From: Jeff Buckels (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 10/12/03-01:22:18 PM Z
The issue of consent is critical whether you care to engage in it or
not. How can you equate my not giving my child the option of neglecting
their teeth to the issue of whether I can use my child's nude likeness
to further my career? -jb
-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl Baird [mailto:dbaird@umflint.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:49 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann
Jeff,
I'm not engaging (previously, now or later) in any conversation about
consent. For me, it's a non-starter. Kids don't consent to much of
anything -- school, teeth brushing, discipline, manners, food choice,
etc. Whatever you may think about a particular parent's choice, it is
none the less a choice they get to make and not us. I'm reminded as much
with my own grandchildren on a regular basis. Hey, they didn't even
consent to being my grandchildren (big grin), but they bear the burden
admirably.
Since I weighed in late, I don't even remember who raised (you?) the
issue of consent. I'm apathetic to this line of reasoning as stated
above.
Darryl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Buckels wrote:
>Darryl and List: How does any of this bear on the argument that an
>8-year-old is incapable of giving a valid consent to their nude images
>being broadcast to the public (for private profit)? I'm not hearing
how
>the "consent" of an 8-year-old can be meaningful consent? Who on this
>list -- otherwise inclined to defend Edward Weston -- would defend him
>if it came out that Charis Weston had not consented to the publication
>of Weston's nudes of her? ... Nothing I've said in this exchange, by
>the way, depends on the specifics of Mann's life or her interaction
with
>her children. I'm saying that a child is categorically incapable of
>giving a valid consent. One thing Darryl says in his note, however,
>makes a comment semi-related to the Mann bio hard to resist: Darryl
>points out (accurately -- just look at the books: No nudes of Mann
kids
>as adolescents), Darryl points out that the Mann kids opted out of the
>nude portraiture when they got older and became "uncomfortable" with
it.
>Interesting. As soon as they were old enough to actually understand
>something of the situation, they opted out. Little kids don't know --
>can't know -- "what's going on" and, even if they did, they don't have
>the independence of mind and will to decline. That's why they're
>"consent" isn't valid. -jb
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST