From: Darryl Baird (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 10/12/03-02:10:48 PM Z
"The issue of consent is critical..."
>>>> to you, not me. Context is king.
Why must I counter your manufactured argument? Children CANNOT consent
to anything by law (notice I've moved this from "valid" to legal).
You're attempting to force this into a context which does not exist.
Maybe you want a moral context. I don't see things so clearly as to
presume morality for others.
Your further attempt to demean my position by reducing all my thoughts
into equating teeth brushing with publishing nude photos of children --
this is, alas, another cheapo argument.
Why not pick up on my mention of child discipline? Much tougher. Can I
only correct my children's behavior with their consent... let's see,
should it be public, private, verbal, coporal, woodshed, or torture
today sweetie? What if I wanted to publish images of this and made a
profit? What if I spanked my kids, sent them to bed without dinner,
locked them in closets, etc. and made images for publication and lots of
people wanted these books? Do I need their consent? This should seem
silly and rather absurd about now, because it is, just as is the notion
of children's consent to being photographed in any fashion. Really I
think the issue is and always will be nudity. We're totally hung up on
the "naked" part of photographs. I spent a good deal of childhood
naked, really enjoyed it too. I'd probably do it more often if my body
hadn't gotten so "mature" and I didn't live in a cold climate. (some
things I do miss about Texas)
Erotic? that's (as already shown) in the eye of the beholder. Please
don't make us all responsible for other's thoughts. To me its a banana,
to you or others... I don't care, because I photographed a banana.
Darryl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Buckels wrote:
>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