They shared their food, time and hospitality and I could never have walked away from that experience with a thought of writing a word unless it somehow added a positive statement to these people.
I have never posted here before. But I feel compelled to post on this topic.
I agree with James and like James I will use my full name. I am not a fan of anonymity and the 'cover' it seemingly bestows upon others to inflame and criticize without impunity. I will have to hold myself accountable for my comments.
This is NOT a moral issue per se, as has been inferenced by the phrase 'moral police' - a sophmoric argument at best.
This IS a simple issue of dignity and taste, relating to the act of a photographer traveling to another country, particularly one which is reasonably financially impoverished, whereby subjecting the innocence of a unsuspecting young child to an ill-begotten and condemning title that is an OBVIOUS reference to young children beseeching sex.
It is abhorrant in terms of principle, less than an issue of morality itself. And this is so very obvious.
It begs the question; if the author and his family were financially impoverished, and his family perhaps primatively clothed, would he appreciate a traveler from another wealthy land taking photos of his family for the purposes of craft and commerce, only to later find out that the pictures of his dear young daughter were publicly displayed only to bear the title "Seductress" or an even worse equivalent?
If the author did that to my ten year old daughter they would be hearing from me I assure you, and perhaps from my attorney as well; questionable "art" or not. Simple as that.
This is a no-brainer. It has less to do with morality, or with provocative exploration or with creating art, and certainly has NOTHING to do with censorship on the part of those who wish to see the title changed.
It also has little to do with political correctness. It has everything to do with a measure of dignity allowed to the unsuspecting and quite simply to good taste.
Well-to-do - by their measure - visitor to their country taking photo of native girl to publish on a public site and calling her "Lolita" is hardly defensible.
A simple early retraction of the title of this photograph with an explanation that no harm was meant, and that the full understanding of the term was not truly understood with an honest final apology is what would have saved a tremendous amount of bandwith from the banality of this discussion. There is less harm in unmeaning errors in judgment. They happen to us all. The real harm comes from not owning them.
This would have quickly illustrated an empathy and understanding of the sensitivity that this child and her family deserves, especially since the photo was directly used in the context of a publicly viewable forum involving commerce on some level.
I have also read now that the child has been referred to as "pregnant"? Do we know this for certain? Are we sure that she does not possess a pronounced abdomen common to the symptoms of hunger or starvation? I don't know the answers to those final questions as I was not there.
But for those that have chosen to defend the titling of a young unsuspecting native Amazon girl, a family's daughter as "Lolita", I think there are major deficiencies in dignity that you have overlooked, which have nothing to do with politically correctness or the "morality police".
I will reserve any judgement of the photograph in terms of its quality or effectiveness.