PDA

View Full Version : jock sturges


glowbelly
Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:52 AM
perv or not?

WARNING THIS IS NOT WORK FRIENDLY
example: http://www.benhamgallery.com/artists/sturges.html
http://www.morehousegallery.com/gallery/artists.asp?Mode=Results&ArtistID=67&UniqueURL=1%2F21%2F2004+10%3A58%3A27+PM

i recently did a report on this photographer for my class. i defended his choice of subject matter because the models that he uses are "naturalists," that is: they live and have been raised in nudist colonies. he also doesn't make his models sign release forms, and whenever he puts an image of them in a gallery or publication, he calls them to make sure that it is ok. he has been known to photograph families, and these families keep coming back to him and love his work.

i, personally, find the photos beautiful. i can see where the man got in some big trouble (he was raided by the fbi), but i have seen images of children clothed that look far more "seductive" than these images. whatchoo think?

ProfessorCool
Jan 22nd, 2004, 04:41 PM
It's a basic question of morals,glow, I guess it matters if people look at it as the art itself or like others who look on it as this as Sick Jack-Off Material.

Considering that Sturges photographed them in their regular lifestyle than telling them to take off their clothing and pose, I can agree with your defense.

As while the photos are certainly well done, it's not something i would hang up in my wall, I think it might have something my super-catholic parents raised me, the older you get, the more they sink into your conscious.

of course this is the Art Forum, not the Philosphy/Religion Forum :(

liquidstatik
Jan 22nd, 2004, 07:41 PM
I view it as art, but others might see it as perverted. :/ As long as you dun make them pose with dildos are something, most people will view it as art.

Drev
Jan 22nd, 2004, 08:53 PM
Well people who do child porn need to have their asses raped by bears.

But this isn't child porn. There's nothing sexual about it. :/

BTW, was he arrested?

liquidstatik
Jan 22nd, 2004, 08:55 PM
It should have been obvious to him that photographing the children would get him in trouble. Wether he did it for art, or not.

The One and Only...
Jan 22nd, 2004, 08:58 PM
Whether or not it was done in the name of art is irrelevant. I could call murder art, but that doesn't make it legal, or right.

Rongi
Jan 22nd, 2004, 08:58 PM
I wouldn't hang that on my wall or anything, but I don't think it's perverted at all.

liquidstatik
Jan 22nd, 2004, 09:03 PM
Nor do I find it perverted, but with what's been going on for the past few years, the FBI is locking down on that kind of stuff.

Drev
Jan 22nd, 2004, 09:11 PM
But I thought that it is legal to photograph underaged people as long if it's for non-sexual reasons.

Did they change this?

liquidstatik
Jan 22nd, 2004, 09:16 PM
I wasn't too sure off the top of my head so I looked it up.

Apparently, in the USA, the legal age for a woman to be photographed nude is 16. For men it is 18.

In the UK, I think you have to be 18, no matter your gender.

Rongi
Jan 22nd, 2004, 09:18 PM
Why the fuck is it higher for men? Is this country run by pedophiles?

HickMan
Jan 22nd, 2004, 09:42 PM
That's DEFINETLY not perverted. But the FBI is supposed to be curious. That's not even seductive, though.

glowbelly
Jan 22nd, 2004, 11:19 PM
i don't know if he was arrested, but his studio and home was raided by the fbi. they took all of his photographic equipment and personal files. there was a lawsuit filed against him and it was thrown out by the judge. it took him a very long time to get all of his stuff back.

i came about his work in a border's in philly. i was actually looking for a book on andreas gursky, because i had a powerpoint presentation due on a famous, yet alive, photographer the week after thanksgiving (i was in philly for the holiday). anyways, i couldn't find any gursky books, and was sifting through the other photographers. when i picked up this book, my first thought was "wow, what beautiful photographs." then i realized the subject matter...it didn't come across as pornographic to me, but rather serene and natural.

when i bought the book the cashier said something to me along the lines of "sturges, huh? you lookin to be watched by the fbi?" that's what shocked me. see, at the time i didn't know the whole story behind the photographer, all i saw was the beauty of it all, not the sickness of man's thoughts.

Immortal Goat
Jan 25th, 2004, 12:08 AM
I would say that humanity needs to get it's collective mind out of the gutter, but that mind IS the gutter, so I guess that isn't possible. There was nothing wrong with those pictures, and they are most certainly art. OAO needs to go fuck himself with a large dildo with nails shoved through it at odd angles.

Ninjavenom
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:18 AM
Whether or not it was done in the name of art is irrelevant. I could call murder art, but that doesn't make it legal, or right.

Shut the fuck up. How did you get to be such an opinionated pig at fifteen? Go back to poli/sci and whine about the president.

I actually like it. Everyone looks so natural, and none of it is sexual. The people all look so in-place, and like they've been naked their whole lives, and according to GB, this is what was intended. Unfortunately, not too many people are going to see this stuff the way some of us here do. The naked human form is beautiful and aesthetic, but i am glad i don't have to look at it all the time. This stuff kinda reminds me of an escape. It's odd for me to think that people are living this way their whole lives. Pretty surreal.

ShanghaiOrange
Jan 26th, 2004, 01:15 PM
I could call murder art, but that doesn't make it legal, or right.

Yeah, but you could make a documentary about a murderer and that could be art.