What goes around ...

Thomas

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
15,661
Reaction score
5,051
Points
108
Location
London UK
A while ago Aussie and I discussed a photography issue and I raised the point of 80s photographer David Hamilton, citing his "Dreams of Young Girls" as an example.

I should say that Hamilton is a marvellous photographer. He came to our agency and did a presentation of the book, which inspired me to buy the book and a camera ... both of which live and gather dust on a shelf somewhere ... Alain Robbe Grillet, an experimental writer (his Jealousy is among my favourites) wrote the text ...

Suffice to say DofYG is more "Fantasies of Middle Aged Men" in my opinion. It caused a stir in the US and the UK, bit not so much so in Europe.

David Hamilton died this week, and I noted that a French model wrote a biography in which she spoke of being raped by her photographer. She never said who, but later in a radio interview was pushed on their point and admitted it was Hamilton. When the news broke, other models came forward with their own testimonies ...

... just another example of the 70-80s mileau in which male celebrities were allowed to exercise their sexual proclivities and get away with it.

The question of the value of his photography remains. He was the master of the soft-focus shot, and I suppose my attitude is pornography with produced with exceptional skill and high productions values is, nevertheless, pornography.
 
It has always been a challenge to separate gifted men's and women's talent, especially when we find out their private lives were not so up to the standard ethical modes we as a society accept as correct. How are the two sides of the person connected. Are they connected? Should they be connected?

Your reaction here interests me. He inspired you in the '80s to consider giving photography a try. Today you say exceptional skill and high production values does not make it any less pornography. Is this a change of opinion because you found out about his immoral life? Is it rather a change in attitude because you are a cough, cough, few decades older? Or some other factor?

I understand what changed your opinion of the man. What changed your opinion of his photography?
 
I bet watching my daughters grow up would change things for me. And from what I have gathered, they do keep him on his toes when it comes to gender inequality. Kudos for raising awesome people, Thomas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
Sorry to bring up Trump again — making reference to Trump may become a new Godwin's law soon! — but Trump (well, not so much himself, more the way he's affecting our culture) is and will be one of my biggest concerns for the next four years; I seem not be able to escape from him even tho I would love nothing more than not to ever see or hear him ...

When Trump announced his candidacy, I recall thinking "oh fat chance! this is the country that 70% of the population still consider themselves religious, the king of materialism and hedonism won't ever be chosen to be a leader" ... How wrong I was. I really thought, when the Access Hollywood tape came out, Trump's campaign was doomed ... How wrong I was.

Even many of the Trumpsters who're proud of being a Christian, whose avatar is a pic of a cross, dismissed his lewd remarks as "just talk" ... Do they not realize this mentality of objectifying women is the very root of atrocities such as rape and sex trafficking? When the intention is wrong, regardless the scale of the action, it's still wrong.

Do I feel this way more strongly than others because I have two sisters and three nieces? ... probably. Also by becoming Christian I reaffirmed my view ... Getting older is part of it too ... of course I was thrilled to see photos of naked women when I was young, but I'm glad that part of me is over. So-called sexual liberation has done more harm than good in my opinion. I'm not saying sex is something we should feel embarrassed or ashamed of, but it shouldn't be something that would undignify anyone.
 
Last edited:
I recall your discussion prior...

To me nude photography alone is not porn...

Splaying of genitalia and intercourse may...but also may be done as art..

Taking advantage of your models is an issue...although that access is a reason many get into the "art"
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Your reaction here interests me. He inspired you in the '80s to consider giving photography a try. Today you say exceptional skill and high production values does not make it any less pornography. Is this a change of opinion because you found out about his immoral life? Is it rather a change in attitude because you are a cough, cough, few decades older? Or some other factor?
Click to expand...
Well I remember as a 20 year old being very 'impressed' by the imagery. It certainly got the blood pumping!

As we get older we hone our critical insight. The 70s and 80s were dreadful in certain respects, it was a low here n the UK for any kind of equal rights — race, gender, etc.

My partner certainly played a part in shaping me over our 40-odd years together, and as ACOT noted, my daughters would look at that book and then look at me with that 'you ought to be ashamed of yourself' way that daughters can ... well mine can, anyway.

So in short, I grew up. But I was still a product of my time, and it takes time to see through what we thought was acceptable then is not now. I only found out about the accusations against Hamilton on Saturday, and that hasn't really changed my opinion of the imagery. I don't know if you get this in the States, but here in the UK we've had a succession of 'exposures' and what is now deemed unacceptable conduct, and indeed was often illegal in its day, but which is too often is excused with a "well, it was the 80s" as if that meant the law somehow didn't apply.

The latest scandal to burst is a professional soccer player having come forward to say he was abused by a coach as a lad. Then others came forward saying the same thing. Said coach has already been convicted of the same crime. Now it emerges the soccer club the coach worked for was aware of his activities when the dad of a friend of one of the abused actually confronted him at a football game.

What is emerging is that because he was a successful coach, the club was prepared to overlook the issue, some board members declaring they had complete faith in him.

I don't agree with trial without evidence, but what is evident from this and other cases is that the victim is unlikely to be believed, or told to shut up, or regarded as a wimp for not standing up for himself, etc. etc. And where a celebrity is concerned, then a special allowance must be made.

It sounds outrageous now, but has anything changed?

Jeremy Clarkson, anyone? Punch a production assistant and end up with a bigger budget, bigger show, bigger salary ... and carry on making the same racists comments you were before ...
 
Thomas said:
Well I remember as a 20 year old being very 'impressed' by the imagery. It certainly got the blood pumping!

As we get older we hone our critical insight. The 70s and 80s were dreadful in certain respects, it was a low here n the UK for any kind of equal rights — race, gender, etc.

My partner certainly played a part in shaping me over our 40-odd years together, and as ACOT noted, my daughters would look at that book and then look at me with that 'you ought to be ashamed of yourself' way that daughters can ... well mine can, anyway.

So in short, I grew up. But I was still a product of my time, and it takes time to see through what we thought was acceptable then is not now. I only found out about the accusations against Hamilton on Saturday, and that hasn't really changed my opinion of the imagery. I don't know if you get this in the States, but here in the UK we've had a succession of 'exposures' and what is now deemed unacceptable conduct, and indeed was often illegal in its day, but which is too often is excused with a "well, it was the 80s" as if that meant the law somehow didn't apply.

The latest scandal to burst is a professional soccer player having come forward to say he was abused by a coach as a lad. Then others came forward saying the same thing. Said coach has already been convicted of the same crime. Now it emerges the soccer club the coach worked for was aware of his activities when the dad of a friend of one of the abused actually confronted him at a football game.

What is emerging is that because he was a successful coach, the club was prepared to overlook the issue, some board members declaring they had complete faith in him.

I don't agree with trial without evidence, but what is evident from this and other cases is that the victim is unlikely to be believed, or told to shut up, or regarded as a wimp for not standing up for himself, etc. etc. And where a celebrity is concerned, then a special allowance must be made.

It sounds outrageous now, but has anything changed?

Jeremy Clarkson, anyone? Punch a production assistant and end up with a bigger budget, bigger show, bigger salary ... and carry on making the same racists comments you were before ...
Click to expand...

Concerning the "football" coach: do you remember the Jerry Sandusky trial? He allegedly assaulted kids as early as the 1970s, although he was only tried/convicted for those in the late 1990s and/or throughout the 2000s. Several prominent people affiliated with the Penn State scandal lost their jobs rather publicly iirc, including Joe Paterno.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Last edited:
wil said:
To me nude photography alone is not porn...
Click to expand...
Nor to me.

wil said:
Splaying of genitalia and intercourse may...but also may be done as art.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's all contextual. What is the image saying? What is it addressing?

wil said:
Taking advantage of your models is an issue...although that access is a reason many get into the "art"
Click to expand...
Oh, quite! LOL.

As ever, it's not so much the art as the intention of the artist ...

Have you seen 'Extras'? The cameo by Patrick Stewart (playing himself) who pitches a series of scripts in which his female companion somehow ends up stark naked, "I've seen everything, I've seen it all" he declares ... Ricky Gervais nailed it.
 
Regarding imagery - I hope this is not straying too far outside the OP but I must tell this story. Imagery! It is strange at how strong imagery is and yet how embarrassed many people are by such titillation as nudity. Again - specific to imagery only!

My dad died when I was thirty. He and I had many long conversations about so very many subjects. We were very close but... Although he had given up organized religion his library was full of fantastic theological books written by scores of noted authors. Most all classical books had their share of shelf too. He left his library to me. One evening while going through the shelves I happened upon a section of "hidden shelving". You guessed it. I was both amazed and surprised to find books specific to nudity. I had no clue. That was one subject we had not discussed. I was actually happy to find those books. They filled in some gaps for me. I immediately decided he was not anomalous after all.

As I write this I am looking at an Eros, 1962, Volume one, number one, Ralph Ginzburg and another The Lovers,1971, Volume one, number ?, Tina Trainer. Thanks Dad. :)
 
LOL.

I was told the Vatican had a significant collection of erotic art. Of course, we had to do this to protect you poor guys from temptation ... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top