While we are being extreme... people have dies from following a modelling career due to drugs, anorexia etc. Straw man too much?Originally Posted by ElectricImages
Edit: Snap! with Andrew
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 51
Threadstarter
While we are being extreme... people have dies from following a modelling career due to drugs, anorexia etc. Straw man too much?
Edit: Snap! with Andrew
Last edited by Kym; 05-04-2011 at 5:38pm.
Never mind African. Prior to 1964, there were numerous countries with no minimum legal age for marriage. In our own legal system, derived from that of Britain, King Henry VIII's last two wives, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, were both 14 years old (*eeek*)
--=3 In Veritas Lux E=--
Bodies: Canon EOS 5D Mk II, Canon EOS 550D
Lenses: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Strobist: 2 x Speedlite 580EXII, 4 x Yongnuo RF-603 Radio Tranceivers, Yongnuo ST-E2 IR Transmitter
3 x Manfrotto Light Stands, 2 x Softboxes, 2 x Bounce Brollies
Tripod: Vanguard Alta Pro 263AT, PH-50 Panhead
If there aren't sufficient protective measures in place, I'm sure there's the possibility of mental health issues spiralling out of control. You shouldn't send motorcross riders out on the field with no helmets. In cases where models have had mental health issues, the support and treatment of those issues hasn't been adequately addressed. But they haven't been killed by the camera.
In the two years between mid-2001 and mid-2003, there were 150 cases of serious injury and 48 deaths from sport in Victoria alone.
I was unable to locate any statistics on the number of people killed by being photographed.
Stop splitting hairs electricimages, your statement that "Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences" is blatantly wrong.
It has caused death and injury, plain fact.
AndrewNikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.
(1) Please cite any statistics you might have on the impact of photographic modelling.
(2) Please don't be offended. Your post sounds a bit strident, and I'm sure as adults over the age of 18 we're capable of rational discussion and decision-making.
Available research indicates that models are not more likely to suffer from eating disorders than the general population:
"Not unexpectedly, the models scored an average BMI of just 17.4, compared with a more "normal" 22.7 for the students. But their eating and exercise habits showed little difference, and more than 80 per cent of both groups had normal, healthy eating behaviours and displayed positive attitudes toward food. The other 20 or so per cent don't necessarily have eating disorders but may have some questionable eating habits such as skipping breakfast, McWhirter says."
Last edited by ElectricImages; 05-04-2011 at 6:32pm.
(1) You go and research the facts re physical harm and death caused by modelling, yes, you will have to spend some time doing it due to the fact that the word suicide is in itself heavily censored in the mainstream media in Australia in particular. Have a look at any research done regarding physical self appearance in adolescent / teen / young adult ( female in particular ) people involved in the modelling industry and tie that in with the real physical damage done by the mental trauma associated with anorexia and bulimia . Then research the physical and emotional harm that has been caused by inappropriate image publication ( particularly the 'net ) when young people have have either had their images broadcast or actually broadcast their own images in a moment of bravado.(1) Please cite any statistics you might have on the impact of photographic modelling.
(2) Please don't be offended. Your post sounds a bit strident, and I'm sure as adults over the age of 18 we're capable of rational discussion and decision-making.
Don't suddenly introduce the word photographic into your argument, it isn't there in your initial quoted post. But, as an aside whether it be high fashion parade type modelling or "mens mag" modelling I am sure you will find plenty of factual information on the problems and harm that has befallen models.
(2) I am not offended, yes my post is strident, as an adult over the age of 18 I take strong exception to you posting what amount to untruths.
Threadstarter
Just google...
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-fa...mmits-suicide/
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle6925853.ece
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...gly_side_o.php
http://fashionista.com/2011/01/mothe...mmits-suicide/
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/..._suicides.html
And lots more.
But this is waaaay off topic... the summary being:
1. Minor's do need protection in our current western society
2. Parents need to take responsibility
3. The nude form in and of itself is beautiful
4. Art cannot always be an excuse for what amounts to exploitation
I've tried to stay out of this revised debate because many here already know my views on the subject. That said, I can't let this one pass without comment.Yes - but I believe, in every case, Henson's models themselves are willing parties in the process. Having their parental consent is a legality and a supplement, not a replacement, for the model's own consent.
Some of Henson's models are aged 12 years! They are nowhere NEAR an age where they could give informed consent. Parental consent isn't a "supplement"; it's a legal necessity for minors unable to consent on their own behalf. Even so, I STILL don't think parents have a right to consent on behalf of a minor for this sort of process; viz naked images, artistic merit or otherwise, that may subsequently be a source of regret or embarrassment to the subject when they are old enough to understand what has been said or done on their behalf.
Parents do NOT always make the right choices for their children either. That is why society sets rules for conduct within the social order that supercedes even parental consent. Heck, would you accept Ma Baker's right to allow her "boys" to murder others? Society has an overarching responsibility, flawed as it may be, to protect its children even from their own parents!
The biggest problem I have with Hensen is NOT his work but his steadfast refusal to publicly declare that the protection of the minors he chooses to photograph is his primary concern. I believe that is because it isn't his primary concern. I personally believe his ONLY concern is the furtherance of his own agenda, call it his art if you like, at the expense of anything and everything else. That is also why I am so steadfastly against his admitted lurking near school grounds and playgrounds looking for more 12 and 13 year old potential models. What price would you place on the "Innocence" of our children? Is it enough to say that the loss of innocence is a fair price for Art?
Waz
Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who matter don't mind don't matter and those who mind don't matter - Dr. Seuss...
D700 x 2 | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Nikkor AF 85 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
Threadstarter
Context: http://www.livingisforeveryone.com.a...0sheet%203.pdf
The sport death rate is 0.6 / 100,000 people
The suicide rate is 8.5 / 100,000 people
Now consider http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...ml?comments=47
The issue is youth and body image; not just photography per se.
Getting back on topic ... why would a 12yo want their naked image in public when they are 17 or 24? They cannot foresee the consequences.
So, various activities that kids might do with the permission of their parents - life modelling for Bill Henson, sport and plenty of other things - may lead to injury or death. Responsible parents are constantly balancing the need for their children to have enriching experiences against their desire to protect them from harm.
I don't have an informed opinion about the wider issues of potential problems arising from modelling, but, again, there is no evidence of any harm ever being done to anyone who has posed for Henson and there is significant evidence to the contrary. The same cannot be said for sport, Facebook, walking down the street, or even visiting family members.
Of course parents will choose the risks they are prepared to let their children take. A number of responsible parents have chosen to allow their kids to pose for Henson and those choices I think need to be respected along with the people here who would not.
To assume, or insist that harm and exploitation are taking place, when there clearly they are not, is not rational. I am fine with people having beliefs, but they aren't rational arguments.
You're drawing a pretty long bow there WhoDo.
Perhaps I could respectfully suggest that actually you do try to seek out what he says about these issues, because you'll find that the welfare of his models is actually of great concern to him. I have heard him speak on more than one occasion and watched him deal very graciously and respectfully with all sorts of concerns raised by audience members. I know from this that he cares very much about his models' welfare and that he has gone to considerable effort to make sure his involvement in the lives of his models is a positive one. He speaks of having formed many long friendships with models and their families and is clearly someone who takes these issues seriously.
There are so many things in the world that cause demonstrable harm to children. Modelling for Henson is not one of them and criticising him does not help help any child anywhere.
Now you're the one drawing the longer bow here, soulman. To categorically state that "(sic) Modelling for Henson .. does not cause demonstrable harm" is something that none of us can know with any certainty right now. Remember the stolen generation of Australia? Good, concerned, well-meaning people at the time thought they were actually doing the right thing by those children then and now there is no question, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were quite wrong.
It may turn out that modelling naked, for Hensen or anyone else, at age 12 has no lasting repercussions, but are you willing to gamble the future and innocence of these children on that belief for the sake of one person's Art? I'm not, sorry, but then that's just me. If there are enough people in our society that share your opinion rather than mine then society will decide in your favour ... at least for now. I'd personally prefer not to risk the innocence and welfare of children in pursuit of any art form.
As for Hensen's concern for his under age model's welfare, to the best of my knowledge he has never publicly expressed that. If you can establish that in fact he has then I will most certainly stand corrected. Anecdotal evidence, however, is not sufficient in this case.
I have photos of me naked as a child, teenager and adult. I don't see them as a loss of my innocence in anyway. If anything they are embarassing and something to laugh about, but not a loss of innocence, more an expression of innocence at a particular age.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
I dont really want to weigh in on this in any great manner, but Rick i believe that some of the concerns here in relation to your post is that YOU have these photos, taken no doubt by a parent or sibling and for the most part kept for viewing by close family members. I wonder how you would feel had that decision been made for you and the results displayed for all to see in a gallery...
Simon.
My parents own copyright over them and if they wished to do so, I would not stop them! People seem to offended by the naked form and riding along on this social agenda of 'think of the children'. MOST people, children included are not harmed by the taking of the photos in the style of Bill Henson. I would say the ones that are, are harmed more by the response to them by 'do-gooders' who call the photographer, and the model's parents some very unsavoury things. We need to stop wrapping kids up in cotton wool and protecting them from LIFE! Life is hard, life can be harsh, life can be unfair, Life can be fun, Life can be lived, Life can be explored, Life can be embraced.
Whatever happened to letting people decide for themselves, and their children what was good for them? We seem to complain at rules that resrtict photographers access on beaches, at sporting events, national parks, etc, but to tell other photographers they shouldn't do something just because it offends your sensibilities or morals, when it is not illegal is doing exactly what the lifesavers, sporting bodies, National Parks services do. What side of the fence you sit on is your choice, but you cannot have it both ways.
How harmful can it be? Well most people I know who have teenagers let them use mobile phones, facebook etc. How many of you monitor everything that is done by your children on these services? Mobile phones might cause brain tumours, but you still let them use them. Facebook bullying is rife, but you still let them use it. I see no difference in allowing a teenager to pose nude to possibly exposing them to a device that could cause brain tumours. Both could cause issues in the future, but one is deemed socially ok, and the other isn't?
Last edited by ricktas; 05-04-2011 at 8:56pm.
Threadstarter
Sure, we do as well. But, if they were then published on the 'net? What if you as a teenager had body image issues? It gets really complicated. Family pics are one thing, publishing is another.
And none of this has anything to do with life modelling for an artist. Just saying...
And there is the crux. A teenager with body issues is most likely going to refuse to model for Henson, or anyone else. The teenagers who do model for him are most likely well brought up, grounded, intelligent people, who know that no-one is perfect, but are happy with themselves, enough at least to pose naked. I reckon if we asked teenagers we know "would you pose naked for me", most would tell you to 'go away'. The ones that say yes, with parents permission are generally not going to be the ones with 'issues'.
I really do not see what it is about his photos that gets people so worked up.
people fear the unknown. I.E. it is potentially an unknown what will happen to the 12-14 yo model in 10 years time. they may do drugs, develop mental issues, die etc. etc. and people looking for a reason will say - see, it is the modelling that caused it. therefore they seek to ban it. probably without really thinking about the possible unknown consequences of that action. which is just as scary.
Another thought..to get people thinking.
Some have said parents do not have the right to consent for their children to pose naked for Bill Henson as it could be a source of regret, embarrasment or even the cause of serious issues later in their lives. Yet, parents consent to allowing these same children to be taught sex education in schools, where statistics show that teenage pregnancies are at an all time high level, even after 20-30 years of 'progressive' sex education in schools. Seems to me that parents should be saying no to sex education for their children cause of the risk it poses to their children in the future. Life is full of risks, to try and protect children from them all is not only a failed endeavour in the first place, but most likely a dangerous pursuit, as children who are protected so intently, often break free and rebel, and then take things to extremes, which defeats and inihalates all the 'good' work the parent(s) were intending to achieve.
Last edited by ricktas; 05-04-2011 at 9:26pm.
Posting Permissions
