Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: NikosR on May 16, 2007, 04:07:28 am
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml)
Well put, Michael.
I might disagree with lots of what you say in your site, but I must say you handled this matter perfectly.
-
The motto of the British Order of the Garter sums it up - "Honi soit qui mal y pense" - evil be to him who evil thinks of it.
An amazing furore when you consider the vast amounts of pornographic images available at the click of a link on the Internet. In this bigger context, Lolita is quant.
The Lolita picture is a nice portrait but I'm increasingly feeling the Michael's deepest artistry is not vis-a-vis people, but rather with abstractions of natural forms.
-
When I first saw this image my immediate reaction was, that cyan piece of cloth shouldn't be there. The photo would be more interesting without it.
I don't often criticise Michael's photos, but I think the presence of that piece of cloth is a definite flaw.
-
the fact that i dont even know where the original post was posted is kinda annoying so i cant even put an opinion across.. apart from the fact the photo title is not bad, i wonder how many moral police swear or cuss.... is that not bad as well... the photo is a photo, infact probably one of the most viewed now...controversy sells....
-
If you want offensive misogynistic porn look no further then the R&B/Rap music videos aimed at young people on main stream TV - most of them make me cringe and I'm no prude..
The Lolita photo is for from offensive..
-
I saw the picture several times without even thinking about its title or what it shows, but to my amazement today I've learnt about the affair
Well, what could I say? Many people with too-shallow skin nowadays...
-
I suspect the girl is simply posing for a portrait with no intent to be sexually provocative.
But I do agree that the photograph is completely anodyne. The most I can say is that the artlessness of the child has charm.
In the UK it is not possibly to photograph children that you do not know, due to the current 'moral' atmosphere. And most everyone drives their children to school due to fear of kiddy fiddlers. It's madness.
-
When I first saw this image my immediate reaction was, that cyan piece of cloth shouldn't be there. The photo would be more interesting without it.
I don't often criticise Michael's photos, but I think the presence of that piece of cloth is a definite flaw.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With that kind of reaction, even tounge in cheek, about a child, and with that title specifically suggesting a sexual connetation again with a child, I can see where they are coming from.
-
I'm astonished that no-one here has an issue with the use of a term that entered the language because it originally referred to a 12-year old girl in a work of fiction that has sex with a middle-aged man. The fact that the bowdlerised subsidiary meaning has gained a common currency doesn't alter the fact that that meaning derives entirely from the orignal meaning, and anyone who uses it can expect - and deserve - a tough time from anyone familiar with the original meaning who asks them what they really meant.
Would you caption an anonymous middle aged man as Humbert Humbert, and would you think he would be completely happy about it?
-
What amazes me even more is that the book came out in 1955 and the movie in 1962!!! 52 years ago!!
How much longer do we have to wait for the neanderthals of the world to actually evolve?
Just get over it. It's still just a word and a photograph. As soon as I saw the image I was thinking the same thing Michael was when he titled it. She was hamming it up for the camera and that's what little girls often do at that age.
Just for the heck of it... if not Lolita, then what would you have titled it.
Anyone??
-
I certainly don't have a problem with it at all. I have a 12-year-old daughter (and two sons, 11 and 8) and I'm certainly not keen on her having sex with anybody of any age for a good few years to come. But she does strike kittenish poses in the photos that she herself takes using Photobooth on the iMac.
"Lolita" doesn't belong to Nabokov any more than Scrooge belongs to Dickens or Catch-22 belongs to Heller. They're steereotypes that are used in our culture as shorthands. They're used without deep, extensive reference to the source text. Humbert Humbert is not used as a stereotype.
It's quite right that our societies have become more vigilant about the exploitaiton of children and the casual acceptance of sexism. But we shouldn't lose a sense of proportion that informs mature judgment in a world where hundreds of thousands of women are coerced into the sex trade which in part feeds the petabytes of pornography infesting the Internet.
-
Stay the course.....
I have already responded to many threads about this in DPReview......and telling the people outraged by this that this isnt about the little girl...or the title...its about them. (which stands true for MOST morally outraged people)
THEY are uncomfortable with the title....
Changing it would not help the girl......nor will not changing it.
If they want to elicit change in this world...I invite them to buy a ticket....visit the town or village where the girl lives and make their changes there.
Wagging a finger at you for their own look in the mirror is amazingly simple minded.
Roman
-
I don't believe the elpased time since the publishing of the book is an issue; it isn't arcane in the literary sense or in the social issues it covers - if anything, its relevance is greater today, unfortunately.
I also don't see that Scrooge or Catch-22 are anywhere near as loaded in their implications to be sensibly used in comparison.
Per the red herrings that have been introduced in place of argument - I have no problem with the picture, it seems as harmless to me as it apparently does to everyone else who has commented.
And lastly, I have no problems with Michael's motives either - I just think it is unrealistic in practical terms to use a term loaded with such a background and affect surprise at the misunderstanding and controversy it generates.
PS Oh, and good luck to all of you relying on wikipedia entries rather than original source documents !
-
Michael
Anyone who knows you, personally or through your site and other media, would be aware that the art in the photograph is your passion.
Perhaps we need moral police, but if so it would help if they were competent. Police will look at all the evidence before judging whether or not to recommend prosecution (in this case, persecution).
I suppose the same people will now discover your gallery from Bangladesh and harass you for exploiting the (relatively) poor people there. And you had better brace yourself for an onslaught from the 'Happy Feet' fans, because your Antarctic trips exploit penguins......
-
I don't think that the photograph in question is "art". It's much more of a snapshot. Nothing really brought to that picture by the person behind the camera (IMO) Everything there, is delivered by the young girl.
This thing with naming photographs, especially images like this? Most of the time, slapping a metaphorical name on a photograph is Sophomoric. Usually, when I see an image with a name like this on it, I throw up a little and wonder why the author is so involved in trying to make me see what he was thinking. It takes a lot of the fun out of experiencing a picture and the word pretentious comes to mind in a big way.
In this case, I'm stunned that the "Lolita" choice was made. Michael, I can't believe that you were, as you said, "completely astonished" when you recieved a backlash from this. What did you expect? You ought to be spanked just for yielding to the temptation to give this image a name other than "young girl in so and so village"..do you really feel that you needed to hold the audience's hand so tightly?
Very very very rarely does an image beg for a name..when it does, it had better be a good one, or, one that tries to send the audience in a, perhaps, ironic or otherwise direction. I wonder what this girl's mother or father would have thought of this choice of a name? Perhaps they would laugh..maybe not though, you might be chased through the jungle by a guy with a machete.
So, why does this image need an arty name? If some of the audience wants to bring some sexual provocation to the image then that's their business. If not, why force the issue? Do we really need to encircle our images with names that bind them as some particular thing?
-
I don't find the subject sexually provocative, but the self-conscious yet naive pose struck instinctively does make the photo interesting for it's human universality. The title is apt.
How many who comment have actually read Lolita, or anything else by Nabokov, for that matter?
The smothering of our life experience with powerful modern media has many effects, but perhaps the cruelest is that when a cultural reference is made, the majority will think they have understood it's meaning.
-
I also took part in the unbelievable discussion on the DP Review site and this is what I said (under the title "PC Gestapo rides again"):
"The word Lolita and its associated definitions and connotations, do not imply a statement on subjects character, but a statement of fact. In other words, it is descriptive, not normative or judgmental. It is Mr. Reichmann's right to see the world though his own eyes and interpret what he sees in his own way. If the first impression he had was that word, so be it. He could be right or he could be wrong, but he has the right to be wrong (known as freedom of speech).
One of the roles art has is to provoke. Mr. Reichmann did provoke us to think about the word and the image, the circumstances and societies, morals and dilemmas. And for that I am grateful to Mr. Reichmann and his art."
Reading Michael's subsequent reply I found it interesting that he raised the same issue, the provocative role of art.
I find it appalling that we have to defend the very concept of freedom of speech years after the fall of Soviet Union, and even in countries that served as beacons of that freedom for the rest of the world. Apparently, "freedom haters" are not limited to Taliban only.
-
You guys really think that this particular image is art?
-
There are a lot of things to be said about Photography and Art.
Art is a medium for transmitting things that cannot be expressed by regular means. You can "explain" a true Art work only until some point.
-
I don't think that the photograph in question is "art". It's much more of a snapshot. Nothing really brought to that picture by the person behind the camera (IMO) Everything there, is delivered by the young girl.
Ok... are we now back to discussing is photography art at all? Because in almost every photograph, "..everything there is delivered by.. " the subject in front of the camera. Or you are saying that only manipulated photographs could qualify as art? And does one need to manipulate the subject, or just the photograph of the subject, or both, to be considered artist?
-
Offense is in the mind of the viewer, not the pixels of the photograph.
-
You guys really think that this particular image is art?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whether it is or not, is irrelevant for the Lolita Affair discussion. There is art and then there is art. There are artists and then there are artists. I certainly do not equate Michael with Michelangelo, but in his own right he is doing what most artists do: trying to convey their vision of the world to the rest of us... sometimes artist's vision resonates with us, sometimes not, and sometimes only years later. In this particular case, the Lolita photo, Michael certainly managed to have it resonate with us, one way or the other. Whatever you might think of him as an artist, I have no doubt that his intentions in this photo were artistic. And by that I mean his impetus to share his vision of that part of the world and that particular moment, his impressions, associations and connotations, is the moving force of an artist.
-
Ok... are we now back to discussing is photography art at all? Because in almost every photograph, "..everything there is delivered by.. " the subject in front of the camera. Or you are saying that only manipulated photographs could qualify as art? And does one need to manipulate the subject, or just the photograph of the subject, or both, to be considered artist?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree with your statement that "in almost every photograph everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera".
Photographers worth their salt are always dictating a point of view, getting you to understand their language through a combination of tools...Juxtaposition, light, point of view, manipulation, formal/informal treatment, moment, subject, exposure, presentation, framing/cropping, direction and, yes...well thought out titling of images in some cases...it goes on.
A simple and easy example..Ansel Adams. Did he rely on the subject to bring his message? not a chance, he controlled every image he made to the last extent.
Cartier-Bresson? He did the same thing in a different, but not so different, way.
I'm sorry, If you believe that everything is delivered by the subject then you are not understanding what goes into making great images. I'm not talking about trite, run of the mill images. I'm talking about successful images.
Of course, once in a while things happen and everything comes together by force of luck...but, to be able to keep doing it over and over again..you can't just depend on the subject alone to bring what is neccesary for a successful image.
-
Michael
Has the original description for the image in question been edited?
If i'm not mistaken,wasn't there,originally, an assumption of the young girl being pregnant.
Mark
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml)
An old man that does not understand the modern world!
I have earlier reacted against Michaels policy of giving children i poor countries money for being on his exposures.
The Lolita business is worth more discussion, a discussion that he wants to avoid: In today´s world places like the internet is full of, among other things, pedofiles. We cannot just pretend they are not there. On the internet people like that easily finds fellows in thought. Sex abuses happen on the internet, but often pedofiles work togehter on the internet to find new victims.
What if they use your photo to find that girl and exploit her?
LETS NOT HELP THEM IN ANY WAY!
When Michael writes "Lolita" those scums take that as a confirmation by (normal)people thas children can/should be seen as sex objects.
Michael, your site is not as interesting as it used to. Now it is more a marketing platform, your images are beutiful but not exciting. And we do not share values on human integrity - yours are representive for a typical western old man, you do not understand the world!
Per
-
I guess I need help understanding the real issue...
Is it that people are astonished and/or angry that:
1) MR photographed a young (and obviously under-age by contemporary civilized-world standards) female,
2) that she is also pregnant,
3) that she is also obviously posing in a fashion that appears to be an attempt at sexually-provocative,
4) or the fact he provided the image with a name that clarifies all of the above implications?
Or possibly,
5) that MR, typically a landscape and travel photographer has now presented us with a travel image that begins to cross over into the realm of documentary/street/reportage,
6) that folks are surprised MR did not anticipate the turmoil his posting of said image would incur,
7) that MR is it a relatively successful photographic artist (in landscape, travel and street purview) and has made many of the not-so-successful jealous, and thus become a target for any time his toes get close to crossing traditionally-accepted societal boundary-lines?
The one thing I am sure of is that the image in question qualifies as art. Whether or not everybody finds it appealing or even tasteful may be open to discussion, however as a documentary image, it clearly can stand on its own. And moreover, when viewed as a documentary image, it tells a complete story of one of the harsh realities of this world, regardless of the viewer's relative comfort at seeing it...
Cheers,
-
I disagree with your statement that "in almost every photograph everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera".
This is not my statement, I am just using your own words and bringing them a step further to the inevitable (il)logical conclusion. But glad you used Ansel Adams as an example: the fact he used meticulous methods to control his image does not mean he did not "...rely on the subject to bring his message...". His very message was the beauty of his subject. A great number of his photos are a simple representation of reality, or the subject in front of his camera. There are some more manipulated than others, but his control of the process was mostly intended to fight the limitations of the medium and technology available to him.
But your choice of the next example is even better one: Cartier-Bresson... His photographs are, taken literally, nothing but snapshots. And yet they are art. If there is a photographer in this world for whom you can indeed say: "...everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera..." it is Cartier-Bresson. Just lifting his camera to his eye (and sometimes not even that) and pressing the shutter... resulted in art. Of course he chose where to point his camera, but that is about it. And I am not trying to demean Cartier-Bresson, just to prove you do not need to manipulate your subject in order to create art. In that sense, Michael's Lolita is very Cartier-Bressonian.
-
Dear Michael,
I am very astonished by the title of this picture. With the first seeing of the picture at all an association did not arise with me that it could concern the presentation of any sexual attractions.
The title confused me not in such a way then, like your justifications on keeping the title.
How could you see in this picture a girl that presents sexual attractions?
How colud you hide yourself in your explanations behind an art term?
Did you speak with the parents of this girl? Did they agree with the title via a model release?
I hope that you dissociate yourself from your expressions!
-
I don't find this image any more provocative than a nude by Edward Weston. In fact, I find it less provocative. Whatever sexual content is in it is suggested rather than outwardly depicted.
The real issue is the freedom to create art, in my eyes. The artist is free to create as his or her artistic preferences dictate. This is not journalism, or news photography. This is not a reportage on the state of the Amazonian residents today.
To this end this quote comes to mind:
The great thing about this thing we call art is that it has no rules.
Kim Weston
-
The problem is that you are not living on an isolated island.
Children are abused around the world in a increasing amount every day. The internet is full of places where middelaged men view and discuss pictures of their Lolitas, young girls in a sexual way. In my mind a child could never be responable for his or her actions its always the responsibility of adults not to abuse.
The use of the word Lolita in this case is very provocative. This could very well be a child who have learned the hard way how to make money by sexually attracting old men.
I think Mr Reichman should make a statement about this and not try to hide behind some art bullshit.
Krister Halvars
-
An old man that does not understand the modern world!
I have earlier reacted against Michaels policy of giving children i poor countries money for being on his exposures.
The Lolita business is worth more discussion, a discussion that he wants to avoid: In today´s world places like the internet is full of, among other things, pedofiles. We cannot just pretend they are not there. On the internet people like that easily finds fellows in thought. Sex abuses happen on the internet, but often pedofiles work togehter on the internet to find new victims.
What if they use your photo to find that girl and exploit her?
LETS NOT HELP THEM IN ANY WAY!
When Michael writes "Lolita" those scums take that as a confirmation by (normal)people thas children can/should be seen as sex objects.
Michael, your site is not as interesting as it used to. Now it is more a marketing platform, your images are beutiful but not exciting. And we do not share values on human integrity - yours are representive for a typical western old man, you do not understand the world!
Per
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You will think I am rude, but your posting is really silly, and takes things out of proportion. To most of us it is just an innocent picture.
And Michael Reichmann's site has always been a marketing platform, with some free reviews, articles and forums that many of us enjoy. There is no free lunch in life.
-
I think no one may remain indifferent with the picture, the same way no one may remain indifferent looking the images, day after day, of hundreds of people, including children and pregnant women dying on their way to reach Europe from Africa. Or the Sebastiao Salgado pictures of workers or children. Or...
But only sick people can see even a bit of indecency on them. I do not think MR picture is art, but it is a picture that removes consciences and makes you aware of other realities that you may not want to realise they exist. If the picture calls for something it is for action to remediate poverty and exploitation, not to kill the messenger.
Regards
Manuel
-
Please.
This
is
a
child
we're discussing here.
She deserves to be protected at all costs. Michael should have given more thought to the connotations of using 'Lolita' as a title, for her protection, if for nothing else. Regardless of everything else, he should have erred on the side of caution and not slandered her person or invited such conversations as the one we're having here for the sake of an 'artistic' image.
-
Please.
This
is
a
child
we're discussing here.
She deserves to be protected at all costs. Michael should have given more thought to the connotations of using 'Lolita' as a title, for her protection, if for nothing else. Regardless of everything else, he should have erred on the side of caution and not slandered her person or invited such conversations as the one we're having here for the sake of an 'artistic' image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I myself thought it was a good photograph until I read the title. She wasn't being sexual until Michael added it. I still think its a goood photo if named "untitled". Turning children's innocence into sexuality is a aweful thing to do to a child. Ant the arguement that those days are over because of the internet and rap videos is hogwash, each and every person is accountable.
By adding the word Lolita, he has went from letting us decide what we feel about the photograph to telling us he thinks she is sexy.
-
Hi folks!
I don`t have strong opinions pro or contra the picture or it`s title. However, the moral indignation directed at the issue, makes it bigger. Meaning: the more you throw in your moral indignation on behalf of that girl, trying to protect her, the more you run the risk of the picture becoming a BIG DEAL. However well intended, the consequences may be worse for the girl.
Let´s consider a worst case scenario: the picture & discussion brought to the mass media (newspapers, TV...)? Who would be partly responsible for that, dispite their good intentions?
So, on behalf of the anonymous girl: shall we try to avoid making her a kind of celebrity?
By stopping this thread, and the other threads, I`m convinced that we have a better chance of protecting her.
Paul
-
I am afraid this has got very out of hand.
I have been critical of Michael in the past..aka site info wise..but on this one..sorry but he has done nothing wrong at all.
I was not offended..(I think its also a good photo)...I have no problem with the use of the word either. This was a shot taken from his words in the moment..and its in good taste.
Sadly if you look at photographs now...you have so many limitions..why is it people were ok about a photo of a small childs bottom 50 years ago and not now? Why can't we take pictures..in good taste..without people throwing their hands up?
We are living in a sad world indeed..and yes I have children too.
Shame on those moral police fools...they are the ones who help create a society of fear and distrust. That is why when you go out with camera now the police are onto you.....people look on you with suspicion.
Lolita is a word and just that. Whats the big deal?
-
I am afraid this has got very out of hand.
I have been critical of Michael in the past..aka site info wise..but on this one..sorry but he has done nothing wrong at all.
I was not offended..(I think its also a good photo)...I have no problem with the use of the word either. This was a shot taken from his words in the moment..and its in good taste.
Sadly if you look at photographs now...you have so many limitions..why is it people were ok about a photo of a small childs bottom 50 years ago and not now? Why can't we take pictures..in good taste..without people throwing their hands up?
We are living in a sad world indeed..and yes I have children too.
Shame on those moral police fools...they are the ones who help create a society of fear and distrust. That is why when you go out with camera now the police are onto you.....people look on you with suspicion.
Lolita is a word and just that. Whats the big deal?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry, are you serious?
'Model Release' and 'exploitation' are just words as well.
Does Michael have a model release for this image?
Did he get her permission to use her image to market his site?
Do you think she and/or her parents, even if they gave signed permission, would be happy if the photo of her ran with a title that suggested she was possibly sexually available?
I think not. The title (word) changes everything in this image.
As for the 'art' argument - The context of the image, on the title page of a site that has ads all over it, totally removes it from the artistic realm. (as if it ever belonged there, anyway) This is a commercial endeavour for Michael, he profits from the ads and from the sales of the videos.
If he were to put this image on a site with only his fine-art images, then the 'artistic merit' argument could be made. It would still be specious, but it would stand. In a commercial context such as this, it's indefensible.
-
I also took part in the unbelievable discussion on the DP Review site and this is what I said (under the title "PC Gestapo rides again"):
"The word Lolita and its associated definitions and connotations, do not imply a statement on subjects character, but a statement of fact. In other words, it is descriptive, not normative or judgmental. It is Mr. Reichmann's right to see the world though his own eyes and interpret what he sees in his own way. If the first impression he had was that word, so be it. He could be right or he could be wrong, but he has the right to be wrong (known as freedom of speech).
One of the roles art has is to provoke. Mr. Reichmann did provoke us to think about the word and the image, the circumstances and societies, morals and dilemmas. And for that I am grateful to Mr. Reichmann and his art."
Reading Michael's subsequent reply I found it interesting that he raised the same issue, the provocative role of art.
I find it appalling that we have to defend the very concept of freedom of speech years after the fall of Soviet Union, and even in countries that served as beacons of that freedom for the rest of the world. Apparently, "freedom haters" are not limited to Taliban only.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for expressing my thoughts exactly in a way I couldn't have done, English not being my mother tongue.
-
Whatever sexual content is in it is suggested rather than outwardly depicted.
I completely agree. But the fact remains it can be viewed as a documentary image -- does not have to be, but can be -- and any sexual inference is being depicted by a probably pregnant (or at least suggestively-plump) and obviously quite young, female... As such, regardless of whether Michael intended it or not, viewed as a documentary image it most certainly depicts the state of this particular Amazonian resident today...
Of course one could choose to view it as a cute travel snap of a chubby little native girl, playing dress-up complete with lipstick and make-up... But I submit if that were the case, the image would not carry the title it does.
Cheers,
-
Yeah, as a parent,
If i saw a picture of my young daughter and tagged with the superficial definition of LOLITA and then posted on a web site that people all over the world read...you can be sure that Michael would never forget my face after I walked into his gallery a couple of days later.
Seriously, Michael, you made a stupid mistake here and you need to realize it. No, you have not made a profound statement...Yes, you have made a sarcastic, disrespectful statement. All that without the balls to find out who this MINOR is and ask her and her parents if it 's ok to beam her image across the planet with the suggestion that she is a Lolita underneath it.
It's not the picture..it's the tag.
Easy to do this when you are continents away. Michael, would you have the balls to do this if you lived in the village down the road from where these people live, using an equivalent term in Portuguese? I doubt it.
Morality police? Michael, I'm sorry to say, I think you are showing an incredible lack of respect to many and particularly to the family of this girl. You have seriously objectified her. It has not a damn thing to do with the morality police, it has everything to do with the respect police. Your statement with regard to this incident shows that you haven't considered all the angles on this thing. In fact, it shows remarkable arrogance and that you hold a quite bit of contempt for the many people who disagree with you.
-
Please.
This
is
a
child
we're discussing here.
She deserves to be protected at all costs. Michael should have given more thought to the connotations of using 'Lolita' as a title, for her protection, if for nothing else. Regardless of everything else, he should have erred on the side of caution and not slandered her person or invited such conversations as the one we're having here for the sake of an 'artistic' image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At all costs? Protected from what?
Are you seriously suggesting that on the strength of that image that someone is going to travel thousands of miles and track that girl down and do something nasty to her? And that this image would prove more likely to encourage such behaviour than a similar picture published in National Geographic under documentary auspices?
Nor is it slander, slander applies only to the spoken word. What you must mean is libel. To prove libel you must prove damage, and usually that must be financially quantifiable. So you can't mean that. What you must mean is that it's a mean thing to say, and somehow imagine that saying mean things (even when no such denotation or connotation was intended) should be illegal.
In most countries no model release is required for the making of fine art images.
When I saw that image and title I immediately thought that the girl was flirting. Someone of such tender years flirting with an older man immediately brings to mind "Lolita" as a loose cultural reference. From the title I got the impression that MR may have been slightly uncomfortable, or perhaps not. For after all such flirting is perfectly benign if the person who is being flirted with is a good and decent person who has no intention of pursuing the matter further. MR is clearly such a person.
Even if there are a bunch of dirty paedophiles furiously masturbating to the image (which possibility seems remote in the extreme) so what? They could equally well be aroused by a catalogue of children's clothing. Sick people can be aroused by things that normal people find innocuous, that is no reason to ban everything that any sick person could possibly take pleasure in.
At all costs? At the cost of our liberty? Our self-respect? The richness of art and literature?
The only comfort I take is that the young lady herself would probably hold you in the same contempt that I do.
Now run along and put "I believe that children are our future" on the stereo and sway misty-eyed as you contemplate a world stripped of all truth and beauty.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
– C. S. Lewis
-
Peripatetic,
The richness of art and literature? Please, run along and try to make your point with an image that actually merits it.
a world stripped of truth and beauty...please...you sound as misty eyed as the guy you are slamming. Keep it real, this situation is not going to threaten our liberty. The only thing it is going to threaten is the definition of art and how far you can stretch it.
(Yeah, the guy is a little over the top in his suggestion that some psycho might try to track this girl down.)
This image is trite and has been played out a hundred million times from national geographic to unicef to birthday party snapshots. It's like the next damn sunset that I don't want to see in print.
And, if you really understood Nabakov's book, you would realize that it was the Humbert who thought she was flirting. This is part of the problem...the modern slang term "Lolita" doesn't reflect what was going on in the book except on a very superficial level...which, unfortunately, is how most people read.
-
Oh for heaven's sake - it's a picture of a girl who is being sexually provocative for a man with a camera in a third world country. If you find it shocking that a young girl who is just bordering on puberty would wish to appear "sexy" as she imagines "sexy" is, then you live in a world that is extraordinary, to say the least. Children are sexual beings.
I see a young girl who is having a pleasing fantasy - perhaps she is thinking about some babe she saw in a magazine. Perhaps she is just beginning to think about how men react to women, even young women. If there is any man reading this who imagines that good men do not find young women sexually attractive I will not be surprised although I would not agree. If there is any man here who has never found a young girl sexually attractive at least for a fleeting instance ... well I hesitate to chuckle, but it's almost unimaginable.
For myself, a 58 year old woman, I find that this photo is no more disturbing than the young women parading around my small city in Ontario with the tops of their thong undies displayed and their daring little décolletages. Young girls playing with their sexuality is a part of the human experience.
It is in that context that I view Michael's photo. (as I viewed the book, Lolita, which I did read, in the sixties). As a comment on our shared humanity, it qualifies as art.
-
The only comfort I take is that the young lady herself would probably hold you in the same contempt that I do.
Now run along and put "I believe that children are our future" on the stereo and sway misty-eyed as you contemplate a world stripped of all truth and beauty.
-
For myself, a 58 year old woman, I find that this photo is no more disturbing than the young women parading around my small city in Ontario with the tops of their thong undies displayed and their daring little décolletages. Young girls playing with their sexuality is a part of the human experience.
It is in that context that I view Michael's photo. (as I viewed the book, Lolita, which I did read, in the sixties). As a comment on our shared humanity, it qualifies as art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whether upper middle class Canadians or under legal age Amazonians do or do not display their sexuality is not the point.
My mother always said two wrongs don't make a right and would see Mr. Recihman's actions as definatley wrong, regardless of the intent.
Personally I have no problem with the photograph, to me it's just a snapshot of a little girl with pretty eyes. I read no sexual overtones into the image until I see Mr. Reichman's title.
Titling this photograph is the root of the problem.
A well respected friend and fine photographer says great photos do not need titles or explanation and I completely agree.
I don't know Mr. Reichman's intention but if could be perceived as cheap sensationalism and since these expeditions and Mr. Reichman's dvds are a commercial endeavor this episode could be viewed as pure exploitation, unless the subject and her legal gaurdians were compensated and there was clear, informed intent.
I find the art argument hard to swallow when this photograph is surrounded by banner ads selling dvds and downloadable tutorials.
In my opinion.
JR
-
...If i saw a picture of my young daughter and tagged with the superficial definition of LOLITA and then posted on a web site that people all over the world read...you can be sure that Michael would never forget my face after I walked into his gallery a couple of days later.
Is that a threat of physical violence to settle a difference of opinion?! I know you are conditioning it on affecting you personally, but nevertheless?!
This is exactly what is wrong with the reaction of the PC Gestapo: it is not that they disagree with the choice of the title, which is everyone's right... it is that they do not stop at disagreeing, they want more: a ban, apology, retraction, reparation, shutting down the site, jail time, and yes, physical violence.
-
I am a member who disagreed with MR in the past, but I feel the need to express my support to him on this issue, as I found in general the quality and objectivity of this site has been improving recently.
Coming from a third world county where exploiting the young is a problem, there are size of art works focus on similar subjects. These works are viewed either as forms of pure art depicting the human nature, or socially provocative type of practical art. More than often, the child depicted in the works are helped, rather than harmed, from the social awareness the art work evoked.
I do not see the either angles to look at such kind of work wrong. Actually they are often encouraged by the government there trying to raise the status of the poor country parts. Westerners who has little understanding of these places usually does not understand these kind of arts there as well and shocked by what they see when they had the chance to be in the places.
Leping
www.lepingzha.com
Oh for heaven's sake - it's a picture of a girl who is being sexually provocative for a man with a camera in a third world country. If you find it shocking that a young girl who is just bordering on puberty would wish to appear "sexy" as she imagines "sexy" is, then you live in a world that is extraordinary, to say the least. Children are sexual beings.
I see a young girl who is having a pleasing fantasy - perhaps she is thinking about some babe she saw in a magazine. Perhaps she is just beginning to think about how men react to women, even young women. If there is any man reading this who imagines that good men do not find young women sexually attractive I will not be surprised although I would not agree. If there is any man here who has never found a young girl sexually attractive at least for a fleeting instance ... well I hesitate to chuckle, but it's almost unimaginable.
For myself, a 58 year old woman, I find that this photo is no more disturbing than the young women parading around my small city in Ontario with the tops of their thong undies displayed and their daring little décolletages. Young girls playing with their sexuality is a part of the human experience.
It is in that context that I view Michael's photo. (as I viewed the book, Lolita, which I did read, in the sixties). As a comment on our shared humanity, it qualifies as art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I have no problem with the image, and I also don't find a need to give my images a title, but a few things come to my mind:
How do we know this is a child?
What if she's 18?
Who's to say that in her country, 18 is the legal age of an adult?
Why is it that in the USA, 21 year olds can drink alcohol legally, an 18 year old is considered an adult, 16 year olds can drive cars, and 17 year olds can watch movies that are rated R, with violence, nudity, and sex?
Who are they to say that these are the legal ages for these activities, and who are we to say that this girl is too young to be titled "Lolita" in an artistic portrait?
-
In China, kids are driking hard liquor and the legal age for everything is 14.
My landscape works are famed for their heavenly sweetness. However, more and more I am realizing this kind of work is not what this world really needs, here and in my home country.
Leping
www.lepingzha.com
I have no problem with the image, and I also don't find a need to give my images a title, but a few things come to my mind:
How do we know this is a child?
What if she's 18?
Who's to say that in her country, 18 is the legal age of an adult?
Why is it that in the USA, 21 year olds can drink alcohol legally, an 18 year old is considered an adult, 16 year olds can drive cars, and 17 year olds can watch movies that are rated R, with violence, nudity, and sex?
Who are they to say that these are the legal ages for these activities, and who are we to say that this girl is too young to be titled "Lolita" in an artistic portrait?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well IMO there's nothing wrong with the pic.
It's the title obviously.
"Lolita" has never had especially pleasant connotations but in the context of the internet, the word simply means "child pornography".
Nick-T
-
As soon as I saw the image I had a feeling Michael was in for a problem with the title and the girl´s pose. I don´t find anything offensive at all with the title or the image as whole but I knew for sure all the "Web morality Police" and all the vultures who attacked Michael for his M8 review would be ready to pounce on him once again.
It´s pathetic and very sad to see all these people who are up in arms about a load of nonsense not trying to use their time and energy in something more creative and positive. The world is in a bad enough state as it is!!
Paul
-
I saw the picture, didn't read the title and though nothing of it.
Today I found the title. I was not amussed.
The problem with the title is that word has a certain conotation and makes the girl in the photo the "object of desire" despite her seemingly young age. Add to that the photo is taken by an older man. Makes him look like a perv in my estimation since he obiviously found her desireable. That behavour is generall frowned upon. Then he names it the "lolita affair" to stroke the fire.
He had to see this comming. Publicity?
MR says its art and "It has no social, political or moral message." Clearly art has a message and the name clearly adds context to the photo (as he said it would)
Also the title is making asumptions about the girl in the photo something she might not want to be. Obviously he knows little about her.
Its like taking a picture of someone walking and naming it Jerk.
Or like titling a photo the N word. That would certainly change the meaning of a photo of a black person.
-
Michael,
I agree with your position on art. But, I am a little off put by your condemnation of those who disagree and lumping the U.S. in with Middle Eastern countries.
First, the morality spectrum is broad and those on each side of a discussion have a right to be heard. You should not be condemned for your beliefs, nor should they. The extreme fringe--NAMBLA or militant religious extremists--should never be given credence in these discussions; and, IMO, should be ignored.
Second, "Lolita" can be displayed and sold in the U.S.; not the case in the Middle East. The citizens of the U.S. are free to express their opinion on your work, either pro or con; however, the controlled press (and internet) in most Middle Eastern countries prohibit comments contrary to the government/religious line. For example, in the US the public outcry against displaying the figure of Jesus in a glass of urine caused the art house to pull the art work. But, this was the result of public opinion, not government censorship--democracy in action. In Iran, that display would never have seen the light of day. Your lumping the U.S. with these extreme theocratic countries appears to be little more than U.S. bashing.
BTW, I liked the photo. The idea of Lolita did not enter into my mind, until I read the caption.
-
... For example, in the US the public outcry against displaying the figure of Jesus in a glass of urine caused the art house to pull the art work. But, this was the result of public opinion, not government censorship--democracy in action. In Iran, that display would never have seen the light of day. ...
On the contrary, I think such a display would be turned into a permanent exhibition in Iran.
-
Hello.
It never ceases to amaze me, the level of hypocrisy displayed on internet forums. I don't know if any of you guys bitching and moaning about this image would like to swop lives with me, I have real issues to deal with such as family illness, bills and generally making it through life, obviously you guys have none of those issues and can devote your attention to finding an easy target that you can express your outrage and indignation upon. Mind you, I'm suprised you have the time what with all the good work you are doing feeding and clothing the poor, ending wars and wiping out the famine that is, in a lot of cases, right outside your door. (For you Americans out there, that last bit is good old fashioned English sarcasm)
This is a photograph, a capture of a moment in time. What you make of it is up to you. If you are (rightly in my opinion) outraged by the world we live in, the sick people out there then put some trousers on, slide away from the computer screen and go and do something about it. If you think you are making a difference by anouncing your outrage over this image then you are very much mistaken. It's a big old world out there full of horrible things happening to millions of innocent people every day, how about getting things in perspective and doing something positive about it.
Mat.
PS. I'd laugh if her name was Lolita and she'd agreed to the picture only if she could have a name check.
-
I thought it was a young boy (short hair) with a bad fitting apron. Even the title didn’t convince me otherwise. Whatever gender, I think it’s a wonderful people photograph both technically and artistically. A perfect capture of a welcoming, albeit tentative, pose and youthful warmth in the eyes.
Michael, you did good.
Again, I wish I had half your eye.
-
For example, in the US the public outcry against displaying the figure of Jesus in a glass of urine caused the art house to pull the art work.
I was just thinking that I haven't enjoyed the reaction to a piece of art this much since Piss Jesus 15 or so years back. (Although the Mapplethorpe reaction was also priceless.)
-
On the contrary, I think such a display would be turned into a permanent exhibition in Iran.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Slobodan,
Absolutely not. Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam.
-
Slobodan,
Absolutely not. Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118010\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see... I guess Jesus is quite welcome in that region:
"...Three employees of a publishing house that distributes Bibles were found with their throats slit Wednesday in the latest attack apparently targeting Turkey's Christian minority..." (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Bible-Attack.php)
-
I've been off the forum for the past 10 hours or so and have just finished reading this thread thus far.
Frankly, I have nothing to add that I didn't put in my essay. Clearly this is a subject that has touched a nerve in some people. So be it. There are many things that touch me on a daily basis, but i don't feel the need to spout off about them in public (except when I do – if you know what I mean – which is that I limit my ranting to matters photographic, rather than moral, ethical, political, social or religious.
Though people are free to continue this dialog, I don't feel I have much additional to add.
Michael
-
what if i came to the states and shot a photo of micheal and posted it on the web.
he wouldnt have a problem with that probably.
but what if i titled the shot as "gay".
he may be "gay" or he may not be, it may or may not affend him. whether i had shot a work of art or not, the perception of the shot would have been completely changed by the title.
the title "lolita" has changed the interpretation of the shot completely.
if this girl lived in the states, her parents could sue. but because she comes from a poor country, she has no protection from any of this, they dont even get a say.
paul
-
I see... I guess Jesus is quite welcome in that region:
"...Three employees of a publishing house that distributes Bibles were found with their throats slit Wednesday in the latest attack apparently targeting Turkey's Christian minority..." (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Bible-Attack.php)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
sloboban,
That has nothing to do with Koran's writings on the prophets, of which Mohamed was the greatest. That event is a fundamentalist reaction to Christian theology. You will not find the denigration of the prophet Jesus in Iran. You will find the condemnation of those who subjugate Mohamed to Jesus; or, worse, do not believe in Mohamed.
Now I know why I avoided theology classes in college--too many variations on a theme and too emotional.
-
Michael,
To quote from your essay:
"In this case I titled a photograph of a clearly sexually provocative young woman with a word in the popular vernacular that, I believe, adds to its overall effect."
I cannot help it, I find this very problematic. If this was a picture of a woman, I would not mind. But it is not, it is a picture of a girl who, for all I can gauge from the picture itself, may be no more than twelve years old. I find it completely inappropriate to say of a girl that she is a "clearly sexually provocative young woman". And even if actually she is older (how much older can she possibly be?), she looks as if she clearly is a child.
Mind you, I am not saying that you should be punished for posting this or that the picture should be banned. I am just saying that you would have done much much better if you had reflected on your own connotations for just a little bit longer, if you had considered for a moment that this may NOT be a "clearly sexually provocative young woman", but a child.
Karsten
-
i think it seems that the people here are unable to see the fact that children are sexual no matter what you try and say, i was a school teacher and fielding questions about sex was a daily exercise, as was having 14 year old girls who were just developing with shirts that were a bit revealing and didnt leave much to the imaginationa nd repeating like a broken record to dp up thereir shirt etc, the fact parents cant possible consider there little darlings to be terrors when they are away from home has lots to do with many peoples perception of children. Children are very funny people generally who do make life interesting and are defiantely to be respected, but they also try and play games with adults, what differentiates us is an adult knows where the lines are, so this photo clearly shows a girl playing with lines, and the camera recording it.... In fact i have seen when i confiscated mobile phones from pupils in my class and turned off the phones to then be given back at the end of the day numerous pictures of half naked or in one case pornographic pictures, of the pupils them selfves as screen savers etc.... the pupils would put the pictures there for the effect of seeing me turn the thing off and catch a glimpse of the picture..... children are not innocent and do take liberties where possible, as for them being suggestive i can only describe a class of 14 year olds on a damp day in winter with the smell of sweat and potato chips in the class room after recess as one of the most unattractive things on the planet....
This photo is really what children are like, they show off and pose and test boundaries, it's time adults stop pretending they dont and are wrapped in cotton wool....
-
I see an image of a young girl...could have easily been a boy...nothing sexual..and the title is nothing to be upset about!
I guess the complaint(s) is(are) coming from someone with a sick mind!! Look into yourself..I would have (not for one second) thought of this image as sexual...not even with that title....but then again I am a healthy stable individual who thinks of children as children and not as sexual objects not even when the little girl would have been nude in that image would it ever cross my mind.
Live you life.....shoot pretty pictures.....and be glad images can create a 5 page discussion!!
-
The limitations that some people place on what artists can do is the real issue here, be it in regards to the work, to the title of the work, or to some other aspect of art.
There's way too many censors these days.
We need a few more artists -quite a few more- to balance things out.
-
Bravo Alain Briot!
-
One more voice supporting Michael.
I would suggest that everyone focus on photographing and quit analyzing the motives of others.
The media already does that in a completely inaccurate manner.
dave
-
Down here in the states, we had quite a prudish reaction to the Dove ad campaign, if you're familiar with that. If not, it was a series of artfully photographed nudes of middle-aged women.
That had me scratching my head, too.
When I first saw Michael's photo, it caused dissonance for me. I thought her provocative pose distracted from the diginity of her face, the intensity of her eyes. The title, although I don't disagree with Michael's right to name it whatever he wants, aggravated the dissonance (for me). I thought it would have been more successful as a tighter portrait.
My $.02.
Mike
-
Michael,
The title is exploitive and degrading. She is a child and should be treated with dignity and protected. If she was an adult the same would apply. If she lived here she could sue you and drag you through the very messy legal system. As it is she can not, so you get to make money on her image and title you gave her. It is likely she will never know, but you should be ashamed to know what you have done to her. Don't defend the wrong. Apologize for it even if you can't comprehend the wrong that was done to the child. If you can't understand the wrong then I feel truly sorry for you.
Alex
PS It is a weak image and not worth damaging yourself over.
-
Wow! This thread has taken off like a rocket. Just goes to show what even a hint of sexual scandal can do.
I get the impression that most of those disagreeing with the display of this photo must have led very sheltered lives, or at least haven't travelled much.
The true age of women in general can be very deceptive. Makes no difference whether they are young or old. Older women often want to look younger than they are and the very young often want to appear older than they are.
Assessing this young lady's true age is also complicated by the fact she's of a different race and culture to most of the moral police. I'd place her anywhere between 14 and 20.
The best quote so far from this entire thread is the following:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
– C. S. Lewis
-
I was just thinking that I haven't enjoyed the reaction to a piece of art this much since Piss Jesus 15 or so years back. (Although the Mapplethorpe reaction was also priceless.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dark Penguin,
If you are implying that this thing has anything to do with those two events then I feel that you have misplaced a few issues. This is a child whose family obviously doesn't have the resources to offer up their opinion on Michael's offering of their daughter being a "clearly sexually provocative young woman". They are clearly out of the loop on this and that makes it very easy for Michael to do this. I wonder if Michael even thought to inquire as to the age of this person?
I'll suggest again..what if Michael lived in the neighboring village and used an equivalent term for this...would he have the guts? I'd wager, not.
No, Ray, I'm not sheltered and I'm very well traveled. I think you are making strange assumptions. And, what if this person is 14? 12?
Alanbriot,
Your last post was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard.
Michael is being checked on his actions here.
I'd be most worried if people didn't offer their opinion and just kept kissing his ass over a piece of, clearly, run-of-the-mill art. Michael's liberty is not being threatened.
-
Down here in the states, we had quite a prudish reaction to the Dove ad campaign, if you're familiar with that. If not, it was a series of artfully photographed nudes of middle-aged women.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huge difference though, they were adults who agreed to do this and where paid to do so. They were not shot while undressing through their bedroom window with a 100-400 zoom by a 60ish year old pervert. The only thing that bugs me is that we are talking about this and Michael is loving his photo getting so much attention.
As to the earlier mention of piss christ, I loved it and had no problems with it. My only problem here is a child is involved. If Michael wants to imitate Mapplethorpe and post a self portrait masterbating with a machine gun, god bless him, just leave third world underage children out of it.
-
Alain,
Exactly who is censoring Michael? Many are upset with the image, some with the title, some with the content of his article. A discussion on a forum like this is not censorship. He has not been forced to removed the photo from his website, or had legal action threatened.
The negative opinions of Michael's titled photo are less offensive than your calling those who disagree with you "censors." That is one of the oldest canards in the book. Those on your side of this issue are just as over-the-top as some of Michael's critics.
The limitations that some people place on what artists can do is the real issue here, be it in regards to the work, to the title of the work, or to some other aspect of art.
There's way too many censors these days.
We need a few more artists -quite a few more- to balance things out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Congratulations everyone! You're slowly turning Michael Reichmann into the Don Imus of Internet photography websites. Good job.
Someone quickly call Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and schedule an appearance on OPRAH to talk about how the title of this image was degrading to this poor young girl, and other women in general. After that, say goodbye to Michael as he checks into rehab!
Everyone needs to stop acting so GAY. Oh no! I said something that may be offensive to homosexuals. Looks like I need to check into rehab with Michael as well! Dammit!
-
In fact, I would say the appellation, 'Lolita' is just too flattering. Having examined the photo again, I'd say this young lady is probably 25 years old, pregnant for the third time and is just behaving coquettishly because it please her and she wants to look younger than she actually is.
You moral police are a complete joke.
-
troyhouse and James R,
I don't really disagree with you. My Dove ad campaign was perhaps not a great reference. Sometimes it's hard to discern whether people are shocked by nudity and sexuality because it is just plain nudity and sexuality, or because they're offended by the age of the subjects.
But I can see there is some passionate and righteous indignation going on here that must be respected.
I think Michael is hiding behind art and the "provacation of art." I think he stepped in a pile here. No question.
The point I was trying to make was that if he had chosen to take a more sensitive approach with his composition and his title, I think he might have achieved something more artistic. (And we wouldn't be having this discussion.)
Now Michael might say that he's not interested in reportage anymore, but I think that's a bit of a shame. Documentary photography can bubble up to the level of art (McCurry's Afghan Girl springs to mind). Even if it doesn't, it can still illuminate something about the world we live in and the people who inhabit this world. "Lolita," in my humble opinion, did neither.
Michael has a sphere of influence. He could influence his community about the plight of the poor, environmental threats, and the spectre of global warming, but he seldom or never does.
Maybe that would be too provocative.
-
I don't think I implied anything. Anything implied is your own baggage.
Dark Penguin,
If you are implying that this thing has anything to do with those two events then I feel that you have misplaced a few issues. This is a child whose family obviously doesn't have the resources to offer up their opinion on Michael's offering of their daughter being a "clearly sexually provocative young woman". They are clearly out of the loop on this and that makes it very easy for Michael to do this. I wonder if Michael even thought to inquire as to the age of this person?
I'll suggest again..what if Michael lived in the neighboring village and used an equivalent term for this...would he have the guts? I'd wager, not.
No, Ray, I'm not sheltered and I'm very well traveled. I think you are making strange assumptions. And, what if this person is 14? 12?
Alanbriot,
Your last post was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard.
Michael is being checked on his actions here.
I'd be most worried if people didn't offer their opinion and just kept kissing his ass over a piece of, clearly, run-of-the-mill art. Michael's liberty is not being threatened.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I must agree with Alain and nicolaasdb. This is way off the track. Some of the language here is even past Ann Coulter, Randi Rhodes, Rush Limbaugh, and Rosie ODonnell. It's not funny, entertaining or even relevant to a sane discussion of what is art. I must say I was shocked to see such a turmoil over a simple picture, which when I first saw it, I thought, "interesting, captivating eyes." And I must say, the "provocative" nature of the title escaped me. I thought it was possibly her real name. Duh! If I follow the logic of some of these righteous-types, they would object to Steve McCurry's famous picture of Sharbat Gula that graced the cover of National Geographic over 20 years ago. After all, most Pashtuns are probably not particularly happy about their young girls having their pictures plastered all over western magazines. But even after 20 years Sharbat and her family didn't understand all the fuss, so the story goes. Maybe in 20 years "Lolita" will be equally nonplussed. Wouldn't it be funny if she grew up to be a photojournalist! Can we move on now, please.
-
In fact, I would say the appellation, 'Lolita' is just too flattering. Having examined the photo again, I'd say this young lady is probably 25 years old, pregnant for the third time and is just behaving coquettishly because it please her and she wants to look younger than she actually is.
You moral police are a complete joke.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=118075\")
Wow Ray! You must have been a participant in the Amazon Perverts Trip or just a photo prophet to make such a comment.
Perversion for the sake of art is what it seems like to me.
What I find most upsetting about Michael Reichman's actions is the title & caption that he gave this picture and the effort that he put in finding its meaning. A Humbert of sorts, desperate to gather attention to himself by going deep into the paragraphs of Wikipedia to set the momemtum for this dialogue. All a calculated attempt to draw attention to his site.
An equally provocative and crowd drawing photo would have been of Reichman and Schewe swimming together tittled "Perverts" along with a Wikipedia link -[a href=\"http://]Wikipedia[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion
-
Let's just be clear here, not one person here is objecting to the photograph(that I can see) so please quit harping on that. No one is saying censor the picture. Stop it and read what people have said, not what your brain is running with. The is 100% about an elderly man labeling a young woman who can not defend herself, as a whore(lets call it what it is).
Also isn't it funny that the people who are so behind Michael are the only ones using the censorship word. I am by no means trying to censor this photo, I am much more interested in seeing someone who influences a lot of people take the high road. I would adamantly defend Michael's right to free speech and then exercise mine in saying only a sad, perverse man would even see sex in such a picture.
The problem I'm having here with any source of real argument is the difficulty in taking names like photoboy or triXgirl seriously. This is where the internet sucks. Everyone is a Clint Eastwood because they are veiled in an anonymous cloak. I swore a long time ago on this forum that I wouldn't have any more serious discussions here until people had to use there real names.
I'm done with this; its just sad that Michael took an innocent picture of an innocent person and labeled her to be seen by hundreds of thousands of people in such an unflattering way.
-
Wow Ray! You must have been a participant in the Amazon Perverts Trip or just a photo prophet to make such a comment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've completely lost me. I can find no sense or meaning to your response.
I make the comment that the young lady is probably much older than she looks and you're talking about perversion. Have you completely lost all your marbles?
-
Oh for heaven's sake - it's a picture of a girl who is being sexually provocative for a man with a camera in a third world country. If you find it shocking that a young girl who is just bordering on puberty would wish to appear "sexy" as she imagines "sexy" is, then you live in a world that is extraordinary, to say the least. Children are sexual beings.
I see a young girl who is having a pleasing fantasy - perhaps she is thinking about some babe she saw in a magazine. Perhaps she is just beginning to think about how men react to women, even young women. If there is any man reading this who imagines that good men do not find young women sexually attractive I will not be surprised although I would not agree. If there is any man here who has never found a young girl sexually attractive at least for a fleeting instance ... well I hesitate to chuckle, but it's almost unimaginable.
For myself, a 58 year old woman, I find that this photo is no more disturbing than the young women parading around my small city in Ontario with the tops of their thong undies displayed and their daring little décolletages. Young girls playing with their sexuality is a part of the human experience.
It is in that context that I view Michael's photo. (as I viewed the book, Lolita, which I did read, in the sixties). As a comment on our shared humanity, it qualifies as art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BRAVO! this is the best statement I read about the "lolita" subject, and written by a lady!
I agree with her 100%
-
I can only draw the conclusion from reading this thread that all those who are expressing moral outrage at the photo in question, are doing so to hide from themselves and others their own subconscious and disturbing desires.
It's a common ploy that's played out throughout history. If your own desires offend you, keep them a secret even unto yourself by projecting your disapproval on others.
You don't fool me, though.
-
I can only draw the conclusion from reading this thread that all those who are expressing moral outrage at the photo in question, are doing so to hide from themselves and others their own subconscious and disturbing desires.
It's a common ploy that's played out throughout history. If your own desires offend you, keep them a secret even unto yourself by projecting your disapproval on others.
You don't fool me, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, just to be clear, Ray, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that everyone who has expressed a dissenting argument about this image - dissenting from Mr. Reichmann's point of view, that is, is a closet pedophile?
If you're not saying that, please feel free to correct me.
If you are saying that, then this conversation has moved to an entirely new level; one which I don't think I want to participate in anymore.
-
So I take it by the reaction of many here that the work of photographers like Sally Mann (At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women comes to mind in particular), Jock Sturges, and David Hamilton is now considered taboo?
Or are nekkid pre-pubescents kosher so long as we're careful about how we name the images?
Just curious.
-
I can only draw the conclusion from reading this thread that all those who are expressing moral outrage at the photo in question, are doing so to hide from themselves and others their own subconscious and disturbing desires.
It's a common ploy that's played out throughout history. If your own desires offend you, keep them a secret even unto yourself by projecting your disapproval on others.
You don't fool me, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You don't fool us either RAY. In the third post on this thread you expressed your wishes for our under-aged lolita to be topless. Not so subconscious
When I first saw this image my immediate reaction was, that cyan piece of cloth shouldn't be there. The photo would be more interesting without it.
I don't often criticise Michael's photos, but I think the presence of that piece of cloth is a definite flaw.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
To put my comment I'm about to make in perspective, I'd like to tell a little bit of why I'm commenting in the first place.
I'm a young photographer, just starting out making my bones (not even 24 yet). I'm writing this post from a hotel in Hong Kong. I travel through Asia/India/Wherever taking photos that many would consider exploitative. I make images of the destitute and impoverished in areas of the world that most people have never even heard of. I don't do this to profit (yet), I do this for me. I hope one day I have books and stuff like that. I give each subject a nominal token ($10-$15 - which to them is often 2-4 weeks salary). I struggle with my own conscience, but I'm at peace knowing that what I'm doing is bringing a story back to a very jaded place.
So, as someone who does quite a bit of this type of work (feel free to view it on my website - I don't hide who I am), I feel I'm qualified to comment.
A travel photographer/documentarian/whomever has a responsibility to their subject to cast them in an honest manner without prejudicing the viewer. Moreover, a connection should be made with your subject (In my case, if it is a child, I will not photograph them without their parents permission - which is the only time I'd even ask for permission - my subjects either go with the flow or shake me off, we don't need to verbally communicate). I have never taken a portrait from more than a meter or so away from my subject. I look them in the eye and my biggest fear is that the connection I do make with my subject does not come through in the final image. I take one shot and that's it - the moment is fleeting and cannot be replicated. I'm not going to blow smoke and say that the photo is a work of art - it looks like a snap shot from a distance with no real connection (Of course I'm biased against those who choose to work in a different manner than I do - I can't help that, but I also won't hide it). The one thing that does impress me about it is the girls eyes. I've always found that my subjects (who I rarely, if ever, can verbally communicate with) tend to look directly into the camera. However, it also makes me wonder if the girl even knew she was being photographed (I have no clue how many tries it took to get it, what focal length, or where the photographer was who shot it...it looks like it was at a distance though).
I see the photograph and I see a girl holding a water jug behind her head (a very common thing for young children in 7th world countries to do - they work too). Looks like a natural kid's pose - ever go to the beach and see an infant walking around with the belly sticking out? (On a side note, I always find it precious that when you photograph children and you're bending down that they bend down as well). I don't find it sexual at all - I saw the photo from another board without a title and didn't think anything further.
The entire reason we're discussing this is because of the context it was put in with the title. This conversation does not happen if it isn't titled "Lolita." I was down in San Miguel in November and went to a show for David Alan Harvey and another photographer whose name escapes me. That second photographer was presenting photographs and narrating along (Harvey just let his work speak for itself). Afterward a discussion ensued about how this woman spoke through her lens and put such a negative light over all things Mexico. I was with Chuck Jones and he was damn near ballistic expressing his displeasure.
Doing what I do and what many others do, we tread a fine line between telling OUR story and telling THEIR story. I try my damnedest to be neutral (but compassionate) towards my subjects and let their stories come through in their faces (I can only remember one instance when I purposefully tilted the story in a negative direction and that was at a bullfight in Quito - and I still didn't title it, I tried to let my lens do the talking). I don't title my work, I have my own thoughts and beliefs about some of the people I photograph, but in the end, I'm not an artist - I am the medium. It is not my story to tell or offer an opinion on. I do what I do to bring an awareness towards these people and if I can help a little bit along the way, I do it.
So, I won't get into the debate whether the title is pedophilic or whatever. But I will say that it is not necessary. There is a story in that photo and it is up to the viewers to read that story (some may see what I see, a young girl holding a jug [maybe she isn't, I dont know], others may see a little girl in a sexually suggestive position - who knows), but it is up to the photographer to convey that story without adding their own opinions - that's not what this type of photography is about.
-
You don't fool us either RAY. In the third post on this thread you expressed your wishes for our under-aged lolita to be topless. Not so subconscious
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps Michael has fooled you, perhaps unintentionally, by naming the picture Lolita and thereby giving the impression the lady is younger than she actually is.
She appears to have a fairly ample bosom to me and could even be pregnant. I'd expect 12 year old girls living in poverty in the Amazon area to be running around topless.
I have nothing to hide about my sexuality. I'm not even trying to fool you. I find all women of child bearing age potentially sexually attractive, but some more than others of course.
-
Michael,
The title is exploitive and degrading. She is a child and should be treated with dignity and protected. If she was an adult the same would apply. If she lived here she could sue you and drag you through the very messy legal system. As it is she can not, so you get to make money on her image and title you gave her. It is likely she will never know, but you should be ashamed to know what you have done to her. Don't defend the wrong. Apologize for it even if you can't comprehend the wrong that was done to the child. If you can't understand the wrong then I feel truly sorry for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alex,
A photograph is just an objective capture of a given reality. Lolita behaved the way she did in a conscious way, and my guess would be that she'd be very happy if she knew how famous she has suddenly become. She'd be less happy if she knew that some guys like you call her childish attitude pornographic.
This image could be a problem for her only because of the way people like you cast a judgement on the pornographic nature of her attitude. If all men were like me - amused to see a young girl play a game with a foreigner - there would be no harm done to her at all.
If anything, the wrongdoers here are clearly the people like you calling her deeds sexual, and not the photographers who just captured some bits of reality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alex,
A photograph is just an objective capture of a given reality. Lolita behaved the way she did in a conscious way, and my guess would be that she'd be very happy if she knew how famous she has suddenly become. She'd be less happy if she knew that some guys like you call her childish attitude pornographic.
This image could be a problem for her only because of the way people like you cast a judgement on the pornographic nature of her attitude. If all men were like me - amused to see a young girl play a game with a foreigner - there would be no harm done to her at all.
If anything, the wrongdoers here are clearly the people like you calling her deeds sexual, and not the photographers who just captured some bits of reality.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
I don't see anything in the post you quoted where the guy, Alex, says anything about her attitude being pornographic..??? Did he call her deeds sexual?
Where are you getting this from?
Most of the people who are speaking against this don't have one single problem with the picture..it's innocent enough without the title..
Look, Lolita in the modern context is, much of the time, used as a somewhat derogatory term. I don't know where you guys are hanging out. Michael and company must not get outside of their photo circles very often.
If you type "Lolita", or especially, the plural form into google, you get porn hits...not to mention, a bar in Thailand that offers something other than drinks...it's called, of course, "Lolita's".
Extreme example? maybe...not really. The expression, in many circles, has lost it's innocent roots.
P.S. is a photo an objective capture of a given reality??
-
So, just to be clear, Ray, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that everyone who has expressed a dissenting argument about this image - dissenting from Mr. Reichmann's point of view, that is, is a closet pedophile?
If you're not saying that, please feel free to correct me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not quite. There will be various motivations. Some people might just want to get revenge on Michael and embarrass him as much as possible because of some past altercation.
Some will probably see the photo first before noticing the caption, experience some sort of sexual response, see the caption then fly into a fury of moral outrage because they are unable to personally deal with a situation where they might have experienced a mild sexual response towards someone who might actually be the age of Lolita in Nabakov's novel.
There'll be others who express moral outrage against any public display of sexuality and this will just be another campaign for them.
I wouldn't actually use the term closet paedophile. I don't agree with the use of the term paedophile for this purpose. That's because the root 'phile' is used in so many other words expressing a reverence and love for a subject or thing, such as Anglophile, Francophile, bibliophile, philosophy etc. The correct term for the sexual abuse of children is pederasty, in my view.
Having said that, there are many examples in society of people covering up, either from themselves or from others, socially unapproved activities, thoughts and desires, by vigorously campaigning in public against those very activities which they either are already practicing or entertain thoughts about practicing, or have subconscious warnings about, which they vigorously suppress through this method of projecting moral outrage.
-
Ray, I think you need a hobby, dude. How's about photography?
It's very rewarding and much more challenging than your brand of psychology.
: )
-
Having said that, there are many examples in society of people covering up, either from themselves or from others, socially unapproved activities, thoughts and desires, by vigorously campaigning in public against them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So your on our side?
-
So your on our side?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. You do harm to others when you project on them your own failure to deal with a personal problem. You also don't solve your own problem in this way but just perpetuate it and allow it to fester.
The pornographic industry thrives on such attitudes of moral outrage expressed in this thread. You are actually on the side of the pornographers in the sense you are helping create the demand, even if you don't realise it.
-
Without having to rake over a load of quotes... takes too long(!), Ill put my two penneth forward.
David Lehman very astutely pointed out that it looks like she is carrying something over her shoulder. When I first saw the picture I didn't think it was sexual at all. To me it looks like she is having a bit of a stretch, saw the camera and grinned.
To label the image with a phrase which is now associated with child porn (historically or not) it very unfair to the child in question and shows a great deal of ignorance and disrespect to the child... CHILD!
THAT I believe, and as many others have stated on deaf ears, is the issue. Why title it? Its very camera club in my opinion and I don't see the point.
If I was her parent, wether she is 12, 14, 16 or 22 I would be coming after you, and not to compliment you on your holiday photos.
The picture does not need to be removed, its 100% ok, just get rid of a title which has too many other meanings.
Finally to label a holiday snap as 'art' is a bit ridiculous.
Jo S. x
-
This image could be a problem for her only because of the way people like you cast a judgement on the pornographic nature of her attitude. If all men were like me - amused to see a young girl play a game with a foreigner - there would be no harm done to her at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then by your argument there is no need to give it a pornographic title.
-
Bernard,
I don't see anything in the post you quoted where the guy, Alex, says anything about her attitude being pornographic..??? Did he call her deeds sexual?
Where are you getting this from?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair comment I guess... but Alex wrote "The title is exploitive and degrading". To me the title is seen that way because of an implied sexual/pornongraphic background that is being perceived by Alex, and therefore put in the spotlight.
If I misunderstood, why is the title "exploitive and degrading"?
P.S. is a photo an objective capture of a given reality??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It clearly is. That given reality might not be representative of the global one though.
Regards,
Bernard
-
i for one wasn't offended by the photo. i was a little puzzled by Michael's choice of title, which turned it from innocent to provocative. but his response telling me to take my head out of my *** for thinking him immoral? not only am i done with this tread, but i am done with this website. Just as i can turn the channel if i don't like a show, i can just as easily delete a web address from my toolbar. sorry Michael, you have a great website from a technical standpoint, and i have steered many people towards it, but if you are going to try to defend what was obviously an accident on your part, and then not just buck it up and apologize, then call me an idiot for thinking you wrong, we are officially done.
-
God! Some of you guys are a bunch of rednecks. Nabakov's novel, 'Lolita' was considered a literary masterpiece, as I recall. It was a long time ago since I read it, but even now after all this time I think I can vaguely remember verbatim a passage, or part of it, or the gist of it.
"Lolita! The tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to slowly pronounce ... Lo..li..ta." or something close to that.
Wow! Some of you guys sure have a lot of hang-ups.
-
God! Some of you guys are a bunch of rednecks. Nabakov's novel, 'Lolita' was considered a literary masterpiece, as I recall. It was a long time ago since I read it, but even now after all this time I think I can vaguely remember verbatim a passage, or part of it, or the gist of it.
"Lolita! The tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to slowly pronounce ... Lo..li..ta." or something close to that.
Wow! Some of you guys sure have a lot of hang-ups.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray its got nothing to do with the book.
It is the use of a phrase which is now related to child porn being used in a photograph in a discompasionate way. Thats it.
-
Like many others on this topic, I to raised an eyebrow or two at the title of the photograph. I had a feeling that it would provoke such a response.
A similar thing happened to me a while ago but not on the same scale. I called someone an idiot when commenting on a superb photograph on a well known critique website. The photo had a large amount of critiques which were all in praise of the said photo, apart from one. I felt that this person was only being negative to gain attention to himself. I took exception to this and called him an idiot in my posting.
This caused a large debate on the websites forum which basically told me, in no uncertain terms that I was wrong to call someone an idiot. They were right. I didn't have the right to call anyone anything. After giving it a lot of thought I decided to apologise to the member that I had verbally abused and removed the offending remark. Guess what? The debate ended almost immediately.
My point to this posting is that I and a lot of other people believe the title to be inappropriate. Not the photograph. Surely Michael Reichmann does not want this to go on and on. By removing the title and admitting that it was inappropriate would, I am sure, diffuse the situation. Yes, we all have the right to free speech but in this rapidly changing world we do have to choose this speech very carefully. Especially when the whole world can see it.
Michael states that the comments are 20/1 in his favour. Reading a lot of the comments on this forum I would say that the ratio is a lot less than he thinks. Despite all of this, I still think that this site (Luminous Landscape) is one of the best of its type on the internet.
-
People keep changing this argument every time they see that they are losing it (pun intended).
Since when did extending freedom of expression for artists exlcude extending that same freedom to anyone who wishes to comment on art? Art will die not when when people start criticising but when they stop caring about it enough to comment.
And still the comments come - if you are concerned about the use of a title loaded with potential for misunderstanding and controversy in one of its levels of meaning, you get accused of having a hang-up about a clearly innocent picture (or worse, in ray's case).
This could all have been knocked on the head right at the start; all Michael had to do was sya "I know perfectly well what Lolita means and I intended it to be provocative, as is my right and duty as an artist - but not as provocative as it turned out", and left it there, there is nowhere this discussion could have gone. Instead we get the frankly ludicrous attempt to deny one of Lolita's plain meanings, and more self-serving special pleading and amateur psychology than anyone should be exposed to.
-
Ray its got nothing to do with the book.
It is the use of a phrase which is now related to child porn being used in a photograph in a discompasionate way. Thats it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've got no experience of child porn. I don't know any of the catch phrases or turn-on phrases, whatever you want to call them. I've got no idea if the term 'Lolita' is frequently used in connection with child porn as I'm sure Michael hasn't either.
If this is the objection that the moral police have, who have viewed lots of child pornography and seen frequent references to "Lolita", then say so.
Let's not beat about the bush.
-
I've got no experience of child porn. I don't know any of the catch phrases or turn-on phrases, whatever you want to call them. I've got no idea if the term 'Lolita' is frequently used in connection with child porn as I'm sure Michael hasn't either.
If this is the objection that the moral police have, who have viewed lots of child pornography and seen frequent references to "Lolita", then say so.
Let's not beat about the bush.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeez Ray, you can't label us all child pornographers because we are aware of the meaning of a word in the English language???
As MR is so keen to quote Wikipedia he need only have read to the second line...
'In the marketing of pornography, "lolita" is used to refer to any attractive woman who has only recently reached, or is still younger than, the age of consent, or sometimes to refer to women who only appear to be younger than the age of consent.'
So MR clearly did know.
Therefore the title isn't suitable to describe any kid.... Period.
-
ANY CLEAR MINDS OUT THERE?
The key issues here, as I see it, are:
1) Is it OK to take a picture in a different cultural setting then your own, without talking to the one you make a portrait of, then move on and, finally, publish it without context, with a title that may happen to coincide with reality, or is a subjectiv interpretation, or a sole product of the imagination of the photographer?
2) Is it the privilege of the photographer to say: "this is art, and not a document", when you point the lens in the direction of an existing girl (or boy, or old man or woman - any person) with a life that you don`t know anything about?
3) If it`s "art" (and the quality of the actual picture here is beyond the point), does that exclude the "documentary" aspect?
4) If a photographer take pictures of "real people", does this documentary aspect exclude the "art" aspect?
There`s a lot to say about this, and in this context I find it quite interesting that Michael Reichmann several times has published articles about "art" (from Alain Briot and others) which states (if I remember correctly) that art is basically a product of the artists "imagination" or "vision" or "feeling" – statements that i find a bit simplistic (but perhaps it is in accordance with Michael Reichmanns view?)
Personally I find the "vision-thing" rather vague and fluffy, if you isolate it from anything else then the "artist"`s imagination; it`s an ideology with some unintended implications, which becomes more evident when your medium is photography.
There are no simple answers to the questions above; you can`t solve them just by discussing them for a while in a café or on the web. However, I think this thread could be useful, and perhaps clarifying, if people discussed the issues at stake.
Instead a lot of people get very personal, accusing MR for labeling an innocent girl, and in the next sentences labeling MR with caracteristics worse then any of the possible connotations implicit in the word "Lolita" – falling into the same trap as they´ve just accused him of falling into.
Their moral indignation and outrage should be directed toward something bigger.
I guess MR could have thought a little harder, before he made that title. "Provocative" – yes, perhaps. But who did it provoke?
The context (and contextlessness) in this case make it too easy for people to say that here we have a classical example of a middleaged, wealthy, upper middle class Western`er projecting his sex-obsessed, colonising mind on an innocent girl. The case is too perfect to be true. Whole departments of universities live on such simplistic analysis, which, first being half true, applied to reality, only serve to confirm what they allready knew.
And then the moral outrage, occasionally followed by violent threats.
Obviously, the issue has ethical, as well as political and cultural implications. But I´m not impressed by people blaming the photographer for verbal violence in one sentence, threatening the photographer with physical violence in the next.
Again: the questions are not easy to answer. If you for example answer "no" to the first question, then street photography would be impossible – except, perhaps, if you only take pictures of your neighbours.
Since the "Lolita-affair" has become a big deal, we need more clear thinking, and less passion.
(And, by the way: the word "Lolita" has a lot of connotations. It refers to the novel, as well as a handful of other things, since this name has got its own life outside the novel. Nobody can claim that "Lolita" means only one thing, be it what Nabokov said, the pornographic connotation, prostitution, or whatever.)
Paul
-
if this girl lived in the states, her parents could sue.
Could someone around here comment on the legal aspects ?
I’m certainly not an expert for US or Canadian law, but thought it can be very strict in this regard. Wouldn’t an US-based publication of such a portrait of an presumable underage person mandatory require the written consent of the parents even though it was captured in another country?
Maybe Michael could just post the contact details of Lolita’s parents. Let’s see if a US/CAN lawyer gets in touch with them in order to plead their case. IF I remember a former robgalbraith-discussion correctly, a commercial photographer who was just taking some shots of a public event got into heavy troubles because he was accused for doing such kind of „selective“ photography.
No, I’m certainly not a moralist . However, I’m also living in another country and I certainly wouldn’t appreciate to see any (foreign) “art” photographer making unasked shots of my children. As for the shooting itself, I’m quite sure that I would have any right to stop this by reasonable means. As for the publication, the legal home of the introducing corporation such as luminous-landscape should define the applicable law. IMHO.
Peter
--
-
.. or sometimes to refer to women who only appear to be younger than the age of consent.'
So MR clearly did know.
Therefore the title isn't suitable to describe any kid.... Period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I've said before, in my view this girl appears to be younger than she really is, therefore the title attached to this image is appropriate.
Since no-one here appears to know the actual age of this young lady, the expressions of outrage are farcical and ignorant.
-
ANY CLEAR MINDS OUT THERE?
The key issues here, as I see it, are:
1) Is it OK to take a picture in a different cultural setting then your own, without talking to the one you make a portrait of, then move on and, finally, publish it without context, with a title that may happen to coincide with reality, or is a subjectiv interpretation, or a sole product of the imagination of the photographer?
2) Is it the privilege of the photographer to say: this is art, and not a document, when you point the lens in the direction of an existing girl (or boy, or old man or woman - any person) with a life that you don`t know anything about?
3) If it`s "art" (and the quality of the actual picture here is beyond the point), does that exclude the "documentary" aspect?
4) If a photographer take pictures of "real people", does this documentary aspect exclude the art aspect?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You forgot the question, 'do you want to tie yourself up in rules and regulations so no expression is possible without a batallion of lawyers offering advice?'
-
I hope the attendees were not in the Peruvian part of the Amazon, as in that particular country the term Lolita simply means a prostitute of any age.
-
You forgot the question, 'do you want to tie yourself up in rules and regulations so no expression is possible without a batallion of lawyers offering advice?'
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
I hinted at that later on, when I said:
"Again: the questions are not easy to answer. If you for example answer "no" to the first question, then street photography would be impossible – except, perhaps, if you only take pictures of your neighbours."
And that wouldn`t create a better world for anybody.
Given the current moralistic atmosphere in parts of the Western world, I fear a future where we only see pictures of family members, flowers and cats.
Paul
-
I hope the attendees were not in the Peruvian part of the Amazon, as in that particular country the term Lolita simply means a prostitute of any age.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oops! Well there you are then. You can't blame someone for not being aware of all the connotations worldwide a particular word may have. This is a photographic forum, not a linguistic forum.
Nor can you expect someone to cater to all the peculiar sensitivities that different cultures might have on a whole range of issues. If we did that, all women in the West would be wearing chadars and veils to cover their face because Muslims object to the sight of bare flesh, in public.
..object to the sight of bare female flesh, that is, in public. I've no idea what goes on in private, in the Muslim world.
-
..object to the sight of bare female flesh, that is, in public. I've no idea what goes on in private, in the Muslim world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see the point of this comment?
-
Ray, I think you need a hobby, dude. How's about photography?
It's very rewarding and much more challenging than your brand of psychology.
: )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, Pete, I think you might be right. Yes. Photography appeals to me. I think I'll take it up. Maybe I'll specialise in nudes (female). Yes. That appeals to me. I think I might have a penchant there .
-
As I've said before, in my view this girl appears to be younger than she really is, therefore the title attached to this image is appropriate.
Since no-one here appears to know the actual age of this young lady, the expressions of outrage are farcical and ignorant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
In my view this is the question exactly. As I have stated before, if I KNEW this girl to be of age, I wouldn't mind. I did not even mind the title so much although I kind of expected something like this. What I do object to is Michael's OWN interpretation of this being a "clearly sexually provocative young woman" which, to me, makes it problematic.
And, Ray, it cannot be in the interest of free expression to short-fuse any discussion of a picture and its interpretation by calling everyone with a dissenting opinion a censor of art or a closet pedophile or both.
Karsten
-
My sister name is LOLITA, any of you have problem with that? would you like to take a photo of her and name the photo LOLITA?
She have no problem with that
BlasR
-
There are far too many comments here for me to reply to, but "child pronographer". Really – do we really have to add such incendiary fuel to the fire? What planet do some of you live on?
Legal recourse? Groan. Let me guess which country that person is from!
I'm done. I'll leave the topic open (otherwise I'll be accused of censorship (or witchcraft, or some other heneous crime)), but I likely won't read any more of it. Too depressing.
No – I won't retract the title. No I don't regret my use of the word, because what I meant by it is not necessarily what YOU may think it means or want it to mean.
I'm moving on. If this topic still puts a burr under your saddle then debate away. Please just keep it somewhat civil.
Oh yes, and remember that this site is about photography. To debate morals, politics, religion, semiotics please carry on elsewhere.
Michael
-
I've got no experience of child porn. I don't know any of the catch phrases or turn-on phrases, whatever you want to call them. I've got no idea if the term 'Lolita' is frequently used in connection with child porn as I'm sure Michael hasn't either.
If this is the objection that the moral police have, who have viewed lots of child pornography and seen frequent references to "Lolita", then say so.
Let's not beat about the bush.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe that is the problem. Those of use who have never come across child porn (so to speak) were not aware that Lolita is used in that context. Perhaps this is all about the mind of the beholder. It is a perfectly innocent image. (I do disagree with MR's interpretation, but I accept that this is subjective.)
Those who object would do better to target the real purveyors of filth and corruption, and not create a straw man to satiate their own self righteousness.
This is turning out to be a proper little storm in a film canister.
-
One more comment....
I received an email this morning from an academic who went into some detail about how Lolita has become a word in the pedophile underground for their "prey". (As some others here have recently noted).
That indeed seems to be the core of the issue. I was (and am) totally unware of that usage. My mental framework for the word is the 1954 Nabokov novel (which I'm old enough to have read when it was new), and that's how I used it. A sexually provocative young girl/woman.
So it seems that this is primerily about language and the way in which words change. We no longer says black or negro, we say African American (though not in Canada). We no longer say Indian, we say Native American (though not in Canada). We no longer say Oriental, we say Asian, though the train is still the Orient Express and we buy oriental carpets.
Words change. If I am guilty of anything, apparently in this case it's not keeping up with underground pedophile jargon.
Michael
-
One more comment....
I received an email this morning from an academic who went into some detail about how Lolita has become a word in the pedophile underground for their "prey". (As some others here have recently noted).
That indeed seems to be the core of the issue. I was (and am) totally unware of that usage. My mental framework for the word is the 1954 Nabokov novel (which I'm old enough to have read when it was new), and that's how I used it. A sexually provocative young girl/woman.
So it seems that this is primerily about language and the way in which words change. We no longer says black or negro, we say African American (though not in Canada). We no longer say Indian, we say Native American (though not in Canada). We no longer say Oriental, we say Asian, though the train is still the Orient Express and we buy oriental carpets.
Words change. If I am guilty of anything, apparently in this case it's not keeping up with underground pedophile jargon.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
May be you do not know that Lolita is a rather common first name for girls here in Spain. Lolita is an affective diminutive of Dolores. Since Dolores, as I said, is a rather common name, when mother and daughter are called the same, colloquially the daughter is called Lolita, since she is the little one of the family. It happens with many other names. It is the same as Robert and Bob or Bobby. And it started centuries ago, well before the Nabokov novel.
So when I saw the picture, I had no real concern about it. We are exposed to the word almost daily, with a very normal meaning. I realise that others may have been exposed to the word in other contexts or meanings.
But I think there are lots os words or names that we normally use and that, in some circles may mean a very different things. Shall we stop using them? Who is going to determine which words can we use or cannot be used, and in which context or with which criteria?
I do not want to be forced not to use a word or name I consider OK just because in other places or circles mean a different thing. What a Mexican person would think if I say 'Voy a coger a mi hija'? Perfect OK in Spain.
Regards
Manuel
-
The title is your main problem. Now you know. So fix it!
-
The title is your main problem. Now you know. So fix it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the title is your problem. You're the one who is upset about it. Fix your own problems. Don't expect the world to comply with your wishes.
-
If some underground group or subculture highjacks a word from a normal language and gives it its own and twisted meaning... does it mean the rest of the civilized society is immediately prohibited from using it in its original or common meaning? Must we all then get some continuing education credits in our community colleges in order to keep track of the latest (mis)use of our standard vocabulary? And even if we are from time to time aware of those marginal meanings, must we give in to the linguistic high-jackers (or, to paraphrase, let "terrorists win")?
And for some posters who think we are using aliases to hide something, my name is Slobodan Blagojevic (and I approved this message... as well as all others in this thread with the same user name).
-
I was (and am) totally unware of that usage [of the name Lolita]. My mental framework for the word is the 1954 Nabokov novel (which I'm old enough to have read when it was new), and that's how I used it. A sexually provocative young girl/woman.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was on a radio program Wednesday (in the US) talking about detective novels, and asked the host off-air if I could mention a language change since the seventies, which I'd found to be pretty funny. Robert Parker, in his first novel (from 1973) constantly uses the word "dicks" to mean detectives, with no double-entendre or pun involved: "A couple of dicks came walking down the hall...."
We were laughing about it, but the host asked me not to tell the anecdote because the language change made the use of "dicks" to be questionable under FCC rules...
JC
-
One more comment....
I received an email this morning from an academic who went into some detail about how Lolita has become a word in the pedophile underground for their "prey". (As some others here have recently noted).
That indeed seems to be the core of the issue. I was (and am) totally unware of that usage. My mental framework for the word is the 1954 Nabokov novel (which I'm old enough to have read when it was new), and that's how I used it. A sexually provocative young girl/woman.
So it seems that this is primerily about language and the way in which words change. We no longer says black or negro, we say African American (though not in Canada). We no longer say Indian, we say Native American (though not in Canada). We no longer say Oriental, we say Asian, though the train is still the Orient Express and we buy oriental carpets.
Words change. If I am guilty of anything, apparently in this case it's not keeping up with underground pedophile jargon.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, it is about language. It's about taking responsibility for the words that you, when you are a writer, put on the page. Every writing teacher I've ever had has stressed the point, --You, as the author, are responsible for every word, down to the last indefinite article, that appears in your work--
I don't think it should be taken lightly, especially on the internet. It is a plain fact that, of all the "industries" in the world, pornography and the sex trade have flourished the most with the streamlining of the internet. It has become the perfect vehicle for the guys and gals who ply sex in every form, including the aberrations. Sub-industries have been created just to battle this crap.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the connotations of this charged word, "Lolita", are not recognized by more of you. It might be wise for some of the demographic on this and other sites to, as Michael stated in his explanation regarding the image and it's title, "Try pulling your heads out of that dark place where they are so obviously stuck".
And Ray, it does not take a pedophile to recognize the connotations of this word, even the light version. As Michael tried to explain, language constantly changes...in the cases that he cited, they moved towards the politically correct end of the spectrum..Obviously, as illuminated here, this is not always the case.
I read quite a bit in many different arenas and I am, as most of you are, painfully aware of the "porno" presence on the web...I have two boys of high school age and I have to be on the watch and up to speed with the technology, most parents deal with this.
I am not a prude though, I know that young boys are very curious about this stuff...However, what is available to kids via the internet is not old school Playboy. It is rock gut, hardcore, and it involves the serious objectifying of young girls...the men in these things..well, scary fuckers is all I can say. I have tuned into our house computer several times and found links sent via chat windows from their friends, that contained some of the most graphic porn I've ever seen. Obviously, most folks, with or without kids, are aware of these issues.
When you decide to publish an article, or caption a photo with sexually charged word like "Lolita", you might want to consider going beyond Wikipedia for your research. Word's like this are the ones that get morphed most easily and things move fast.
Michael, I do appreciate the fact that you have posted a recognition of the fact that this word might have been a bad choice. One question, Why in the hell did it take an "academic" to make your light bulb go off? After reading all the posts questioning this title, didn't you start to think that you might have pressed a questionable button?? Are you a stubborn man?
Your posts and your official rationalization of the issue seem to indicate that you slammed your foot down and rejected all of the opinion on this issue. It makes me question your general objectivity, your ability to ask yourself tough questions regarding the material that you edit and post/publish. I'm feeling that the man at the helm might need to consider some of these points.
I post once in a while here but i read this board voraciously for tech info. and I would like to feel that the proprietor is consistent in his objective status.
As for your sly bashing of the U.S., (and I've noticed this on other sites regarding this topic) fine, you are entitled to your opinion on that and as a progressive American, I agree with some of your sly comments. Our country is a mess right now in many ways. It's ok to make cracks about it, i do it myself. However, our situation is a worry for the whole fucking world at this point. It gets a bit rough when everyone starts jumping on the pile like a bunch of school kids trying to kick the fat kid's ass. No culture/society/government is perfect.
I think you're just jealous that we invented the Twinkie™.
-
The limitations that some people place on what artists can do is the real issue here, be it in regards to the work, to the title of the work, or to some other aspect of art.
There's way too many censors these days.
We need a few more artists -quite a few more- to balance things out.
Oh please. Why is it that so many artists think freedom of expression only applies to them?
MR had the right to express himself by taking the photo and titling it as he sees fit. Others have the right to express themselves by saying what they think of it. Negative opinions and criticism are not censorship.
-
I've got no experience of child porn. I don't know any of the catch phrases or turn-on phrases, whatever you want to call them. I've got no idea if the term 'Lolita' is frequently used in connection with child porn as I'm sure Michael hasn't either.
If this is the objection that the moral police have, who have viewed lots of child pornography and seen frequent references to "Lolita", then say so.
Let's not beat about the bush.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are right, Ray, we should not beat around the bush. All of this trashing about over the meaning of the term "Lolita" in the pedophile community(what a "community"), the potential legal issues, the morality police, cultural arrogance, etc. is a big smoke screen that is obscuring the basic issue, perhaps by design. The issue is not whether MR has the "right" to publish such a photograph with any title he wants or should be sued or somehow punished for it. Simply because you have the right to say something does not mean that you should.
The real issue to me is, by his choice of title for the photograph, did MR hold up the young woman to public view without her consent and impliedly(though I am sure inadvertently) categorize her as a young slut, and, if so, do you feel that is perfectly OK?
-
... Negative opinions and criticism are not censorship.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are right, negative opinion is not censorship. But that is not what is happening here. Negative opinions are not stopping there, they are asking Michael to change or remove the title, to apologize and repent... some are even hinting at visiting him in his gallery and physically persuade him he did something terribly wrong. Those additional demands and threats represent a disguised censorship, or a request for self-censorship, which many would argue is worse than an official one.
-
Michael, I do appreciate the fact that you have posted a recognition of the fact that this word might have been a bad choice. One question, Why in the hell did it take an "academic" to make your light bulb go off? After reading all the posts questioning this title, didn't you start to think that you might have pressed a questionable button?? Are you a stubborn man?
Your posts and your official rationalization of the issue seem to indicate that you slammed your foot down and rejected all of the opinion on this issue. It makes me question your general objectivity, your ability to ask yourself tough questions regarding the material that you edit and post/publish. I'm feeling that the man at the helm might need to consider some of these points.
I post once in a while here but i read this board voraciously for tech info. and I would like to feel that the proprietor is consistent in his objective status.
Hmmm.
-
...
The real issue to me is... did MR... categorize her as a young slut...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with you, this IS the real issue here. And my answer is no, MR did not do that. Unless, of course, we are speaking the jargon of Peruvian Amazon, where, as one of the posters on this thread explained, the term Lolita refers to a prostitute of any age (on the other hand, another poster said that in Spain Lolita is a diminutive for Dolores, and definitely not a big deal).
MR posted it on his usual site, for his usual photographic community, assuming the original and usual meaning of the word, and assuming his visitors have the usual education and therefore familiar with the usual meaning of the term. Little did MR know his site is also frequented by those with a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of porno terminology and the mission to spread it and impose it on the civilized world.
-
This horse has died! Can we please move on????
-
Well, well, well! I´ve been off the air for a few days due to a dead laptop computer (the desktop one is Photoshop-only) and a certain reluctance to join again with endless arguments and quests for the last word, only to discover that the world is indeed full of crazy people.
I have a daughter of my own; I have grand-daughters of my own; I am a pro photographer and have made a long, reasonably successful career out of photographing women often revealing a hell of a lot more of themselves than the subject of the debate. With that said, perhaps I might have some slight credibility when I propose the idea that there is nothing wrong with the Lolita picture nor is there anything out of place with the title. Women, and young girls too, are always playing mind games with men, even when the men might just be tiny tots of six or seven, just like some of the girls doing the playing. It is simply part of growing up; the title of the photograph only refers to that fact and puts it into a particular pigeonhole which has bugger-all to do with pederasts and everything to do with an adult seeing and being amused enough by a young person´s little attempt to play adult. It´s a rather cute little shot similar to millions of others - I don´t rate it high art, nor is that any reason to either praise or condem it.
As for how the odd-men-out in this world react to the use of such names and however much they subvert the meanings of words, the problem is indeed within their own minds. To argue that it´s fine to steal words such as ´gay´and make them specific to what many do believe to be an abberation is no more morally defensible than any other form of hijacking. Words like that have been around for much longer than just the 60s when the corrupted usage began to appear in print. I refuse to allow anyone the right to subvert my language. If you need euphemisms for what ails you, then create your own words and try not to steal what already exists and belongs elsewhere and don´t project your problems onto others shoulders.
Lighten the hell up!
Rob C
-
OKAY...I have asked my wife.....not about the image (image is fine...looks nice and is just another image)
BUT I told her about the tittle and she flipped out!! She is pregnant and told me that whomever would photograph her daugther with a sexual thought..she would kill that person (her words not mine!)
I think the tittle and the idea that you have taken that image with a sexual thought is the problem....if you did and kept the thought to yourself....no harm done...but you vocalized this thought in writing, calling an innocent 12 year old girl with big brown eyes and half a smile a Lolita....
English is my second (actually 3rd) language and certain words don't hit home that hard....maybe the lack of understanding of the true definition....but my wife is American ( and let's face it americans are known for their moral values ( I am being sarcastic!!)...everything that has to do with sex is taboe (that is why the USA is the biggest porn producer!!).
I still see no harm in the image and only a little bit in the tittle....but I have to stand behind my wife and make sure we get ride of the body!!! because I can't have her go to jail....because than I have to change the diapers and do all that nasty stuff!!! And once you change diapers on a little girl... I don't think Lolita is the first thought in your head..smelling the dirty diaper..
-
Lighten the hell up!
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, let's lighten up. My first reaction on seeing this photograph was that I could not believe that MR travelled 6,000 miles on a two week photographic expedition to the other side of the world, and this was one of the first photographs he felt was worthy of being selected to exhibit on the net from many, many thousands of captures. The poor guy deserves a refund, and instead he is being accused of being a pervert! What a trip.
-
OK, let's lighten up. My first reaction on seeing this photograph was that I could not believe that MR travelled 6,000 miles on a two week photographic expedition to the other side of the world, and this was one of the first photographs he felt was worthy of being selected to exhibit on the net from many, many thousands of captures. The poor guy deserves a refund, and instead he is being accused of being a pervert! What a trip.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great post Amazing no-one's popped up to demand how many trees Michael's planted to offset the carbon burnt on this trip.
John
-
Great post Amazing no-one's popped up to demand how many trees Michael's planted to offset the carbon burnt on this trip.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118250\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank God for a little humour at last!
Rob C
-
One more comment....
I received an email this morning from an academic who went into some detail about how Lolita has become a word in the pedophile underground for their "prey". (As some others here have recently noted).
That indeed seems to be the core of the issue. I was (and am) totally unware of that usage.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thats a little puzzling Michael as you used a page on Wikipedia as your justification of the term which also includes large sections on its use in popular culture.
-
Hasn't this topic been beaten to death? Why don't we let it die out? Let's get back to photography.
-
When I was growing up in Canada in the 1950s we often went to the store and bought Nigger Babies, called each other retards, and my dad was hooked on fags.
Now I believe the candies are called gummy bears (not sure), we have more respect for mentally disabled and fags means something other than cigarettes.
Words and their pop culture meanings change.
As for Lolita, well, when you grow up with a term, and it changes meaning to some extent, we still often stick with the meaning that was burned into our heads at the time. A tease, perhaps.
Some of this debate comes down to intent. A person can have a innocent intent saying something, and it can be received as something else. In this politically correct age we sometimes all get annoyed at the perceived stupidity of some of the "rules" but many times the words we are using DO have an insulting component to them that we need to censor ourselves about.
It's an interesting picture of a young girl seemingly expressing her sexuality to some extent and the name Lolita does seem to capture her expression.
Remember, we weren't there. We can only judge her "behavior" by her photograph.
Personally, I'd delete the name. Not worth it.
Michael
-
Michael,
You are so right. Words do change and the ones that we can use do as well. I dislike political correctness but do think we should be considerate in the words we choose to use and what we call people. I grew up in the South during the end of desegregation, and in that growing up saw the language change a great deal. It changed for the better for sure concerning ethic groups of all kinds and I'm glad for it. This discussion has centered on a child, and that child should be shown a greater measure of decency. Just a measure of kindness which will not cost a cent. Her title of shame should be removed, it's not for the host to bestow.
a
-
and fags means something other than cigarettes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now it means $2000 dollar a day stylist ...