From: Kate Mahoney (kateb@paradise.net.nz)
Date: 10/12/03-04:44:47 PM Z
Ok Darryl, you can win...:)
Yes, definitely pictorial but those poses as beggar girl etc....yuk!!!!!!
The sickly side of victorian sentimentality was exercised by many 19th cent
photographers - I have several old Dickens novels with these posed photos as
illustrations - they haven't lasted the test of time - and I wonder if
anyone would even look at the Alice Liddell photos if there had never been
an "Alice in Wonderland"?
Have a look at James Elkins "Pictures and Tears" if you want an interesting
critique of sentimental pictures of young girls, everyone, there is an
excellent chapter.
I only hope our latest bunch of "neo-pictorialists" will refrain from the
sicky!!!
As I believe I've said before, thank God for the bio-degradability of paper.
Kate Mahoney
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Baird" <dbaird@umflint.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: {OT} Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann
> OK, thanks I will.
>
> I think Chuck probably did show his work to his circle of friends,
> including Julia M. Cameron, Roger Fenton, Tennyson and others.
>
> ... quoting the SFMOMA press release...
>
> "In Victorian times, one of the primary vehicles for the presentation of
> photographs was the album. Dodgson is believed to have assembled
> approximately 34 of these during his career, utilizing them as portable
> exhibitions of his photographic talents."
>
> Alice Liddel (of Alice in Wonderland) also posed for JMC. see:
> http://betsydevine.weblogger.com/2003/02/28
>
> BTW, aren't these "pictorial" in a fashion similar to what we're
> discussing? I see a lot of quasi-commercial work which reminds me of
> this style of portraiture.
>
> I gotta do more research on the topic...
>
> Darryl
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Kate Mahoney wrote:
>
> >Well, Daryll, all I can say is if that is the case, it's up to us
photographers to exert control where we can, in the images we make, to the
best of our abilities and the current climate......yes I know about all the
Lewis Carroll controversy....don't forget that at this time child nudity WAS
a no-no, and child prostitutes roamed the streets at the same time - odd
double standards! Le plus ca change........and ol' Charles Dodgson didn't
exactly exhibit those images, did he?????
> >
> >Want the last word :)
> >
> >Kate
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Darryl Baird
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann
> >
> >
> > Hi Kate,
> >
> > One point and then I promise not to bore any of you good folks again
(fingers crossed for good measure).
> >
> > The context (!) of a photograph is all important to its "meaning."
Lewis Carroll's photos have been through the ringer in a politically correct
world, with modern tastes and standards applied willy-nilly. This
re-contextualization is different from revisiting -- where we try to
understand the times and the images as a package. Carroll was an odd and
singular individual, which also helps to fuel the fires of mistrust (and
condemnation).
> >
> > In the case of your kid's photos, each image suffers/enjoys a very
different fate depending on the intentions suggested by the surroundings...
a milk carton panel, a family website, or a pornography web page could all
use the same identical image of your boy or girl, each with unique outcomes
(or meanings). Any "publication" of an image is fair game in this wacky
world.
> >
> > ...back to lurk mode...
> >
> > Darryl
> >
> > Kate Mahoney wrote:
> >
> >Well, I can't resist entering this discussion either. I started
photography
> >late, when my youngest child was fourteen.I took quite a few photos of
him
> >naked from the waist up as part of various projects - he was quite
> >comfortable with this at the time. As he has got older, (now 19), he
seems
> >much more aware of the implications of being a model than he was even at
> >fourteen - he is a good-looking boy and I have sometimes felt that I've
been
> >a bit crass exposing his body like this. He's sometimes felt quite
> >uncomfortable with people's reactions to the work, as inoffensive as it
is.
> >So I would say that a child isn't capable at all of "informed consent"
and
> >it's an area that can't be ignored. The photographer may not be aware of
the
> >whole area of issues surrounding this type of work; after all Sally Mann
> >could not have forseen the rise of the internet and the kiddie porn
market.
> >Photographing your kids and publishing the work is an invasion of their
> >privacy, but then again where do you draw the line??? Certainly the
photos
> >of Lewis Carroll, (which have been cited a few times in this discussion)
> >appear innocent enough, but they have always given me qualms about their
> >intent - conscious or not.
> >
> >My daughter has expressly forbidden me from publishing ANY photos of her
> >daugther naked or otherwise on the web...and I thoroughly agree with her.
> >
> >BTW, I'm not against nudity of any description though I draw the line at
> >"erotica" as far as my work goes - it's a matter of taste to me, I feel
that
> >the coyness of most "erotica" is about as far from the type of work I'd
like
> >to make as it could get. and, despite all this, some people find my work
> >erotic!!!!!!! Dang we just can't escape other people's opinions of our
work,
> >no matter how hard we try.
> >
> >Kate Mahoney
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Darryl Baird" <dbaird@umflint.edu>
> >To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> >Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 3:59 AM
> >Subject: Re: Neo-Pictorialism, sally mann
> >
> >
> > Dear All Alt-P'ers,
> >
> >Can't sit still anymore.
> >
> >I use Sally Mann's work to open my Photography Survey course using Terry
> >Barrett's book on criticizing photographs. I think some of his
> >techniques to generate an understanding and a context for photographs
> >might be helpful.
> >
> >This is a tough topic, certainly, but we can't use our opinions or
> >experiences alone to form judgments. A few "facts" and opinions:
> >
> >It is written about Sally (and reported by Sally) that she grew up in a
> >household where the wearing of clothes was very rare (for the children).
> >
> >She also saw "everyday life" as her topic, not just "nekid" children.
> >There are scenes of play, injury, family gatherings, child-as-adult
> >play, and many others. Look at the composite of that body (no pun) of
> >images for analysis, not the ones that might shock or challenge our own
> >conventions.
> >
> >She previously created an important (by my standards) book on the
> >condition of girls at twelve years old and the conditions, pressures,
> >and other realities these prepubescent females experienced. If you don't
> >know "At Twelve," then you've missed an important element in Sally
> >Mann's creative arc. It serves to direct my understanding of her
> >"intentions" far better after having seen those remarkable studies. She
> >learned how far she could go... with other peoples children and
> >understood how hard it is for the general population to deal with these
> >topics. But, it is a topic as old as life itself... the loss of
innocence.
> >
> >Sally quit photographing her children when they became uncomfortable
> > posing.
> > Sally and her work, especially the books, were the target of a massive
> >assault by the Christian Right spearheaded by Randall Terry of Operation
> >Rescue. Even the Governor of Virginia tried to stop her work... too
> >politically charged for him to ignore even though he didn't see the
> >work. Cooler heads prevailed and Sally finished that chapter in her life
> >and moved on to landscapes -- a move similar to her friend and mentor
> >Emmit Gowin (who also photographed his children (naked!), wife (naked!)
> >and family (not naked!) before moving to landscapes.)
> >
> >Finally, speculation about people's personal problems, including
> >childhood experiences, is pretty dangerous if you're speaking in a
> >context of art. Do we need disclaimers for our photographs?
> >
> >
> >Darryl Baird
> >shannon stoney wrote:
> >
> > However Sally's children knew perfectly well what was
> >going on and in my opinion the world is richer for having those works.
> > I like those photographs a lot too, but I share Galina's, and
other's,
> >queasiness about them. I wonder if there can be such a thing as
> >"informed consent" in a four year old. Virginia was quite small when
> >some of the pictures were made. Surely the littlest ones could not
> >have known how these pictures would be perceived by some people. I
> >read that Sally Mann stopped photographing her children nude when
> >Virginia was being followed by a stalker! Also, her oldest daughter,
> >while she reveres her mother, seems to have had a lot of problems and
> >you wonder if it might have something to do with having your mother
> >photograph you nude a lot and show the pictures to the world. I can't
> >imagine doing the same thing to my own children. It's too bad that
> >children's beauty and nascent sexuality is a sexual turn-on for some
> >people, but it would be naive to pretend that that doesn't exist
> >because it shouldn't exist.
> >
> >--shannon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST