From: Philip willarney (pwillarney@yahoo.com)
Date: 10/15/03-09:58:11 PM Z
Well, I have to say it... a lot of us photograph what
is, right? And portraits of people as they are are
often best, right?
Well, I've watched several children growing up, and --
for most children -- a *REAL*HARD* lesson is "we wear
clothes when we go out of the house, dear."
Most young kids I know spend a lot of time and energy
trying to get *OUT* of these dratted clothes so they
can run around with the neighbors dog or whatever all
nekkid. For a while, no clothes is a *lot* more
natural and sensible to kids than clothes.
So is taking a picture of a nekkid kid -- who chose,
with some considerable vehemence, to be that way --
wrong?
I don't know at what age this -- non-sexual, more of a
these dratted clothes are a confounded nuisance and no
fun at all and I want out of them -- stripping urge
would fade without "stay dressed, dear" training; it
seemed fairly present when I was young in 8 year old
boys near swimming holes.
And as far as giving consent goes -- seems to be the
folks best qualified to give consent are
* The kid, whatever age
* The parent(s)
* The kid, older, if the question of later publication
or public display arises.
As far as Sally Mann goes, her kids were already
running around unclothed and she took portraits of
them as they were, where they were. It's not like
she said "strip, darlings, I want to take your
picture." I've got a copy of _immediate family_ and I
think they're great portraits of those kids --
serious, playful, alive.
-- pwillarney...
<snip>
--- Kate Mahoney <kateb@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Yes, Judy bare babies, and bare
> illustrative-purposes-only photographed
> children cupids spring to mind), but bare children
> in everyday life or
> frolicking in the woods - I don't think so.......
>
> Kate
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST