Jock Sturges: artist or pornographer?
As long as we’re talking about the line between appropriate and inappropriate adolescent sexuality, I thought I would bring up Jock Sturges. There is much controversy about Jock Sturges‘ photography. Mr. Sturges primarily takes pictures of nude adolescent girls on nude beaches.
The contention is whether or not Mr. Sturges’ pictures are nude art or under age pornography.
The answer, of course, may lie in whether you’re French or American - that is, what kind of cultural and sexual understanding you have of the human body. This is really so similar to how people understand the FLDS debacle - so much is based on how you see girls between the ages of 12 and 16. (And yes, it is absolutely a tragedy and a debacle, regardless of which “side” you’re on.)
Me? I think that girls between the ages of 12 and 16 should be free to find their own sexuality - but should not be the objects of adults’ sexual desires. Basically, I think the FLDS folks shouldn’t allow their daughters to marry under age 18, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for Jock Sturges to publish images of girls under 18 naked.
Mr. Sturges talks at length about the quality of his relationship with the girls he photographs and their parents. And I commend him for that - or, rather, I don’t condemn him as I would if he didn’t make it crystal clear that he has a great relationship with them. Nevertheless, it’s hard enough for young teenage girls to make sense of their developing sexuality without their naked images being published online and in books.
Give teenage girls time and space to develop sexually and romantically. There is plenty of time - plenty! - for them to get married and pump out babies if that’s what they want or to pose naked for photographers if that’s what they want. I just don’t think that a 13 year old is ready enough to make those decisions - and I certainly don’t think her parents should be making them for her.
And to stave off the comments I already see in the rear view mirror: No, I’m not sure an 18 year old or even a 24 year old is always fully ready to make those decisions either. But I am absolutely confident that a post-adolescent woman of 18 is more capable of making decisions than a pre-adolescent girl of 13.
I am not including any of Mr. Sturges’ pictures in this blog post on purpose, but you can find plenty here and in the links above.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Is a picture of a naked girl necessarily pornographic?
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Well, yes, that’s generally the question, isn’t it?
But I have decided to punt on that particular question. Rather, the position I am supporting is that regardless of whether a picture of a naked girl is necessarily pornographic, I don’t believe it’s healthy or supportive for a young girl’s developing sexuality to have her naked pictures online or published in art books.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
It’s possible the photographer doesn’t intend them to be pornographic, but posting naked pictures of teenage girls on the web is irresponsible, disrespectful, exploitative.
Maybe in the context of a gallery somewhere it’s art. On the web, it’s porn.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:31 am
This could lead to an interesting discussion about how the Internet differs from other forms of publication. I know someone who lost custody of his/her children in part because ex-spouse found naked pictures of them on the Internet.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:14 am
The web is so choked with porn I think you have to view anything you post as being interpreted as porn at some point. Not such a big deal for 99% of things, but pictures are different, and pictures of children more so. The case Alice mentioned is a good example of how the web is different. Had those pictures stayed in photo album, they couldn’t have been used as effectively in the custody battle.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Anyway, I’ve thought about it and I think you’re right, that although from what I’ve seen I don’t think those pictures are inherently offensive, they pose a problem because adolescent girls should not be the object of adult sexual desires. They need more space than that.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I agree that an adolescent should not be making the decision about having such photos published (something with lifelong consequences). Yet I think it wouldn’t be unethical to take such pictures (nor inappropriate for an adolescent to choose that s/he wants to participate in this experience) if the photos are locked away until the subject turns 18 and signs a disclosure form as an adult.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:02 am
[...] starlet, because it’s an actual documentary of Shelby’s actual life over three years. Several blog posts ago, the conversation arose about what’s appropriate for teenagers to have put out there in this [...]
May 1st, 2008 at 5:34 am
[...] is a really very similar argument to the basis for my post (and the following comments) on Jock Sturges’ images of nude teenage girls. It boils down to [...]
July 1st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
It’s obvious that the writer of this article has not experienced the freedom of society’s stranglehold on training people in shame.
Jock Sturges subjects both male and female (funny how only females are mentioned here) are brought up in naturist families who do not feel that their bodies are anything to be ashamed of, or should be covered up. Their basic ideals are far beyond the “western” way of thinking. Do some real research into family naturism and the healthy benefits that it brings and you might change this article. If you are a doctor, I’m so surprised to see that you are so judgemental without exploring fully the subject you write about.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Christine - thanks for your comment. I’m sorry you understood my thoughts to be condemning of nudity. They were certainly not meant that way, and I certainly do not object to family naturism as it is promoted by the Naturist Family Network.
However, adolescent nudity in the family environment or an appropriate nudist environment is a far cry from adolescent nude images online.