Sick of all the writing talk yet?
Yeah, me too, a little bit.
What’s left then? Well, let’s see, I was in a minor car accident yesterday. We’re all fine, thank heavens, but the car is being towed away today to get fixed because it is undriveable (luckily I was able to get it home, as the accident only happened a block away).
Which leaves me all flustered, emotionally charged and vulnerable.
So when stories like these hit the headlines, they really capture my attention - for possibly all the wrong reasons. Or the right ones. It depends on your viewpoint.
In a nutshell: a mother - an artist - takes nude shots of her six year old five years ago. These are now featured in a (tax funded) art publication. The front cover is a nude shot of the girl.
I was busy when the Bill Henson debate came out to properly formulate an opinion on the subject (thought I read many on both sides of the debate). This new controversy has kind of struck a nerve with me because it raises all these questions of what is morally acceptable when it comes to representations of very young childhood in the art world. Or in any world, really. Is it pornography? Is this family (the father is an art critic) exploiting the child?
This accusation has been pointed to many a ‘mommy/parent’ blogger - not so much in Australia, but elsewhere. I’ve read many bloggers who are charged with exploitation because they dare to tell stories about their child, post their pictures without worrying about or considering that some sort of consent would be first needed; and they’ve reacted with all the defensive indignation as you could expect.
So if this media spotlight were to shine on parent blogs here in Australia, right now, where many shots can be found of the adorably nude antics our children get up to and we, as the adoring parent, can’t help but post to boast, would we escape without charge or accusation? Would it matter if your blog was monetised or not? For surely if it was (ummm…like mine) then the prosecution could build a tidy case.
I suppose it comes down to a question of aesthetics. At what point does a photograph - any photograph - cross the line from something without significant depth or imposed meaning to one that does? Surely, if you’ve seen the front cover in question, the subject has been formally modelled into a specific pose. A pose, frankly (I feel) better suited to a female 15-20 years that girl’s senior. But do I condemn the shot?
I’m not sure.
Because if I do, am I damning the mother, or damning the artist? Do I even differentiate between the two?
Do I want to?
Normally, no.
******
Yet. Yet…
******
This has all happened the same week I found my son’s picture linked to from an adult German site dedicated to children in various forms of dress-ups. (I’ve since removed the post because the clickovers were just getting ridiculous. It was where he was in Keira’s ballerina outfit.)
Yep.
I’m about as pleased to report this as you’d guess me to be. So now, whenever I upload something to Flickr I have to ask myself a self-censoring question: “Can this be taken and misappropriated?”
Something I have all along, I stress. It’s just now, I will so even more.
I love my children; I’m sure that artist loves her girl. It’s a question of context and interpretation. It’s a whole lot of questions.
Am I drawing a link where there is none? Are any of you feeling slightly squeemish about this story?
12:00 pm
I’m feeling extremely squeamish about what happened to your sons picture. I don’t know what to say.
1:12 pm
I personally feel that it’s a little different when a parent takes photo’s of their children at play and shares them to a parent putting their child in poses for ‘art’ and has them publicised in a magazine.
*shrugs* there are no easy answers I don’t think.
Bettina’s last blog post..Screw Up Tuesday
1:22 pm
I think there is a line between what is tasteful and what is fetish - but I don’t think the line is very straight, and unfortunately it appears both sides of that blurred line are pushing harder and harder to reach into each other’s realm.
jeanie’s last blog post..The Old Man Sense Of Entitlement Blues
5:02 pm
The story about your sons photos completely freaked me out. I can only imagine how you felt
Suze’s last blog post..Reasons You Won’t Like Me And We Might Not Be Friends
6:41 pm
Indeed Jeanie, it would seem that is becoming the case. But then, there potentially always was that disparity, we’re only just becoming aware of it now.
Which means what? I wonder?
I have no idea.
Yeah, not nice re: pictures
6:58 pm
I think the difference in the ‘antics’ photo and the ‘art’ photo is that one is posed and in the case of these done so in what could be potentially seen as sexually suggestive poses.
Looking at it in another way, if I had those photos on my computer could I be charged with anything?
Yes, I think they are suggestive enough to cross a line. Better to err on the side of caution.
Lee’s last blog post..I’ll put it out there, Fringe is excellent
5:56 am
That picture would get banned by ad people here in Britain.
Jean-Luc Picard’s last blog post..Picard’s Official Review (Part Two)
10:22 pm
wow the story about Riley is scary - no wonder you freaked out .
I don’t think suggestively posed, naked bodies of children published purposely to cause a stir and as much drama as possible is art.
I do believe the human body is an artform but children should be considering the freaks in this world that prey upon them.
It will make me think twice of putting any nekkid photos.
Trish’s last blog post..Wordless Wednesday
5:25 am
The story of Riley’s picture makes me nervous. I put on one post of DeBoy climbing the outside of the staircase and he was naked at the time, but the way he was standing showed nothing. Most of the kids’ funny pictures I haven’t posted because they’re naked almost all the time (it’s summer here after all) and Child protective services in this country have gone completely insane and would arrest me. (While children who go hungry and shoeless are allowed to stay with the drug-addicted parents who spend every cent of the disability check on drugs and don’t feed their kids.) Everything is out of whack these days. I couldn’t really tell how suggestive that child’s picture was because of the large black strip across her, but her expression indicated to me that she was NOT having fun, and that would be enough for me to think she was being exploited.
Janet’s last blog post..Wildlife Wednesday
9:10 am
That’s a really interesting point. I must admit that I vaguely followed the mag cover story, but I hadn’t thought about the connection with Mummy Bloggers. As the other commenters have said its a really blurry line between what is acceptable for parents to post about their children and everyone’s perception of what is acceptable is different.
Personally I decided not to post any naked photos of the kids on the blog but I do put lots of photos of my kids there. I think we need to find the balance between celebrating our kids and protecting them. I’d hate to think we got to a point where every photo of a child was seen as exploitative, but obviously there’s a line not to be crossed. As you said, asking yourself that question about the use of the photo is a good way to keep checks on it.