This thread was locked on 2009-10-04 19:53:15
Photographer
H5D PHOTOGRAPHER
Posts: 3837
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
c_d_s wrote:
That sounds like a station on the London Underground. LOL!
Photographer
Tim Foster
Posts: 1816
Orlando, Florida, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Yes, you've seen the images. What do you know about the above photographers? Do some research on the life of Richard Prince before and after those images, including the one of Brooke Shields. If you then think the shoot you have in mind is worth it, then you should move forward.
Right/wrong, legal/illegal, moral/immoral is irrelevant. Even your intent holds little weight. It's the perception of the viewer, which is unpredictable at best, that dictates the outcome.
And maybe it's just me, but I just get the creeps when someone who can't spell or use proper punctuation and grammar wants to discuss shooting nude underage girls. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it's all about perception. Richard Prince never photographed Brooke Shields. He "appropriated" a photograph shot by Garry(sic) Gross.
Photographer
H5D PHOTOGRAPHER
Posts: 3837
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
4-Real Photography wrote:
Remember the movie "American Beauty"?
Thora Birch was 16 when she did that Nude scene and it was a mainstream movie that won lots of awards.
Double standard.
Go figure. Huge difference between a Major Hollywood Studio production making a movie with an enormous crew & production staff, keeping close watch on the context & behavior of all involved & some GWC seeking out a 16yr old girl, in order to take some topless snapshots in his garage/apartment for "portfolio use"!
We get to see the end result in the Movie up on the big screen & are able to make our own judgement.... the Adult Male that is photographing underage girls is not quite so easy to keep tabs on as the work doesnt tend to be publicly available with the exception of a few Gallery shows that end up being raided by the police!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … hotos.html
(This is not aimed at the poster I am responding to... just a general statement....)
I would love to see those that advocate shooting underage teens topless for their portfolios, actually "put their money where their mouth is" & publicly publish some work, so we can see what actually happens to them specifically from a legal perspective & media coverage angle.
Its either put up or STFU time!
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2214
San Jose, California, US
My final thoughts on this.
I've personally gone out on a limb in support of a photographer who's work includes some beautifully and sensitively executed nudes of children. He did that work with the parents present and often with parent and child in the photos. I think all involved will continue to be proud of this work through their lifetimes.
That being said, this is not a subject that I would take on myself. For one thing, I don't think I could do the subject justice. Also, the social atmosphere these days has become irrational in its "zero-tolerance" stance on many issues -- a child being kicked out of school for having a butter-knife in his lunch pail. Children being prosecuted as adults for playing a digital version of "show me yours and I'll show you mine" with their cell phones.
The risks involved in shooting nudes of children and young adults far outweigh any rewards for photographers who aren't already established in doing that kind of work.
And that means that the folks who have been campaigning to limit certain forms of expression are being effective. They've stopped some art from being produced by introducing fear into the equation.
I do want to commend everyone for keeping this discussion civil. It's a rare treat here when dealing with such a hot topic.
A final rhetorical question:
At what age is the human body beautiful enough to be worthy of art?
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12965
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
I would love to see those that advocate shooting underage teens topless for their portfolios, It's not really all that uncommon of a practice,
you just don't hear much about it because it rarely results in much hubbub.
I know of more than a few photographers who have shot this type of work,
But no.... I'm not going to out them here on MM
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
rp_photo wrote:
Just wait until a week after the shoot when mom decides she doesn't like it and realizes what a big stick she has. Exactly. I don't even think THAT would be a problem, but I'm not going to take the risk. I've gotten enough shit from the cops over shooting a 19yo fully clothed. 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
There is a 17yo model here who I have worked with before who actually asked about doing some topless shots, her mom thought it would be ok, I had to tell her nope wait until next Feb when she turns 18. No sense in risking problems. But once she's 18, I probably will do the shoot. H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
Its the smart thing to do... I would have done the same thing myself.
IMO the people that harp on about "artistic freedom" & shooting nudes with underage models being OK if they are "shot professionally"......... I seriously have to question the motives of a photographer that wants to photograph a random 16yr old girl topless/implied/nude when its purely for "portfolio" purposes! Its just bloody creepy! I don't see a moral issue and I doubt that there would be a legal issue- I would shoot her now if it wouldn't put my ass out on a skinny limb. She's smart and mature and I don't think anyone would be creeped out.
From my perspective, its ALL about being practical.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Exactly. I don't even think THAT would be a problem, but I'm not going to take the risk. I've gotten enough shit from the cops over shooting a 19yo fully clothed. Which was also due to mom if I recall correctly.
Photographer
AMCphoto2
Posts: 479
Los Angeles, California, US
Leroy Dickson wrote:
Which, btw, is against the rules on MM. didn't think anything of it. But if I come across her port again I'll CAM it I guess
Photographer
AMCphoto2
Posts: 479
Los Angeles, California, US
4-Real Photography wrote:
The last time I really wanted to see a 16 year old girl nude, was when I was a 16 year old boy. haha!!
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Exactly. I don't even think THAT would be a problem, but I'm not going to take the risk. I've gotten enough shit from the cops over shooting a 19yo fully clothed. rp_photo wrote:
Which was also due to mom if I recall correctly. Yup, model left her cell sitting in the bathroom, mom freaked and called the cops. And now the model has "I WILL HAVE AN ESCORT ZOMG" on her profile. :sigh:
I wouldn't shoot with her again on a bet.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
That was the American Apparel Ads in the UK.... The Model was 23 but 1 person complained that "she looked about 16"... so there was an investigation & the Ad was pulled... this is what we are dealing with.... so imagine what would have happened if it had turned out the Model was 16!... The Model wasnt even topless... she was wearing a hoody with a zip that wasnt closed.... Thanks, could'nt remember who produced the adv.
Michelangelo or any of the artisits who produced these cherub nudes would have failed in the States. All their work would have by todays laws been banned.
Photographer
Paul Brecht
Posts: 12232
Colton, California, US
H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
Ask yourself this...
"Will I risk being involved in a very public investigation... having my computers seized... having my neighbors & family questioned... being labelled by the court of public opinion as a pervert & or a possible pedophile.... Do I want my business to be destroyed... If you have kids, do you want them taken from you for an evaluation period by social services... What will my kid's friends say to them at school... How will my wife/girlfriend/partner react to me shooting an underage girl topless.... Will I have to move from my home because of the controversy something like this causes????" Especially in this day of overzealous politicians prosecutors. I wonder about some of them, the way they think. They imagine some of the worst, most vile things whether or not it has any base. But you can be sure, when they think it up about _______________ (insert your name here) they will play to win & stick everything possible on you...
Not to mention they have almost unlimited resources compared to what anyone in this thread would have to contribute to their defense...
Paul
Photographer
saiello
Posts: 1241
Ypsilanti, Michigan, US
JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual
what are the toughts When you go to print your images make sure you do it at wall-mart.
Photographer
Dan Lee Photo
Posts: 3004
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Eryn M Gombos wrote:
I wish we could shoot whatever we wanted, but sometimes we can't. Art isn't art anymore - its censorship.
Though this is going to be a fun thread  You can in Australia.. there was a nude boy and girl exhibition here 12-14 i think, was a 20 eyar project or something, even the prime minister said it was foul and he was arrested by the police for child porn, the high court laughed the prosecution out of the courtroom and told them to stfu and since theyre the federal police to actually go and learn Australian law, and that now they are not allowed to try and attempt to find other charges to press on him (which they were going too) for the fact he was arrested not because he broke the law but because he did something they didnt like/agree with/not in their moral values when the country was founded on people being allowed to have whatever beliefs or values without harming others and inside the law etc...
NSW criminal code states nude under 18's is not child pornography and is allowed in various categories for medical, educational, scientific purpsoes - as well as for art.
Photographer
Visual Echoes
Posts: 923
Niagara Falls, New York, US
I just don't bother... I have not encountered a situation where I simply MUST shoot a person topless, let alone someone underage. There is too much trouble surrounding it and there are too many other creative things to be done for me to corner myself into ONLY nudity.
If that makes sense.. I'm not saying nudity is pointless.
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15867
New York, New York, US
Richard Tallent wrote:
Legally:
18 USC 2256/2257/2257a does not cover breasts at all, other than in a prohibition against computer-rendered lascivious simulated sexual intercourse.
Realistically:
The public that watches your 10 o'clock news doesn't know or care about the law, but they sure as hell know what they'll think of a photographer shooting a topless 16-year-old. +1
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15867
New York, New York, US
4-Real Photography wrote:
The last time I really wanted to see a 16 year old girl nude, was when I was a 16 year old boy. Time to burn all those back issues and microfilm of The Sun from all libraries.
Photographer
Henri3
Posts: 7392
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
I would really love to do tasteful nudes with teen models.
It's a time in their lives when they're maturing, exploring their womanhood, and as such I think amazing, beautiful& touching imagery could result.
Regrettably this'll never happen as the liklihood for legal action far outweigh any artistic potential.
While I don't care for the explicit direction Met-Art has gone, the models are exquisite, and many look quite younger than their "true" age. Yeah this is pretty erotic stuff and not quite what
I typically shoot with legal models, but the models are pretty much all superb.
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15867
New York, New York, US
Henri3 wrote:
Regrettably this'll never happen as the liklihood for legal action far outweigh any artistic potential. Nah, everyone here just likes to fill your mind with F.U.D.
This may be semantics in others opinion, but I don't think the likelyhood is very high, although there is the THREAT of it, which would be the word I would use
Photographer
Erasm Roterdam
Posts: 639
Millbury, Massachusetts, US
Let they have their childhood.Wait for at least 18.
Photographer
K A S
Posts: 173
Austin, Texas, US
Hollywood wrote:
There is no need to shoot children naked!! I am a MOM of six, and this thought disgusts me!!!
Use your head man!!! Thats not healthy thinking!!! I am also a criminal justice major, and I actually dicussed this post with my CRIMINOLOGY CLASS, AND the majority found it a repulsive idea!!!! So does photographing indginous people of another country disgust you if they are topless? Dont subscribe to national geographic.
NAKED does not = SEX
How many people have pics of their kids in the bathub as children. Nothing sexual about it.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
erasm roterdam wrote:
Let they have their childhood.Wait for at least 18. I'm not sure THAT has anything to do with anything. Lots of kids have to deal with much more adult situations than a few pictures.
Photographer
Han Koehle
Posts: 4100
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
Huge difference between a Major Hollywood Studio production making a movie with an enormous crew & production staff, keeping close watch on the context & behavior of all involved & some GWC seeking out a 16yr old girl, in order to take some topless snapshots in his garage/apartment for "portfolio use"!
We get to see the end result in the Movie up on the big screen & are able to make our own judgement.... the Adult Male that is photographing underage girls is not quite so easy to keep tabs on as the work doesnt tend to be publicly available with the exception of a few Gallery shows that end up being raided by the police!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … hotos.html
(This is not aimed at the poster I am responding to... just a general statement....)
I would love to see those that advocate shooting underage teens topless for their portfolios, actually "put their money where their mouth is" & publicly publish some work, so we can see what actually happens to them specifically from a legal perspective & media coverage angle.
Its either put up or STFU time! I have published images of a nude underage model, shot under completely legal and ethical circumstances. I have a release signed by herself and her mother. I know her signature means nothing, but in case someone argued that her mom and I made her, there's her testimony to having requested the shoot herself. That particular project was shot in a home studio, because she preferred a more comfortable location than my warehouse studio.
I have caught more flak over images of clothed underage models.
I have never had a legal problem, lost work, nor had anyone tell me I'm a bad person. In fact, I mentioned the shoot earlier in this very thread, and nobody noticed nor cared.
Before you make the obvious argument that I'm a young woman so obviously not the pervert GWC predator people fear, my 30-something male professional counterpart has also photographed a few underage models in the buff. He is still on good terms with both (grown up with kids, both still love the shots they did at 16). His shoots were also conducted under totally legal and professional circumstances, with guardians present.
I think the issue is, you can't pick out the underage models from either portfolio. Shooting a 16 year old nude who looks like a 20-something has no more attraction to pedophiles as actually shooting a 20-something. Pictures of sweet-faced girls who look like they could be twelve is approaching the wrong side of the tracks for me, but even so there are artistically valid reasons to shoot a nude person at any age.
Photographer
Han Koehle
Posts: 4100
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
erasm roterdam wrote:
Let they have their childhood.Wait for at least 18. A great argument for refusing to let any child model in any way...
But when you were 16 were you a child? Did you turn 18 and suddenly spring into adulthood in that moment?
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15867
New York, New York, US
Jenna Black wrote:
A great argument for refusing to let any child model in any way...
But when you were 16 were you a child? Did you turn 18 and suddenly spring into adulthood in that moment? how are we calibrating this age/maturity debate? the 15 year old somalian that kidnapped that US Navy captain, that 17 year old aussie that sailed around the world.... Or are we talking about "Saved by the Bell" level of maturity.
Photographer
Ray And Images
Posts: 14
London, England, United Kingdom
Until 2003, many UK newspapers, including the most popular - "The Sun" published 16 yr old girls topless to attract readers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Three_girl The law now makes 18 the minimum age for erotic topless in UK.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
erasm roterdam wrote:
Let they have their childhood.Wait for at least 18. Yes, definitely. Let's extend childhood to the same length as it was in 1909.
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
American photographers who advocate to be able to shoot such trouble me
You live in a country with very Victorian attitudes towards such things matters in general , a country wheregrown women can be denied entry , or teriminated from certain educational and employment opportunities for having been photographed naked or topless ...or at the very least derided
And yet you still advocate that this sort of photography should be respected as artistic expression
Photographer
John Felici
Posts: 609
Pascoag, Rhode Island, US
JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual
what are the toughts careful...talk like that will attract lawyers..
Kinda like cooking food attracts dogs
Photographer
Tim Foster
Posts: 1816
Orlando, Florida, US
Garry k wrote:
American photographers who advocate to be able to shoot such trouble me
You live in a country with very Victorian attitudes towards such things matters in general , a country wheregrown women can be denied entry , or teriminated from certain educational and employment opportunities for having been photographed naked or topless ...or at the very least derided
And yet you still advocate that this sort of photography should be respected as artistic expression Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize Canada was soooo enlightened.
(I was gonna post some links, but there were too many. Google "Canada Censorship".)
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Tim Foster wrote:
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize Canada was soooo enlightened.
(I was gonna post some links, but there were too many. Google "Canada Censorship".) I view Canada - or rather Vancouver ( which is the city I live in ) as being somewhere between America and Europe in terms of sexual attitudes ..for example it is legal in my city for grown women to be topless in public , and I am not aware that the same harsh repercussions exist for grown women doing so or being photographed in such a state
but we have the similar attitudes ( and laws ) re underage nudity - and rightly so
Photographer
Tim Foster
Posts: 1816
Orlando, Florida, US
Post hidden on Oct 04, 2009 04:17 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No personal attacks.
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
Tim Foster wrote:
Richard Prince never photographed Brooke Shields. He "appropriated" a photograph shot by Garry(sic) Gross. You're absolutely right. I got caught up in the argument to make a point.I was thinking how Prince's life changed so dramatically after appropriating that image and the expense he incurred defending his exhibit and that image.
Thanks for correcting me. Maybe I should do the research.
Photographer
NIMATARADJI photography
Posts: 898
Chicago, Illinois, US
xaveir wrote:
Never in th US but everywhere else its acceptable Sad but true.
Photographer
Digital Vinyl
Posts: 1174
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Artists have been doing nudes of people of various shapes, sizes and ages for thousands and thousands. Yet in the photography medium it is much derided.
Why?
Photographer
Stan Halstead
Posts: 21
Torrington, Wyoming, US
Although some may call it art, I prefer to use the word pedophile.
About the only instance I can see would be the family baby pictures of the kid in the tub, kids playing in a mud puddle, etc... To actually pose a child nude of partially nude goes against everything I see as right
Photographer
Digital Vinyl
Posts: 1174
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Photographer
Stan Halstead
Posts: 21
Torrington, Wyoming, US
I see absolutely no reason to photograph a child nude and I feel that those who do and are prosecuted deserve what they get... a 350lb lover named Bubba. LOL
Levels of maturity are determined by age, and while this is not always a sure-fire way of making the determination, it is where the law has drawn the line. That's where it needs to stay... and not crossed.
I guess it all boils down to if a photographer has the fortitude to determine if they are willing to refuse to lower themselves to exploiting children, but one who would do so would find themself in grave danger anywhere near my children or grandchildren.
My $.02
Photographer
Stan Halstead
Posts: 21
Torrington, Wyoming, US
John Felici wrote:
careful...talk like that will attract lawyers..
Kinda like cooking food attracts dogs Lawyers and federal agents.
|
