Question 3: Do you think work like that of photographers Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and/or David Hamilton is positive, innocuous or pernicious in its effect on the viewer? Do you think the photos were intended to be sexual or is this perception something our oversexed culture brings to them? (Please feel free to incorporate your reaction to Noelle Oxenhandler's essay, "Nole Me Tangere," in your answer.) |
 | |
|
I can claim only glancing acquaintance with the photographs in question and I have neither the time nor the inclination for a careful, considered 
aesthetic analysis. I will convey my initial response, however, that such
work is distasteful, destructive and probably immoral.
Does this mean that I'm suggesting that the right to take or publish such photographs should be restricted? Not at all. When it comes to freedom of expression issues, I would take an extremely broad approach to the First Amendment. Only a fool or a fascist would suggest that all disgusting or unworthy work should be suppressed. For one thing, such a policy would leave very few films left for critics to review. But the very act of review or criticism implies the application of judgment -- and the critic is, hence, judgmental. There are many reasons to condemn a work of art, but the act of condemnation need not threaten the rights of either creators or consumers. Others might propose that by describing a series of photographs as "immoral" you are questioning their status as works of art. In fact, that is hardly the case. If art can be moral (as is Anna Karenina, for example), then clearly art can be immoral. In our current climate I would submit that highly detailed nude photographs of children can only be viewed as a deliberate provocation -- forcing consideration of those children as objects of beauty or of desire. Within the context of a popular culture that seems perversely determined to rob its young of all shreds of innocence I question the value and intent of such provocation. Not all nude photographs of children would fall into this category. I will confess that we even possess some bathtub photos of our nude kids in infancy, but we wouldn't think of displaying them in a book or a gallery. In contemporary America, public displays of the nude body inevitably carry a sexual connotation. Would it be possible to publish images of mature and attractive women or mature and attractive men, with genitalia fully displayed, without sending some sexual messages? Why should we assume, then, that the public flaunting of similarly detailed images of beautiful children can avoid sexualization? The impact is especially questionable given the well-publicized power of a multi-billion dollar kiddie-porn industry that views such children as particularly desirable "forbidden fruit." |
Question 1 A. M. Homes James Kincaid Judith Levine Michael Medved Stephen Schiff Celine Texier-Rose Naomi Wolf Question 2 A. M. Homes James Kincaid Judith Levine Michael Medved Stephen Schiff Celine Texier-Rose Naomi Wolf Question 3 A. M. Homes James Kincaid Judith Levine Michael Medved Stephen Schiff Celine Texier-Rose Sally Mann Question 4 A. M. Homes James Kincaid Judith Levine Michael Medved Stephen Schiff Celine Texier-Rose |
 |
