Jock Sturges , April 18, 2006; 04:23 A.M.
Jock Sturges Photography
Comments on this portfolio:
Robert Farnham , April 18, 2006; 06:51 A.M.
I'll echo the welcome, Jock. I admit, I've heard/read your name quite a few times but until you posted these photos I hadn't seen your work. I'm now an official fan. I hope you stick around and continue to share your knowledge with this community.
Doc W , April 18, 2006; 08:51 A.M.
Welcome, Jock. For many of us, it is really and truly a delight to see you in these pages. We will, of course, exploit mercilessly your knowledge and experience, so I hope you will benefit as much from being here as we will from having you here.
John Jovic , April 18, 2006; 09:07 A.M.
Jock, It's a great honour to have you in this forum. I, and surely others, will eagerly await your comments and advice. I love your work and always have (I have Radiant Identities).
Amund Aaeng , April 18, 2006; 09:11 A.M.
Great to see some of your color work too Jock. Tell me, are you shooting slides without a lightmeter too? :-)
Steve J Murray , April 18, 2006; 10:07 A.M.
A huge emphatic welcome to pnet! I left a long comment on one of your photos, so here I'll just repeat the welcome. Its really exciting to have someone of your talent and accomplishments posting and commenting here; really a treat. You're one of my heros, man!
Pat Hilander , April 18, 2006; 06:01 P.M.
Yes, welcome Jock! I too, enjoy seeing your color work, which I have not seen before. Your knowledge will be appreciated in the forums too!
Jock Sturges , April 19, 2006; 12:02 A.M.
Thank you all for your warm welcome. I am very pleased to find myself in your company. Truly.
As to color and light meters... While I do not use a meter at all for black and white, I do check a meter at the beginning of a shoot or in very fast changing, difficult light when shooting low iso color transparency film because, as you all know, it is mercilessly unforgiving. I am greatly interested to discover that digital wants to be treated in a very similar way because blown highlights in either system are a misery....
What lets me get away with meterlessness in b&w is the simple fact that I overexpose between two and three stops and then underdevelop pretty radically. So now matter how much I have overexposed highlights they never have time to develop unprintable density. Annnnd, that gives me lovely shadow detail. Old trick really and I'd be surprised if most of you don't already know all about this.
Glad to share anything I know with you all -- I am learning all the time and have already found much here that is provocative and thought provoking.
Donald Brewster , April 19, 2006; 10:25 A.M.
As always, wonderful work. I look forward to your new portfolios, comments, and other contributions. An honor to have you participate on this forum.
Alex Coleman , April 20, 2006; 06:15 A.M.
Wonderful to see you here Jock. Your input and contribution will inspire many. Loved your Irish pictures from Scoil Mhuire as featured in B&W Magazine, its on my desk as i write, the cover picture of Jennifer is stunning !! Also nice to see some of your colour work posted here. Look forward to seeing lots more from you.
Carmel Skutelsky , April 21, 2006; 01:04 A.M.
Perfect !!! Carmel- Tel Aviv
Andrius Vaitkevicius , April 21, 2006; 11:49 A.M.
thank you for your comment on my portfolio. I'm very glad to see you on this forum. I like you pictures very much. thank you for sharing
Klaus Sommer , April 21, 2006; 01:44 P.M.
Welcome, Jock Sturges. Ich habe unter anderem das Buch " Der letzte Tag des Sommers". Grossartige Photos von einem Grossartigem Photographen. Best Regards from Austria. Klaus Sommer
Durr Wise , April 21, 2006; 03:42 P.M.
I would like to add my thanks for your sharing with us your wonderful work. I have enjoyed your images for sometime. The emotions you capture are always exceptional. Quite an accomplishment. Thanks again.
Frank P , April 22, 2006; 06:57 A.M.
Quite courageous to join us here on PN... and that is meant as a compliment! Love your work and hope to see more of it and learn from you. Thanks a lot for joining, Jock!
Pim de Ruijter , April 22, 2006; 03:37 P.M.
A warm welcome on PN! About five years ago I read an article in a Dutch Photomagazine about your work and I was really surpised to see your name in the gallery today! I was impressed by the way you work, the magazine gave an interesting discription. I think you give PN even more value! Regards, Pim
Jock Sturges , April 22, 2006; 04:56 P.M.
I continue to be pleased to be here. I am doing a lot of scanning of 8x10 transparencies these days -- as well as 8x10 black and white negatives. The Creo flat bed scanner that I use lets me do two at a time but they take about an hour a set to do (final files are 1.3 gigs) so I have LOTS of time on my hands. I've been noodling around the net using an add-on to my Foxfire browser called Stumble which takes me to random cool web sites. Fun but finally kind of a waste of time really. But then I hit on this site and I've stayed here since. Lots to see and learn here!
Peter Bajzek , April 22, 2006; 07:48 P.M.
I'll add another "welcome;" I have admired your work for quite some time, and it's great to have you here with us. Best regards.
Esteve Boix , April 23, 2006; 04:57 A.M.
Truly amazing work, Jock. I'll keep visiting your portfolio for sure.
I'll just sit, wait and see, trying to learn as much as possible.
Jack Lo ... T-O , April 23, 2006; 11:46 A.M.
Hi Jock: I put you on my "list of interesting people". but really, for work of your quality there should be a category called "pantheon". I'm still stunned, having just gone through your folders. Your pictures are brave and confident, and they glow. Best, Jack
Yesterday, almost three months after my above post, I saw one of Jock's books for the first time. I'd heard his name over the years but had no knowledge of his work.
The book I looked at-don't recall the name of it-had some of the same images that we saw here. They are truly beautiful and brilliantly composed and reproduced, but in today's sexually charged world, their eroticism is problematic. I think P.N is right to delete Jock's photos. Jock has chosen his path esthetically and to me it's just on the border. Children and very young adults are beautiful and if you're healthy you will exult in that. Unhealthy or sexually/intellectually underdevelopped people (virtually every nude post on this site has comments by the latter) can make it all seem pretty ugly.
Gundega Dege , May 04, 2006; 06:14 P.M.
i read all taht you wrote under my portfolio....well....I didnt get the essence of it all...waht should I do.....
Nathan Ross , May 05, 2006; 12:03 A.M.
Your books and prints are magnificent, so I'm not sure if you're doing your work justice by showing it electronically. The detail and tonality of large format is almost entirely lost, I think. And your being on this generic site is quite a surprise. Very nice of you to show your work here.
Stephan Brauchli , May 05, 2006; 02:52 A.M.
Love your work.
Jock Sturges , May 05, 2006; 12:03 P.M.
My last remark on this site. I received the following e-mail this morning:
I noticed that you recently joined photo.net and uploaded a portfolio. Welcome to the site. I'm delighted to have a photographer of your reputation as a member, and I hope you enjoy your participation on the site.
It may be that I am misjudging the ages of the models. Would you please remove the photos from your portfolio where the nipples, pubic area, or buttocks of the model(s) are visible and the models are under the age of 18? Alternatively, could you let me know that the models are all over 18?
If it becomes necessary to remove the photos, I hope you will not interpret that as disrespect for your work.
Brian Mottershead photo.net Editor>>
I replied as follows:
<<Well, I will pack up and go. I am an all-or-nothing sort as I never censor my work in any part myself nor condone others doing so on my behalf. Your rules are what they are I suppose. I was naive in imaging that my work which is published and available world wide would not be problematic in your forum. It hadn't even occurred to me that it would be. Silly of me. I leave with regret because I love writing about photography -- especially if there is some chance that what I write might be of use to people whose position on the parabola of art's trajectory mirrors what not so long ago was my own. So it goes.>>
So I am done with photonet. I will take my <<nipples, pubic area, or buttocks>> elsewhere. I don't know about you but I find that little list somehow vulgar in the extreme. Mr. Mottershead has to answer to powers in the world that he does not enjoy either I am sure. Amen
mike werkhoven , May 05, 2006; 06:30 P.M.
Each person is responseble for his/her own thoughts. An image is not offencive, it is the perception of the viewer, reflextion of beholders morality.
So we are dealing here with a some very confused people, it is a pitty they are putting interesting work in a bad daylight. Hypocracy has always been a part of culture and always will. I add one of the images I realy liked.
Mona Chrome , May 05, 2006; 07:42 P.M.
I detest censorship, but one does have to understand that Photo.net is a US company and that there is a big crackdown on Child porn going on here, which, unfortunately would encompass what Jock was asked to remove. Jock has been through it himself and should understand the long time his own work and negs were held. Can the site afford to be shut down for that length of time as an issue like this might be sorted out? Maybe the site could get a clarification from the justice department since Jock was cleared for his work, but short of that I would have to understand PN's position from a business standpoint. From an artistic standpoint it sucks!
I was recently caught up in a US government backlash myself and understand how ridiculous it is, but on the other hand, understand that the delays and other problems I experienced, in the short run, protect me and the client in the long run.
Alexis Neel , May 05, 2006; 08:45 P.M.
Sorry to hear of your problems. Its been a long time since freedom of expression has been under such assault. The web reference brings up a lot of contradictory points and examples of freedom of expression being suppressed by internet companies, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, under the guise, and for the sake, of "doing business". IMO none is justified or acceptable. Perhaps some of us have a lower tolerance for it than others. But if nothing is ever done about it, it becomes acceptable and the norm. I for one do not wish to participate, and become part of the problem and not part of the solution, by just sitting by and doing nothing. Sturges was found to have done nothing wrong, and has exhibited in many places worldwide, with no threat of arrest. Why this site should deem it in its power to supress perfectly legal art work is beyond me. It can't be because of any threat of a law suit, since his work is not illegal to begin with. The actions of the sites admin. are not acceptable to me either.
I'm sure that this issue will go away and everyone will continue on their complacent, merry way. And that is the saddest comment of it all.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." Dolores Ibarruri
Jeremy K , May 06, 2006; 07:44 P.M.
I love Jock's work. I have bought as much of his photography, hoping that I could learn something. His work has some unspoken quality of truth to it, and I hope someday to capture that in my own work. I was more than a little excited about seeing him around this site, which I only joined recently. I looked up all his posts and hung on everything he had to say, again hoping to learn from him.
I understand that he is leaving due to censorship issues...I am very saddened. I know that he has a plethora of pictures that do not violate the rules around here, if showing off his work is important to him. I also understand that he does not compromise. For those of us who have something to learn, and from someone who enjoys talking about his work, I find it very selfish of him to leave straight-away at the first sign of trouble. Most of us know his work or can easily look it up if we need to. Why must everyone accept his work in order for him to teach those who respect him the most? Mr. Sturges is aware that his work is controversial to some, but why deny himself the opportunity to teach his advocates? I believe he is doing some of us a great dis-service, I very sad to see him go.
Douglas Keller , May 07, 2006; 02:21 A.M.
My first reaction to your leaving, seein' as how I'm a '60's child and all was, "Right on! ... Show the man! ... Pack it in!" Your portfolio didn't offend my sensibilities in any way. But ... after about five whole minutes of thinking ... I realized that this is the worst move you could make. I mean, if you want to change the world ... if you truly want it to ease up its hold over something ... then why not just stay calm ... and be steady about it? Why not take a step back, and content yourself with a mere pushing of the envelope for a while, rather than whizz-bang setting the whole world on fire? And even if your photos are too controversial for this site ... hell, your words won't always be. Maybe you can accomplish a bit of your cause through that different though no less creative process?
C.R. Hips , May 07, 2006; 02:44 P.M.
Jock, I hope you reconsider. As Artists, the battle with small minds and the exclusive, devisive mentalities attached to censorship is an on going process. Never let anyone else tell you who you are. Tell them. And when you speak use your work. You are not, I think, a one demensional Artist that can be defined by the narrow definitions here. See this experience here,as a creative opportunity to win a battle with ignorance through your work. Post work that defines the edge and yourself in a way that can also be "acceptable". That is a challenge, but worthy of the best Artists. If you leave, the management here will win, because they have made you believe that as an Artist you can not find your way out. Blow us away with memorable images that show us that censorship can not keep content down. Good Luck, Hips
Landrum Kelly , May 07, 2006; 10:52 P.M.
Brian has to stay within the law, and he did. I don't see what else he could have done. Jock left. He was not really forced out. He could easily have complied with a simple request.
Is the law arbitrary? Yes, to a great extent it is, but I cannot see putting anyone else on the spot in the name of free expression when the penalties for failing to comply with the law can be quite severe.
I say all this without ever having seen any of Jock Sturges' work. It would not matter in a case like this. This is not the place to test the law. If one wants to do that, one does so on one's own--and takes the consequences. One does not transfer the risk to other individuals or groups, or force others to share one's liabilities.
Freedom of expression belongs to the person who exercises it, but transferring the liabilities to others is not really all that thoughtful or courageous.
Brian Mottershead , May 08, 2006; 01:23 A.M.
The issue isn't really whether photo.net should support Jock Sturges and how risky that would be.
The issue is that photo.net has a rule prohibiting the uploading of images involving child nudity, a rule which was contravened by some of the images in Jock's portfolio, apparently. We informed him of the rule and asked him to remove the images that violated it, and he decided to remove all the images except one. Should we have this rule or should we make an exception for Jock Sturges or other famous photographers?
As for whether we should have the rule against child nudity at all, I recognize that not all child nudity is pornography. One only has to look at Jock's works to see this. But the United States is a country where the majority of people seem to think that all images involving child nudity are beyond the pale. There is no convincing most Americans that there is such a thing as an "artistic" child nude.
So it is very risky for us to allow people to upload images of child nudity. As Jock has experienced, we might very well find ourselves in expensive litigation, or even facing criminal charges. And I don't think things have calmed down in America since Jock faced the charges against him. On the contrary, fear of child pornography and pedophiles on the internet seems to have increased.
We would face a substantial risk even if we could guarantee that every image involving child nudity was as restrained, as sensitive -- as artistic -- as Jock Sturges' images. But we can't even do that. photo.net is a site where anybody can upload anything. There is no telling what people would upload, but if our experience with adult nudes is any guide, it would run the gamut from sublime to disgusting, with a long slippery slope in between. If having "artistic" child nudes on the site wasn't risky enough, it would be impossibly risky to be in a situation of seeming to have condoned the uploading of child pornography. Leaving aside the risk, I shudder at opening the door to some of what would be uploaded if people got the idea that photo.net was an "anything goes" place regarding child nudity, and I don't want anything to do with it.
So this isn't a rule that we are going to change, and there aren't going to be any exceptions.
lee park , May 09, 2006; 09:13 A.M.
You can disagree with them all you want, but if you agree to play by the rules you've got no reason to cry Foul. Not only that, but you won't have disappointed other people who find themselves delighted to have you among them. There are so many roads to fulfillment on this site, camaraderie among them. I didn't see your work here, Mr. Sturges, but I hope you will reconsider your position and find yourself willing to participate, even if in a somewhat personally restrictive capacity.
Nathan Ross , May 09, 2006; 06:55 P.M.
Jock Sturges' work is stunning ... IN A CONTEXT. Arguably, viewers and admirers of his work admire it moreso when they understand why his photos were taken, including having some awareness of the naturist community that his sitters belong to. This website does not provide that context and so his images could easily be misunderstood.
Noting the value and quality of Sturges' work and disassociating it from child exploitation, everyone still has a responsibility to protect children from the exploitation that occurs worldwide on a continual basis. And so the managers of this website have that responsibility and it would be simply too difficult to make a rule which allows the work of Sturges but disallows other child nudity.
Already this site has many images which exploit women as objectified, homogenised sexual resources for men, and it is not puritanical to suggest that children should be protected from a threat of this happening to them. Nor could it be dismissed that there is any 'political correctness' in protecting groups of people from abuse or other mistreatment. That's just too flipant and naive.
The books of Sturges' work that I own are stunning. But they have essays which give them a context and deeper meaning which this site, with all due respect, simply couldn't offer. If Sturges wishes to put his work online, why not start up www.sturges.com or similar, where information about the imagery could explain it's context and people could voluntarily view the site and read about his work.
Chris Fraser , May 11, 2006; 05:34 A.M.
An admirer of your work for many years, I'm sorry to see you depart, though you came and went before I was even aware you were here. I'm just now following up the kind and detailed comments you left behind, from which I've already learned much. I hope you might reconsider. This is a place where your work, your aesthetic sensibility, and your knowledge are deeply admired and your images would reach a wide and appreciative audience, including many people previously unaware of them.
Andy K. , May 11, 2006; 10:09 P.M.
While there is no shortage of technically proficient photographers who have posted a portfolio here, there is a dearth of inquisitive criticism. Your comments on several portfolios and photos are of course marvelously insightful; one would hope that you continue to visit from time to time.
Elisabetta Moschetto , May 16, 2006; 02:39 A.M.
Dear Jock, I know you had some problems with photo.net, but I have to thank it because it gave me the opportunity to know such a great photographer as you are. I will go around in the Italian Bookshops to look for your images and hope to see soon one exhibition of your work. Today is a nice day: I met a great artist! Eli
Stefan Loeliger , May 17, 2006; 04:22 P.M.
Jock i have great respect for your work and although you are a true master in photography i appreciate your contribution for those who don't have your skills...
...i always wanted to ask you some questions about portraying with 8x10 but actually never found an email adress of yours...
...i tried to get it fm the photonet system but this didn't really work...so let me ask you in brief about the things i'm interested in...
...above you wrote about your method of overexposing the film by 2-3 stops...but what about your shutter speed then...what are your times? i can imagine when you expose a 400 ASA film with 100 your shutterspeed gets very long...and with a small camera aperture (for scales 1:4 for example - aperture 32 ?...your times increase...what is a speed that still works for you, what are your longest times you usually use...? Once i also heard that you put many 8x10 sheet films in one tray...Is that true...? And if so...how many ?
i would be pleased to get a feedback fm you
best regards fm Switzerland Stefan Loeliger www.stefan-loeliger.com
Emmanuel Enyinwa , May 24, 2006; 04:03 A.M.
I ran into your comments on Gundega Dege's portfolio. This is what I posted back to her:
<<Omg, your work is brilliant. You have one of the best portfolios here. Keep up the good work.
That said, I took in the comments of Jock Sturges to you. Obviously, he has achieved quite a bit of noteriety--and I mean this in a positive way. Unfortunately, he himself describes the unfortunate reality that gallery owners are looking for an excentric madman. I hope you don't misinterpret that to mean that your work must of necessity be excentric to be successful.
A word about Jock. I'm sure you know who he is, if you live in the US. There are at least two of his books available at your local bookstore. I think, unfortunately, the content of his photographs overshadows the great and subtle substance of his art. Do I think this is a bad thing? Yes, I do.
What makes him financially successful, unfortunately, based on his advice to you, is the very thing he should loathe, that is, the built-in American taste for scandal and sensationalism. Would Jock be as successful if his pictures were lanscapes, or merely the tame creations of say, a Frank Phillipaerts, who has a portfolio here at Photo.net? I, unfortunately, do not think so. Does that diminish Jock in my eyes? Unfortunately, it does. Now, do I think he cultivates the scandal? Not deliberately, but by not renouncing it, he takes advantage of it.
Perhaps I misconstrue his words. Perhaps, he is not advising you to seek controversy, but to cultivate a style distinctly your own, and distinguishable from everyone else's. I am hoping this is what you read into his words.
Obviously, part of me feels somewhat intimidated to take such a strong position against a photographer of your renown, but I do rather think that it is a point that needed to be made. Do check out Frank Phillipaert's portfolio. I see a lot of your work in him. Sorry you had to take down your pictures, but I'm sure part of you understands why photo.net did it, especially with the climate here in the US.
I greatly admire your work, and may ask you for tips on using my newly acquired 8x10 camera. I agree, though, that one needs a consistency of vision, though not necessarily subject matter. Oddly enough, I find that both Paul Strand, who shot several portraits, landscapes, and still lives, as well as street scenes, and Brett Weston, who shot only still lives and landscapes, had similar consistency of vision. Still, I don't think that was they key to either man's success. With Brett, it was his superior prinkmaking skills. With Strand, it was his superb discipline and detachment. I, for instance, think Paul Strand had a more consistent vision than both Ansel Adams or Edward Weston, who was literally all over the place.
What do you make of your contemporary, Mapplethorpe? He was an "eccentric madman", but his work was not exactly unified by any vision. His classical male nudes, which borrowed from antique art and Heine, had nothing to do with his sadomasochism stuff, some of which borrowed from Diane Arbus and Lisette Modelle, and which he shot journalism style with 35 millimetre cameras. These, in turn, had nothing to do with his professional and celebrity portraits. Can you tell both that the "Irises", for instance, which was shot with a medium format camera, and poorly lit, was shot by the same person who shot the carefully composed and lit male nudes if you didn't know ahead of time? No, of course.
So, I think, sometimes, noteriety drives 'vision' rather than the other way around. Ansel Adams shot color photographs for Godssakes.
Neil Peters , June 13, 2006; 09:46 A.M.
Mr. Sturges, I was sorry to see you pulled your prints, before I got to see them. I understand principles vs rules vs politics. I was hoping your principle to teach others could outweight your principle of freedoms, at least in this forum. There are thousands of eager young artists here who could learn and be inspired by your other works.
I hope somday you reconsider. The ability to inspire is also a rare gift.
Demosthenes dsc , June 24, 2006; 10:13 A.M.
so much to learn so little time. what a loss. DSC.
Tom Outler , June 28, 2006; 08:21 P.M.
Jean-Baptiste Avril , July 14, 2006; 06:14 P.M.
Sorry to find out about this issue. It's always difficult to face censors, whatever reasons they have. That's the eternal gap between creators and critics. We ,unfortunaltly, all have to deal with it... For every creator will stand up ten critics, all with good reasons, not willing to accept exceptions, as yourself Jock Sturges! But creative photographers will keep going on, whatever happpens, as the work itself is the most important. It has to exist, somewhere, anywhere... You're rigth to do this work Jock Sturges. Please keep going on. Best regards JB www.jb-avril.com
Fabian Grunwald , July 19, 2006; 09:43 A.M.
oh man.. i'm really impressed by your comments you made under some photos, portfolios or forumposts.. i read all of them.. they are really inspiring.. your advises/suggestions you gave are very interesting! i'm quite sad that i missed the work you posted here and sad about i might missed some of the comments you made..
but i think its good that you've moved completly from pnet and not considered to delete only some photos! though that i saw your activity on this page not until today and am quite disappointed about that.
but very much thanks for the comments you've left here!!!
Marcus Carlsson , July 19, 2006; 01:52 P.M.
I just found out that you have started to post images here and I was thrilled. Finally my favourite photographer was available for both see his work and ask questions. But as soon as I found you you said goodbye.
I can maybe understand that if photo.net has rules they shouldn't be broken. But to me photo.net has lost to many REAL photogaphers and I'm started to think that maybe they should move their servers to a country that isn't that F*CKED up.
You run around with guns, but you can't see true art when it's infront of you.
Jock, I hope I see you elsewhere, because I know that there exists places on earth that knows good art and don't censor it.
Kristen Cole , September 15, 2006; 06:36 P.M.
I just discovered your photos, and I've read something about the political mess surrounding your work. I just wanted to say please keep doing what you're best at! I am an amateur photographer, and your photographs are very inspiring to me: I love doing those very simple, candid types of photographs. Children are my favorite subjects, because they're still so open and creative.
Jeremy K , April 13, 2007; 05:21 P.M.
Jock Sturges' work celebrates childhood! Jock's work glimpses the human being in the most honest of terms. In ways we gain another understanding of what it means to be young, what it means to be older, and what it means to be human. The subtle nuances in each of his images put together with the striking stares of this models gives us a pure look at relationships, innocence, the soul, and most importantly love.
Judge cautiously...there's a purity in Jock's work, there is no filth.
Jock Sturges , May 25, 2007; 03:20 P.M.
Ah, Mr. Castelli. You have inspired me to return. jock sturges
Hugo Keizer , May 27, 2007; 05:42 A.M.
To see you here...
Great fan. Love your work. I saw your work in a gallery in 'the Jordaan' in Amsterdam, approximately 20 years ago I think...or maybe less...I am very poor in remembering years...prints from Last days of summer. A great experience. You changed my view...thanks so much!
Kind regards, Hugo Keizer
Nikolai Kuleshov , June 04, 2007; 04:55 A.M.
Nikolai Kuleshov , February 28, 2008; 04:05 P.M.
Howard Nowlan , June 12, 2008; 01:05 P.M.
Dear Mr Sturges, I just wanted to write and thank you for the sheer delight of being able to enjoy this latest release concerning your life and work. It was truly marvelous to spend a short time soaking in the natural wonder of what this documentary portrays and was truly inspirational with regards to the manner in which photography can become so woven into the almost timeless beauty of such a lifestyle and culture. It was a great priviledge to visit such a moment, and I hope it causes many to ponder the richness of such work.
Yours with much appreciation,
John Woods , August 28, 2008; 04:28 A.M.
Howard Nowland's message alerted me for the first time to the fact that Jock Sturges has been, and hopefully will be in the future, posting his beautiful photographs on Photo.net. I have long admired his work and I own copies of all his books. I look forward to his posting more photographs on Photo.net. Jock, you have some lovely portraits of young, and not -so-young, adults. You might start with your daughter's godmother. Best wishes John
Mark Onat , November 17, 2011; 04:30 A.M.
This is an interesting conundrum that I find myself on both sides of. I don't think photographers should be drummed out of business just because their work doesnt meet social mores or laws, but there is pretty much no law governing what can be made in the modern age except the restriction on nude underage models. If one is to take risks, I think taking risks in what one says politically is far more important.
When it comes to the human nude, My favorites are Helmut Newton and Mapplethorpe mostly because they don't treat the nude delicately, they treat it roughly. I find glowing nudes to be trite and done, as in it's been done enough. I need some context or statement. Then again, David by Machaelangelo is on his own, the context being his power, stance and face. This is where photography starts to suffer in comparison to classical standards of art, something any young photographer should really consider if they want to be called an artist.
I also think its possible to photograph adolescents and have those photos say a million things about innocence, or the future wthout them being undressed. I don't find it interesting subject matter. I think erotic work has its place with adult models, but it's easier said than done, and most of it is not interesting. Then again, the human nude is such a standard that to put it away completely is unacceptable.
The guys that pioneered this style in a looser period will do what they do, but I have little interest in it, maybe because I'm a cynic, but anyone who follows this style is not only legally crazy but aesthetically unoriginal and out of date.