Who's Sin is it Anyway?

[Aussie Thoughts]

Nah ... not really. It's all a bit self-indulgent. What he presents is his own ideas about pubescent female sexuality. The images say more about David Hamilton than they do of the girls ... all a bit Emmanuelle ... all a bit 70s.

Being a photographer myself, I see more in Hamilton's work than the casual observer I suppose, but I think it shows a lot of artistic flair. All photogs are self indulgent mate. That's why most of us pick up the camera in the first place.

Well some will see anything as porn, so you can't really make sweeping statements like that.

That's exactly why I can and did make such a statement.

As I say, we've moved on a lot from the 70s, and what passed as acceptable then is not so now ...

I don't think that's exactly true. It's just that with all the politically correct nonsense these days, folks are afraid to express their true feelings. If my personal sales figures count for anything, demand for such material is as strong now as ever. Especially in the UK. If anything demand has increased there. I did a shoot for a UK pin-up about 10 years ago that I still get residuals for and that publication's been in print since the 50's.

 

[Thomas]

Being a photographer myself, I see more in Hamilton's work than the casual observer I suppose, but I think it shows a lot of artistic flair. All photogs are self indulgent mate. That's why most of us pick up the camera in the first place.

Quite. All artists are, not just photographers. It depends on what they're indulging, and whether that's healthy.

As for Hamilton's eye, I agree. Some of his shots will survive the test of time, but notably those with girls with their clothes on! There's a series of essays here, and it comments on both the influences and the inspirations behind some of Hamilton's compositions.

But there is another aspect:

There exist among young girls, within a clearly defined age group, some rare beings who are able to exert a powerful erotic attraction upon certain much older men. It is a kind of magic, a fleeting charm which touches such men, of whom I am one, in a secret part of their sensibility. By means of my photographs I make a sincere confession that few men, bewitched as I am by the forbidden desire, will dare to make. (David Hamilton, Twenty years an artist.)
This is a declaration of the Lolita syndrome.

The issue is whereas this kind of thing was de rigour in the 70s – Hamilton was one of its better exponents, but the style of the day was awash with this soft-focus, cheesecloth, hippy, country-mansion, upper-middle-class eroticism (no working class grime here) – the erotic obsessions of 'older men' are just that, the images are women orchestrated according to male fantasies about womanhood and beauty. They don't reflect a truth, they reflect the ongoing masculine objectification of the female form.

Here's a test:
Produce a book called "Dreams of Young Boys" and shoot all the Hamilton shots with pre-pubescent boys instead of girls, and see who your market is then.

It's just that with all the politically correct nonsense these days, folks are afraid to express their true feelings.

Feminism you mean, equal rights for women? Curiously I've had a conversation with NJ along the same lines. You both seem to miss the 70s.

If my personal sales figures count for anything, demand for such material is as strong now as ever. Especially in the UK. If anything demand has increased there. I did a shoot for a UK pin-up about 10 years ago that I still get residuals for and that publication's been in print since the 50's.

Really? I wonder why?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Especially in the UK. If anything demand has increased there.

I don't know about other projects you've worked on, but didn't the demographics for those we collaborated on indicate that the majority of UK sales were to women?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

As for Hamilton's eye, I agree. Some of his shots will survive the test of time, but notably those with girls with their clothes on! There's a series of essays here, and it comments on both the influences and the inspirations behind some of Hamilton's compositions.

Sounds like a prudish moral value assessment to me. Look, there's no denying Hamilton had an obsession with young girls. Perhaps even an unhealthy one, but that's for neither of us to say. As far as I know, all he did was photograph young gals in the nude. I presume with parental consent otherwise we'd have heard more about it. Personally I have no interest in that sort of thing and would never tackle such a project, but I admire Hamilton's courage for doing so and applaud his efforts.

Really? I wonder why?

Because political correctness be damned, nothing's really changed. Men are men, women are women and there's a whole lot of folks that still find this kind of material perfectly acceptable.

I don't know about other projects you've worked on, but didn't the demographics for those we collaborated on indicate that the majority of UK sales were to women?

Most of my work is done under contract for other studios. As royalties are doled out I receive basic regional sales data, but I'm not privy to demographic information beyond that. As far as our work is concerned, yeah a big chunk of it went to women in the UK. I'm still baffled by that. The only feedback I ever got was from a London gal who'd purchased several films for her husband, thanking us and stating how much the bloke fancied that sort of thing.

 

[Thomas]

Sounds like a prudish moral value assessment to me.

No. Simply a more mature and knowledgeable assessment. One that's takes the other half of the planet into account.

Look, there's no denying Hamilton had an obsession with young girls. Perhaps even an unhealthy one, but that's for neither of us to say.

Of course it is.

... but I admire Hamilton's courage for doing so and applaud his efforts.

For indulging his self-professed pedophile fantasies?

Because political correctness be damned, nothing's really changed. Men are men, women are women and there's a whole lot of folks that still find this kind of material perfectly acceptable.

And a whole lot more who don't. Sadly that's the argument is used by those who resist change, be it gender equality, race equality, what have you.

It's curious that I find myself, a traditionalist and not friend of 'political correctness', on the side of the reformers. But then I haver three daughters and have witnessed the kind of crap they have to put up with. And although today still has a long way to go, it's a hell of a lot better than the 70-80s, when what groping, etc., was permissable.

One of the most interesting lessons I learned was when I divided my time between working for ad agencies and design groups.

Ad agencies were almost entirely a male preserve. No female Creative Directors, hardly any female creative teams. That's still the case today. Secretaries were employed more on their bust size than on their typing speed. I actually worked at one agency was there was a given. That aspect has changed somewhat, I hope.

Design Groups were different. There was a more even split between make and female designers, although the owners and CDs were usually male in the bigger groups, there were – and still are – successful groups founded by women. But the most noticeable thing was in attitudes. Ad agencies are way behind the times in terms of gender politics.

As for UK sales, I'd have to see your product to comment.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

As far as our work is concerned, yeah a big chunk of it went to women in the UK. I'm still baffled by that. The only feedback I ever got was from a London gal who'd purchased several films for her husband, thanking us and stating how much the bloke fancied that sort of thing.

I always thought it was because there was no sex or nudity in any of the films, they were funny and they all had a plot with a beginning, middle and end. Then, none of that matters at this stage of the game does it?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

For indulging his self-professed pedophile fantasies?

We can snipe back and forth until the cows come home and still not get anywhere, but right here, this is what I'm talking about and the point of the thread. I look at Hamilton's work and see the beauty of young womanhood as captured by a talented artist. You look at it and see only self-indulgent, pedophile fantasies. I ask you, is he wrong for producing the work or are you wrong for viewing it that way?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I would suggest neither is wrong. Each is right for them. That latter part is the most important part.

 

[Thomas]

I look at Hamilton's work and see the beauty of young womanhood as captured by a talented artist. You look at it and see only self-indulgent, pedophile fantasies. I ask you, is he wrong for producing the work or are you wrong for viewing it that way?

What I see is the patriarchal attitudes of his era. Imagery that speaks of male notions of how the feminine is classified and objectified.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I think it's just that, some people form an opinion based on content while others form an opinion then look for content to base it on. Aussie's not addressing a particular period in time, what may or may not have been in vogue then or the motives behind it. Nor is he imposing his moral standards on the artist. He's just looking at what's there and appreciating the beauty and effort that went into it.

 

[Thomas]

I think it's just that, some people form an opinion based on content while others form an opinion then look for content to base it on.

This conversation is getting really tedious. Overt sexism was in vogue then. So was racism. Attitudes to disability. They're not in vogue now, and I happen to think for sound reasons.

And if not challenged, they're accepted.

Aussie's not addressing a particular period in time, what may or may not have been in vogue then or the motives behind it.

OK. I'm looking from broader sociological perspective.

There is no doubt Hamilton was a talented photographer, he inspired me! But he was also a product of his time and culture, and that shows in his work. His artistic merit is not in question. His gender politics are dubious, and his self-professed Lolita fantasies are questionable to say the least. Take the quote from Hamilton I cited above. OK, he has a thing about pubescent young girls, and he 'dares' to bring that out in his photographs.

But what if that 'powerful erotic attraction', that 'forbidden desire', leads one to take photos of children, say under the age of six, as some men do? That's not acceptable.

And I stand by my case: Produce a book called Dreams of Young Boys and replicate those shots with pre-pubescent boys, and see what the response is then. I suggest there will be a difference, and that difference will speak volumes about gender inequality.

My contention is that in both cases it's an obsession, and an obsession, whether the subject is 6, 16 or 26 is unhealthy because it 'objectifies' its subject, is quite often mysogynistic, which women have been arguing, and continually getting ridiculed for.

Look at Leni Riefenstahl. Genius photographer and film-maker, we have her book on the Nuba, the imagery is staggering, but it is informed by the same stylistic aesthetic that lends itself to the ideology of fascism. She was enthralled by the nazi movement, the rallies ... enthralled by another form of dangerous eroticism. She claims she was 'naive' and I can accept that, I think many artists are socially naive because they're self-obsessed. It takes something more for the artist to see themselves.

I remember listening to Don McCullin, a war photographer ranked among the greats. He was horrified when, one day, while shooting the scene of another massacre, he found himself intent on 'composing' his shot in the viewfinder, and had lost touch with the fact that it was dead bodies on the ground and that he wasn't seeing them, just shapes in composition. That's when he gave up shooting wars. Now his shots speak for the people in the viewfinder, as subjects, rather than objects to manipulate for artistic effect.

We also have shots on the wall by Robert Mapplethorpe, so we have works in our house by three 'questionable' artists!

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

I think it's just that, some people form an opinion based on content while others form an opinion then look for content to base it on.

Nailed that one.

We also have shots on the wall by Robert Mapplethorpe, so we have works in our house by three 'questionable' artists!

Ok, attempting to get back to the topic yet again, suppose because you have such artwork in your home you were labeled a pervert and a detriment to the community. Would that make you wrong for having such artwork in your home or would it make those who formed that opinion wrong?

 

[EdgyDolmen]

If there is a sin...its yours.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

I always thought it was because there was no sex or nudity in any of the films, they were funny and they all had a plot with a beginning, middle and end.

I'm sure that had a lot to do with the overall appeal, but I'm not sure it accounts for the upside down male/female sales ratio in the UK. If you remember, the market research done prior to production indicated that the target audience for the films we wanted to make was primarily white males over 40 residing in the US, Canada and UK. Now according to our actual sales figures the market research was spot on in the US and Canadian markets, but completely off in the UK. I think the sales figures for that region may be misleading though. Yes, women were buying the films, but I think they were buying them for their over 40 husbands and boyfriends. Not sure how that affects the question posed by the thread.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Now according to our actual sales figures the market research was spot on in the US and Canadian markets, but completely off in the UK. I think the sales figures for that region may be misleading though. Yes, women were buying the films, but I think they were buying them for their over 40 husbands and boyfriends.

You know, I never looked at it that way before, but now that you mention it, that makes a lot of sense.

Not sure how that affects the question posed by the thread.

I'm to close to the situation to give an unbiased opinion I suppose, but seems to me, if women are willing to purchase the material for the men in their lives, it can't be all bad.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

At the risk of repeating myself "I would suggest neither is wrong. Each is right for them. That latter part is the most important part." Emphasis added.

Aussie your OP question cannot be answered in any definitive way. You're attempting to find a consensus of what makes something acceptable and what makes it not. And as the many responses here have shown, it is too personal a choice. Whose sin is it really? The actual question to my way of thinking is who decides if it is even a sin in the first place. And, again, that answer will be different for everyone depending on their own backgrounds, beliefs and opinions.

Seems to me if there is no definitive judgement possible, the only real answer is what is in the heart of the photographer. And only the photographer can know that. If your work as a photographer is benign, stick with that and don't let anyone tell you differently.

 

[wil]

What is a sin in one society is not in another...what is a sin at one time is not in another... Mary was 13 when she gave birth... Slavery was a thing once as was polyamory, concubines, etc...

Always funny and sad that once we finally give some class of people civil rights that we've denied for decades of centuries we suddenly look down our collective sanctimonious noses at those who haven't...

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Seems to me if there is no definitive judgement possible, the only real answer is what is in the heart of the photographer. And only the photographer can know that. If your work as a photographer is benign, stick with that and don't let anyone tell you differently.

Thank you! That's actually all I was trying to get across. I used my own work as an example, but I wasn't speaking for myself alone. All artists have had to endure criticism from those who profess to know the thinking behind their work or society's. We're all different. My likes may not be your likes. What's funny to me may not be funny to you. My thoughts are not your thoughts, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong. No, the question I posed cannot be definitively answered and that is the point.

 

[Emi]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with taking the picture as long as both parties are consenting. Needless to say, it's a form of art. Whether or not it is appreciated art is dependent on the viewer. In this case, it is neither person's sin (IMO), just clashing perspectives.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

it is neither person's sin (IMO), just clashing perspectives.

Yep. Unless perhaps one follows a strict religion with little room for individual expression. Then it would be wrong. Period. No matter the artist's intent. All the fundamentalist versions of the Abrahamics would see it this way.