in a carefully planned exhibit taking over a year to assemble "slipped" by them, is the act of an immature a$$-covering prat who shouldn't have had the job in the first place. You will always have cranks who are offended by anything and read anything into what they see, like the joke about the patient who describes intense sexual perversions into a set of Rorschach blots and then berates the psychiatrist for showing him "dirty pictures". The place of the curator, the exhibit director, the people in charge is to be the eyes and ears and minds of reason. Unfortunately, like the legal representatives that they would answer to, "common sense" isn't so common and far to many "authorities" heed the extremes of vox populism rather than either the law or reason....
He is right of course. The curators should have stood by the initial decision to exhibit Diane's work
oops, comments!
DeleteNudists understand well the difference between naked play like this, which is just play after all, and sexual play that indeed has no place in parent-child relationships. I've heard tales of real child sexual abuse -- and this is not that.
ReplyDelete