On Jul 6, 10:50 pm, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23980772-948,00.html
>
> Following the furore over Bill Henson's work, 11 year old Olympia
Papapetrou
> defends her right to be represented on the cover of Art Monthly
Australia.
>
> http://www.artmonthly.org.au
The question is does the artist (this time her mother) ***ify her in
the photos. Remember it only takes the adding of a few elements here
and there such as a gesture or a glance of the eyes to do so.
Her father thinks her mother does. And he is all for it.
To be fair though it is likely that he was talking about other
photographs that her mother took.
http://tinyurl.com/6548z9
For on this photo, I don't see any of these elements used. I don't see
the longing slightly hungry look in Olympia's eyes that photographers
like Jock Sturges often use to subtly cross the line. To me this photo
seems appropriate. The thing is though, like with ****ism itself it is
so close to the line that it would just take so little for it to cross
over. Some people might point to the makeup on Olympia's cheeks and
say that ***ifies her. When things get so close it is hard to exactly
know when it crosses the line. But in this case though it doesn't in
my opinion. But then again perhaps I just don't recognize some kinks
out there that the photo might be designed to appeal to.
But even though I believe it doesn't cross the line for healthy
people, there are still perverts out there who might misuse the photo.
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamchild_2003&img=4
http://web.archive.org/web/20050628013605/http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamchild_2003&img=4
http://tinyurl.com/6z8t7e
And of course we need to look at other photos that Polixeni Papapetrou
has taken of . And some are indeed questionable. Expecially how
Olympia's Dad describes them.
We need to look at all of Polixeni Papapetrou's work. And like it
often is, the question isn't always one of ****ity. The subjects don't
have to be **** to make the photos extremely inappropriate.
Like this photo.
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/art/Rope.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20060819044350/http://polixenipapapetrou.net/art/Rope.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/56juou
Isn't that very suggestive of bondage? Will the girl grow up to get
involved in the whole bondage scene and look back to that experience
and say that's where it all began? This photo is very ***ualized even
though there is no ****ity involved.
And this photo
http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamchild_2003&img=9
http://web.archive.org/web/20050628061554/http://polixenipapapetrou.net/work.php?cat=Dreamchild_2003&img=9
http://tinyurl.com/5ncdch
Again, Olympia (who is wearing lipstick) and the other girl (Olivia)
are not **** but the way their clothing are so disheveled it is very
suggestive. They are obviously in distress due to the ****pwreck and
that appeals to those perverts with a waif fetish.
I just think too many times people focus on the **** photographs of
children to the neglect of ***ualized photos of children where they
happen to be clothed.
|
