raveneyes wrote:

*bangs head on desk again...*

You're really trying to make me break the top of this desk...it's glass you know...I could hurt myself...

Would you not call yourself an artist?

Would not anyone who is a self respecting photographer call themselves an artist?

Hey, I've even heard several models call themselves artists for what they do.

I don't take prescription mood altering drugs...

I don't leave my passion at the door...that's what drives me to be an artist...what drives you?

I never said I was an artist.  What's with you forcing people to be whatever you say and then telling them what they must do to conform to your standards?

aye provide wrote:
The first rule of survival is to protect yourself. In doing that one just may get to live another day and to produce more art.....ya dig??????

The bonus round to being a human is we get to make decisions that don't just follow instincts like "survival"

Protecting our rights to make art now protects those rights for the future.  What's the point of "surviving" if we just keep surviving in a less and less free state eventually not being allowed to produce any sort of art...ya dig?????

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I never said I was an artist.  What's with you forcing people to be whatever you say and then telling them what they must do to conform to your standards?

I am not forcing anyone to do anything Amanda...I've not threatened legal action nor loss of life nor bodily harm...  If you're not an artist, then what do you care what artists do?  Also if you're not an artist what do you care what I think an artists' obligations are?

raveneyes wrote:
Sorry...my fault...everyone except for Amanda thinks it would be ok to photograph a 17 year old in an artistic manner, nude, for her husband overseas in a theater of war, to bring him some much needed relief from the lack of loving attention he would be receiving at home if he were here.

Actually, I don't think it's okay either.  Not for any moral reason, but because it just isn't very smart, and I know artists [both famous and not] who have suffered career-ending damage by getting tangled up with minors.  If you want to risk your creative life, that's fine, but seeing how you don't have the nerve to put nudes up here, I doubt you've got the stomach for a real fight.  Say what you want about me, but at least i come through the front door with who i am.

A smart photographer would suggest that the client in question use a digital camera with a timer and a tripod...and send her husband something with a personal touch...Guys love that "amateur look".

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Actually, I don't think it's okay either.  Not for any moral reason, but because it just isn't very smart, and I know artists [both famous and not] who have suffered career-ending damage by getting tangled up with minors.

Ok, so the qualifier for you to do or not to do something in your art is if it's "smart"?  And by "smart" you mean a good career decision?

I know lots of people who would say proclaiming one self a "pornographer" isn't very "smart"...I know several artists who have suffered career ending damage by being called a pornographer...

theda wrote:
Hm.

Raveneyes is right. The law is much clearer on this subject than many of you seem to believe.

The puritanical fear of nudity saddens me as a professional naked person.

OK, I was trying to stay out of this, but ... I have to say, the law is clear, but the application is not.  The truth is that in most cases, non-sexual photographs of a minor should be lawful in most places.  The problem is that conservative prosecutors view these laws in the ways which are the most restrictive and they prosecute even when their position is unclear or unsupported.

So if you accept Raveneyes view that you should rebel because the prosecutions are inappropriate, I have to agree with him. The question is whether it is important enough to any particular photographer to give up his freedom or financial security to prove the point.

Aparently Raveneyes feels strong enough to take the risk.  Others do not.  Life would be better if we had a perfect world, but at least now, we do not.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

OK, I was trying to stay out of this, but ... I have to say, the law is clear, but the application is not.  The truth is that in most cases, non-sexual photographs of a minor should be lawful in most places.  The problem is that conservative prosecutors view these laws in the ways which are the most restrictive and they prosecute even when their position is unclear or unsupported.

So if you accept Raveneyes view that you should rebel because the prosecutions are inappropriate, I have to agree with him. The question is whether it is important enough to any particular photographer to give up his freedom or financial security to prove the point.

Aparently Raveneyes feels strong enough to take the risk.  Others do not.  Life would be better if we had a perfect world, but at least now, we do not.

Very true Alan.

And I can accept that not everyone is ready to risk physical freedom or financial security for a cause, I'm simply appalled that it *is* such a big worry.  The only way I can see of fighting that worry is for more people to follow what they feel is right...in this particular case the OP thought it would be right to do nudes of a minor...he had a reason...he had an artistic vision...he had the desire to do the shoot...he had the law on his side...but being afraid of prosecution caused him to pose the question, and ultimately will probably cause him to not do the nude shoot.  It would be pompous of me to expect him to care what my opinion is, but at the same time he asked for it, so I must express that my opinion is should he decide to not do the shoot for fear of prosecution (as many others expressed would be their reason), it would be a bad reason...  It would also be a decision that runs counter to his artistic nature.

It's a strong position, on what is and isn't an artist, and who can and can't call themselves an artist, but that all plays back into itself...if you don't have a strong position on what makes an artist truly an artist, then the art dies.

By all means, do as you wish...obviously these things are just my opinion, and should you disagree, then as you wish...that's your opinion.  I *personally* just feel there's a line that artists must draw (no pun intended).  Is that so wrong?  I hope not.  I hope that more artists step up to that line, and stand up for their art.  Do they have to?  Nope...I'll do it all by myself if no one else agrees, and that's just fine by me

raveneyes wrote:
Ok, so the qualifier for you to do or not to do something in your art is if it's "smart"?  And by "smart" you mean a good career decision?

I know lots of people who would say proclaiming one self a "pornographer" isn't very "smart"...I know several artists who have suffered career ending damage by being called a pornographer...

Being called a pornographer is all good.  Being called a child pornographer is bad.  Putting oneself in a position to be called a child pornographer is just stupid.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Being called a pornographer is all good.  Being called a child pornographer is bad.

Not in the catalog/commercial world...

Like I said, being called a pornographer has gotten several people fired...even very recently.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

OK, I was trying to stay out of this, but ... I have to say, the law is clear, but the application is not.  The truth is that in most cases, non-sexual photographs of a minor should be lawful in most places.  The problem is that conservative prosecutors view these laws in the ways which are the most restrictive and they prosecute even when their position is unclear or unsupported.

So if you accept Raveneyes view that you should rebel because the prosecutions are inappropriate, I have to agree with him. The question is whether it is important enough to any particular photographer to give up his freedom or financial security to prove the point.

Aparently Raveneyes feels strong enough to take the risk.  Others do not.  Life would be better if we had a perfect world, but at least now, we do not.

There is my issue...Raveneyes SAYS he feels strongly about it but he sure isn't taking the risk... he just wants OTHERS to protect his 'artistic' rights while he preaches from up here.

Raveneyes... go take some pics of naked minors (but I am sure by all your rethoric you must have tons already) and publish them.. make sure you let everyone know they are minors and then go fight the 'system' for your 'rights' in court. After that happens you can preach all you want and we will have nothing to say.

raveneyes wrote:

Not in the catalog/commercial world...

Like I said, being called a pornographer has gotten several people fired...even very recently.

I don't work in the commercial/catalog world.  I have no plans to.  Anyone who reads my profile can figure that out.  For what my goals are, being called a pornographer is fine and dandy.

theda wrote:
Hm.

Raveneyes is right. The law is much clearer on this subject than many of you seem to believe.

The puritanical fear of nudity saddens me as a professional naked person.

As sad as it makes you, I'm sure it made Jock Sturgess a lot sadder.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Boy, this took a weird twist. I would just like to point out a few things:

1. According to my lawyer, it is illegal in my state to photograph a minor nude, whether it's pornography or not.  No offense, but I'll take his word over yours.

2. All the hypothetical philosophy is nice, but I would be the one sitting in a jail cell and loosing everything I've worked my whole life for. So it ain't hypothetical to me.

3. The bible thumpers own half this town, and most of the town supported them when  they boycotted the deapartment stores to get them to cover up the "pornographic" magazine covers (you know, Cosmo, Maxim, Vogue, etc.).  You don't have to agree with them or let them rule your life, but you do have to pick your battles if you want to do business with anyone in town.  You can call me a coward for acknowleging that reality, but if you're not in the same situation, your opinion just doesn't matter.

4. Anyone who thinks you're not a real artist unless you're willing to go to jail and ruin your life to prove a point over an avoidable technicality needs to grow up.  Idealism and romance are great, but they're not what makes the world go 'round.

Thanks to those who provided constructive suggestions.

1. Your lawyer is an ass...tell him my lawyer said so...

2. I've sat in a jail cell, you don't necessarily lose everything you've ever worked for...it may put a kink in your plans for the day, but you have both an ethical and legal dilemma that is more important than just you.

3. I've been in that situation...twice...you know what? I changed the minds of the bible thumpers.  In the other case that I was in that situation I left the town to rot in it's ignorance.

4. Idealism and romance it's true don't make the world go round...but they sure as hell help make the world a better place.

raveneyes wrote:
2. I've sat in a jail cell, you don't necessarily lose everything you've ever worked for...it may put a kink in your plans for the day, but you have both an ethical and legal dilemma that is more important than just you.

Yes, you do.  I know somebody who it happend to.  That's why you'll never see any of his work.  You have no idea what you're talking about.

...Or you're some spoiled rich kid whose dad will buy him out of a beef.  The rest of us don't have that luxury.  Maybe your "idealism" comes from knowing you'll never have to think past the arrainment hearing.

raveneyes wrote:
1. Your lawyer is an ass...tell him my lawyer said so...

2. I've sat in a jail cell, you don't necessarily lose everything you've ever worked for...it may put a kink in your plans for the day, but you have both an ethical and legal dilemma that is more important than just you.

3. I've been in that situation...twice...you know what? I changed the minds of the bible thumpers.  In the other case that I was in that situation I left the town to rot in it's ignorance.

4. Idealism and romance it's true don't make the world go round...but they sure as hell help make the world a better place.

OK, I'll fire my lawyer and tell him an idealistic kid with a cause said he's an ass.  I apologize for not risking my life and livlihood for your cause.  On second thought, no I don't. 

You obviously have no concept of being part of a community, of having roots, of living somwhere because your spirit belongs in that land, of living with the world instead of against it.  If you can just pick up and move because of what other people think, you're not a real human.  You're just a pitiful wandering soul. 

When you grow up and look back on life, I hope you take a moment to reflect on how silly you sounded today.  For now, just shut the fuck up, you arrogant, idealistic little boy.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Yes, you do.  I know somebody who it happend to.  That's why you'll never see any of his work.  You have no idea what you're talking about.

...Or you're some spoiled rich kid whose dad will buy him out of a beef.  The rest of us don't have that luxury.  Maybe your "idealism" comes from knowing you'll never have to think past the arrainment hearing.

Hrm...interesting concepts there Melvin...

No, I'm not some spoiled rich kid.  My mother is independently wealthy, but she has never supported me in legal matters of any kind...this goes back to highschool when I got in trouble for publishing a "zine" that contained a text description of a lesbian relationship, and a separate article using the word "fuck". (yes I've been fighting this fight for a L O N G time...)

In both cases when I've ended up in jail, it was due to community expectations, and disapproval...both times the police decided the easiest way to take care of the problem would be to harass me...and both times I got out of jail with my own money, paying the very small bail amounts, and getting the cases thrown out, without use of a lawyer, by speaking clearly and succinctly to the judge.

aye provide wrote:
Justice.......defined by the size of one's bank account.

B-I-N-G-O

B-I-N-G-O

B-I-N-G-O

And Bingo was his name-O.

Raven, I just bet you did "leave the town to rot." Who cares if they (the court of public opinion there) viewed you as a pedophile because you took nude pics of some kids... Not once, but twice. Hey, you're just doing so to protect your rights to do so, right? Circumstances be damned, because you can do what you want to do in the name of art.

BTW, a girl with a dildo in her mouth can be viewed as art or porn, depends on the eye of the beholder. I personally think Ken Marcus work is erotic art, but some people might call it really good smut.

Eye of the beholder.

Tim Hammond wrote:
OK, I'll fire my lawyer and tell him an idealistic kid with a cause said he's an ass.  I apologize for not risking my life and livlihood for your cause.  On second thought, no I don't.

Um...no...I didn't say he was an ass...my lawyer did...he said "Tell anyone that thinks photographing nude minors they're an ass"...so I'm just passing along the message

Tim Hammond wrote:
You obviously have no concept of being part of a community, of having roots, of living somwhere because your spirit belongs in that land, of living with the world instead of against it.  If you can just pick up and move because of what other people think, you're not a real human.  You're just a pitiful wandering soul.

Hrm...well... I guess you told me... What ever shall I do Obi-wan?

Seriously...I know what it is to be part of a community...have you *seen* how much community stuff I'm involved in?  My community is art.  I can move physical locations, and still find artists who are the same as the ones I used to know, but I rarely ever lose communication with the people I have grown to love.

Tim Hammond wrote:
When you grow up and look back on life, I hope you take a moment to reflect on how silly you sounded today.  For now, just shut the fuck up, you arrogant, idealistic little boy.

When you grow up and look back on life I hope you take a moment to figure out if the world is a better place because of your actions and words or if it is a worse place for the same reasons.  It is my fervent hope that your actions and words truly made the world a better place.  I also hope that you realize how silly it is to call someone an arrogant, idealistic, little boy over an internet forum just because he happens to think you're cow-towing to a court of public opinion shouldn't be required.

Monsante Bey wrote:
B-I-N-G-O

Hrm...wow...  Guess I'm just a spoiled little rich kid who lives a life of inconsiderate excesses...  I'm sorry... I guess I shouldn't have burdened you poor souls...

Pft...

Nice wish...

Someone tell me when I get the car and the house in the Hamptons and the bank account I didn't have to work for???

raveneyes wrote:

Hrm...wow...  Guess I'm just a spoiled little rich kid who lives a life of inconsiderate excesses...  I'm sorry... I guess I shouldn't have burdened you poor souls...

Pft...

Nice wish...

Someone tell me when I get the car and the house in the Hamptons and the bank account I didn't have to work for???

I didn't make that claim.

Monsante Bey wrote:
BTW, a girl with a dildo in her mouth can be viewed as art or porn, depends on the eye of the beholder. I personally think Ken Marcus work is erotic art, but some people might call it really good smut.

Eye of the beholder.

Actually no...at least in my opinion.

This is the very reason I have such strong views on what is and isn't art...what does and doesn't qualify someone as an artist.

I despise the happy happy joy joy "post modern" concept that art is whatever the artist says art is and an artist is anyone who says they are an artist.  Photography has, almost for it's entire existence, lived in this post modern art world...which is why it's such a stagnated art...no one pushes, everything is all good...it's all art.  Bullllllll pucky...

Different conversation though I suppose, but thanks for bringing it in and rolling it in there...

Terry Breedlove wrote:
I met a man last year at his showing at the Benham gallery in Seattle. He makes his living photographing children, preteens and teens naked. His name is Jock Sturges. JOCKS WORK I would shoot with her.

Ah, but let's not forget Jock Sturges went through a living hell in the early 90s when the Feds confiscated a lot of his property looking for evidence that he broke the law.  I think it was retruned when a grand jury refused to indict (but I'm relying on memory, so don't take my word for it).

On the other hand, I think he was able to quit his day job and do artistic photography for a living after the raid made him into a national hero... 

-Dave

Terry Breedlove wrote:
Can't forget Sally Mann either GALLERY of Sally Mann

Yeah, they had a Sally Mann exhibit at our art museum several years ago.  The public response was just short a mob actually showing up outside carrying torches and farm impliments.   That was the last "provocative" exhibit they had.

If they had the exhibit now, it would violate Alabama law, but I don't know what the law was back then. 

The Alabama Attorney General (who is now on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals) prosecuted Barnes and Noble for selling the Jock Sturges book, Radient Identities.  Ultimately the case failed, but I can't remember the detals. 

-Dave

raveneyes wrote:

Actually no...at least in my opinion.

This is the very reason I have such strong views on what is and isn't art...what does and doesn't qualify someone as an artist.

I despise the happy happy joy joy "post modern" concept that art is whatever the artist says art is and an artist is anyone who says they are an artist.  Photography has, almost for it's entire existence, lived in this post modern art world...which is why it's such a stagnated art...no one pushes, everything is all good...it's all art.  Bullllllll pucky...

Different conversation though I suppose, but thanks for bringing it in and rolling it in there...

Eye of the beholder, dude.

Monsante Bey wrote:
Eye of the beholder, dude.

See, leaving it up to the eye of the beholder, that leaves the interpretation of porn up to I know it when I see it.

*beauty* is in the eye of the beholder...art should be defined by artists

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
A smart photographer would suggest that the client in question use a digital camera with a timer and a tripod...and send her husband something with a personal touch...Guys love that "amateur look".

That's worth saying again.

Tim Hammond wrote:
All the hypothetical philosophy is nice, but I would be the one sitting in a jail cell...

Hey, I hear it's not that bad anymore.  There are fewer criminals and a lot more regular people like you and I.

-Dave

raveneyes wrote:

See, leaving it up to the eye of the beholder, that leaves the interpretation of porn up to I know it when I see it.

*beauty* is in the eye of the beholder...art should be defined by artists

Thank you for twice proving my point. *THUMBS UP*

Ivan123 wrote:
I told you so.

(see post #7 in this thread.  MM is SOOO predictable.)

*sigh*

Yes you did.

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
You can photograph a minor nude, providing it does not depict any sexual act, touching of themselves, or anything else that can be construed as sexually arousing.

Sounds like you're referring to the definition put forth under Federal law in 2256.  I don't have the benefit of having read the entire thread, but I thought the discussion was mostly about the law in Alaska which might be different.

I don't know the Alaska laws, but in Alabama all it takes is "breast nudity" or "genital nudity" (but the age is 17).

I think one could make a case that the Alabama law wouldn't stand up to a First Ammendment challenge, but I won't be the one to test it.

In any case, I wouldn't advise the guy who started this thread that he's in the clear without knowing what his local laws are.

-Dave

Tim Hammond wrote:
2. All the hypothetical philosophy is nice, but I would be the one sitting in a jail cell and loosing everything I've worked my whole life for. So it ain't hypothetical to me.

You know what, this is what it comes down to. It doesn't matter what so and so's views are on minor-nudity, he's going to do what his morals, values, desires, convictions, and beliefs lead him to do. In that same respect, each and every one of us who create art/photos/whatever will do what we feel is right. There's no point in getting into an upheaval about something like this, because you're not going to change anyones mind, no many how times you say it, or how many capital letters you use.