That being said, let me congratulate and thank Dick Sullivan for
carrying this torch both here and on his website. He is to be
commended. I have already written a letter of support, having been
requested to do so a couple of weeks ago. I happen to know Jock
personally and have spent many hours with him discussing art, art
history and the controversy his work seems to stir up. I know him to be
a kind, thoughtful, passionate man who believes strongly in his work.
He reveres and greatly respects those whom he photographs and I see
their trust in him in their eyes. You should know that Jock has been
photographing many of the same people and now their offspring for over
25 years. If there was exploitation going on, you would think we would
have heard about it from them by now.
Of course, this is mostly irrelevent and only presented to inform those
that may be interested. What matters here is the core issue of
censorship and weather we want a few bible-thumping, well-organized
zealots to dictate what is and is not art. I, for one, do not. This
issue goes far beyond the photographs of Jock Sturges.
Now, onto "maternal instincts" having an influence on how one views
Jock's work. I happen to be the father of 2 young girls. I have never
felt as protective of anything or anyone in my life as I do for them. I
would not hesitate to do great harm to anyone who posed a threat to
their safety or well-being. As with most fathers, my "paternal
instincts" are very strong. I can think of no one I would rather have
photograph them (except me, of course!) such that they would be
presented in an honest and natural way as I've seen in Jock's work.
Finally, a pet peeve... THE MOST USELESS postings on a list like this
are those that simply exist to say "This topic doesn't really belong
here and is just a waste of bandwidth" or some similar drivel. Think
about that for a moment folks!!
OK, I'll take a couple deep breaths now...
Respectfully,
Kerik Kouklis