From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/15/03-04:43:49 PM Z
> Yes Judy, child nudity was okay in photos when suitably titled (kitsch
> again!), but actual nudity among those of Alice Liddell's class at
least, in
> that society, was definitely not on - think of all those skirted
Victorian
> piano legs!!!! I guess I was thinking about that particular climate
rather
> than a universal one, but now that I have pondered, I realise that
nudity
> among children in the 19th century was a matter of place and class, with
the
> upper and middle classes shunning it while the poor, expecially the
country
> poor, probably had different ideas.
Kate, I haven't made a study of it but this doesn't ring quite true... I
think upperclass children were often photographed in the altogether...
maybe it was a matter of age. But I doubt those Demachy's were out of the
ordinary... Certainly by early 20th century, the bare babe on the bear
rug in front of the fireplace was a cliche.
As for Darryl's comment....
> 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
Now that we've got it that Rush Limbaugh is an addict, wouldn't it be good
to find out that Randall Terry is..... (fill in the blank -- but usually
folks bound & determined to teach everyone else right from wrong have
something wiggy in their own lives).
J.
> 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.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST