DSLRUsers.com

I just noted a new report has been released by the Australia Institute titled: Corporate paedophilia: the sexualisation of children in Australia. The electronic supplement contains some of the supposedly sexualised images - including some of Wendell's from the latest Fred Bare catalogue.

You can get the report here.

If I remember there was some debate about this issue at the time Wendell was undertaking the shoot. My own opinion is that I think the report raises an issue for discussion but that it is way over the top.

Thanks for the link Mitchell - I'm off to have a look

o.k ill respond to this

this whole thing is way bigger than me im pretty to defend myself but i wont do so since the bottom line is no matter how much precautions i took i stil ended up shootign the fred bare summer campaign in a very mature way
and soem people may abuse the images to their own gratification

just want to say fred bare is a responsible company they approved my art direction and the way i shot the catalogue along with the parents of the kids and lots of pther bodies were involved too many to mention

Also when i was editng i foudn that soem shots poses looked dodgy simply because i wasnt thinking and under presseure workign with kids i got what i got, there are so many subtlties to pose especially when ki modles pose they either look innocent or submissive(hoep this work does not offend)

I had a huge responsibility i thought i handled it well unfortunately the evidenc eshows i did not, so what can i do if i could burn my work and chop of my limbs to prevent any further damage i woudl gladly do so

but just to your research as soem examples in that report look much worse than what i produced

and that i am a aperson of high moral standing and responsibility that no one should assume i did not struggle with the enormous responsibility thrust upon me and no coments about then why did you take the job, that will require an essay to answer

just a word on taste

my fred bare campaign is more tasteful than this image in the report

Figure 15 Frangipani Rose LA #16191

this is pathetic

i know its not the point but think about it

I conciously shot the best i could with all concerns in mind, while this other photograph is blatently what the report is all about

Just skimming the report, they make some valid points.

Even back when we saw the Fred Bare samples here, I thought I would not like my young daughter photographed in that way.

I have plenty of pics of my daughter in public display, but always portrayed as a little girl...not an 5yr old pretending to be 18.

Funny how dads a hounded out of public pools and beaches while taking pics of their kids yet ad agencies photograph little kids in a provocative way with full support of the kids parents, governement and probably wider public...

Wendell - I wasn't having a go at you (in either post) - just feel that sometimes shots of kids are just toooo grown up, and at times those shots just get creepy. The report is an interesting read btw, maybe a little over the top, but will start discussion which is a good thing.

Please don't take discussion too personally - you did a job, and as a photographer, you have to do the job in the way the company request - I respect that, and usually love your shots .... and besides what do I know? I take photos of insects

Hugs Wendell

Wendell

Just one thing to remember - you shot what you were asked to shoot under their artistic direction. Don't get too hung up personally on this.

wendellt wrote:and that i am a aperson of high moral standing and responsibility that no one should assume i did not struggle with the enormous responsibility thrust upon me and no coments about then why did you take the job, that will require an essay to answer

Wendell - I think you summed this bit up nicely - everyone here (I think) is aware you thought long and hard about these issues, and I hope no-one is suggesting anything bad towards you.

Personally, I think the overall point of this publication is probably right - we are seeing more and more of this in the media these days. In the end, though, young girls have always wanted to dress up and put makeup on. Certainly, there does seem to be more pressure coming from the 'fashion' labels for younger kids to 'dress up'.
Perhaps we, as a society, are starting to become over sensitive to this because of a tiny few that see something more in a picture than a kid having some fun.

Not sure what I am really saying here, it's a complex issue.

What I most want to say though is that it can't be easy on you, Wendell, having your legitimate work put up there as an example of something bad in society - in that respect, I'm feeling for you mate - you don't deserve that playing on your mind

Wendell, having seen some of your work on this forum, you obviously have a skill at making people (read models) look fantastic. Given the mandates you have, I would guess you have to make them (and the clothes/accessories they wear) look ‘attractive’. Unfortunately(?), attractive is probably synonymous with ‘sexually attractive’, hence pouting, demur looks.

Unfortunately, one could argue you have applied these skills you have to a different subject – children. My personal view is that children shouldn’t be seen as ‘attractive’.

Now, the bigger problem, as pointed out in the Fairfax article relating to this report, is not so much that the kids have been portrayed in this way, but that is what is expected, and probably/possibly, the mandate given to you and the other photographers.

My point (if I can find it) is that the marketers and manufacturers are, in the first instance, the ones who have created this market for adult-wear for kids, and, unfortunately, you were asked to form part of that chain in that instance. Would you or should you have chosen a different response to saying ‘yes’? That is for you to determine and not for me to judge.

In my own industry, our firm has taken an ethical and moral road in doing what we do. In doing so, we have foregone a lot of revenue because these business practices which are more profitable (today) are not in our client’s best interests.

Anyway, I tried to make a diplomatic point, but it probably got lost somewhere in there!

P

cool

just want to le tyou know fred bare has been getting soem negative wrap on the last campaign and this has been discussed with me and other industry people months ago

there are several big labels now doign what fred bare has pioneered 20 years ago like leona edmiston trelise cooper big fashion brands now making sophisticated clothes for young kids i am sure their campaigns will be similar it's an industry trend but one that soem of the public want

i.e the demographic fred bare appeals too rich parents wantign more sophisticated clothing for their kids

anyway i do remember a fred bare campaign shot years ago that was totally innocent, no lightign effects poses candid kids playing, i think with my direction their campaigns matured so i do have a part responsibility in this and its somethign i have to deal with.

nothing new to me because i get so much negative wrap on my press work too so im pretty much in the firing line everyday

sheepie wrote:In the end, though, young girls have always wanted to dress up and put makeup on. Certainly, there does seem to be more pressure coming from the 'fashion' labels for younger kids to 'dress up'.
Perhaps we, as a society, are starting to become over sensitive to this because of a tiny few that see something more in a picture than a kid having some fun.

Leon, I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you, but I think there is a big difference between kids playing adult dress-up games (at home) and a corporation portraying children as adults in terms of clothing and behaviour.

If anyone has seen The Corporation - they had a psychologist from McDonalds who was not employed to help develop appropriate toys for kids, but to develop more effective marketing campaigns targeted to children.

Hence, my distrust of corporations, marketing and their interaction with children.

Just my 2 cents.

P

Reschsmooth wrote:Leon, I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you, but I think there is a big difference between kids playing adult dress-up games (at home) and a corporation portraying children as adults in terms of clothing and behaviour.

I think we're sortof agreeing

wendellt wrote:just a word on taste

my fred bare campaign is more tasteful than this image in the report

Figure 15 Frangipani Rose LA #16191

this is pathetic

i know its not the point but think about it

I conciously shot the best i could with all concerns in mind, while this other photograph is blatently what the report is all about

I thought Fig 14 was worse.....

Id like to echo everyone elses thoughts and say that I love your work and always look forward to your posts. Its not who who is setting ad standards...

sheepie wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:Leon, I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you, but I think there is a big difference between kids playing adult dress-up games (at home) and a corporation portraying children as adults in terms of clothing and behaviour.

I think we're sortof agreeing

Perhaps we can kind of agree to sort of possibly not quite agree?

Wendell, anyone who has met you would understand the sexualisation of children was the furtherst thing from your mind when you shoot. I also remember looking at the images after your shoot and remarking how mature some of the older children were. That was the look of the children, not your styling. As said earlier, you shot as you were directed.

That said, the report has valid concerns and I am sorry you work was used to illustrate that, as it was hardly the most obvious example.

Geez, there are a few broad sweeping statements in that report. One which I noticed: Adult women use cosmetics to make themselves more attractive to men. Won't all my lesbian firends be interested to find out the real reason they use cosmetics?

Glen wrote:Geez, there are a few broad sweeping statements in that report. One which I noticed: Adult women use cosmetics to make themselves more attractive to men. Won't all my lesbian firends be interested to find out the real reason they use cosmetics?

so lesbians do use cosmetics?

Mike, my friends are what are called lipstick lesbians No crew cuts or overalls.

I think the issues that this report addresses are important and valid.

I think the report itself is doing too much interpretation though. I really don't see a whole lot of objectivity in it; they're staring from a point where they're saying there's an issue, and then set out to justify themselves.

I mostly do not see any issues in any of the images they're showing. The one of the three kids as Charlie's Angels, for instance: wouldn't the be exactly the sort of thing that three young girls aged maybe 7 or more do as a natural thing within their onw play times?

Image 15 ... they're saying that model appears to be, at most, 14 years old. How do they come to that conclusion? I simply couldnl't even begin to try to estimate that person's age, based upon that image. And they describe the image as being sexually prvocative. I'm sorry, I see a rear view of a young female leaning against a tree.

Where's the problem?

I think this report attempts to cover some important points, but with little objectivity, and thus I don't put a lot of value into this.

Sorry.

Wendell, you've done nothing wrong; Keep on doing what yoi're doing, display the care, sensitivity and commonsense that you've already been displaying in creating these images, and let those with their agendas go to hell.

It's very easy for people to put forward one-sided arguments. It can be done particularly easily with any product where there is a perceived "moral" ground. We've seen it before with cigarettes and gambling, we are seeing it now with alcohol and fast food.

Because pedophilia is such an emotive issue, it is an easy mark to extend it to this situation of children's fashion and the advertising if it.

It's a very common trait for people to avoid taking ownership of an issue and to then say "I'm fat because of the fast food companies" or even "I have lung cancer after smoking for the last 20 years and it's the fault of Big Tobacco."

We all have to take resposibility for our own decision making processes.

Just as a nude photograph of say, Scarlett Johanssen, wouldn't make all men rapists, then a photograph of a child emulating what adult models do will not turn us all into pedophiles.

I wasn't at the shoot of the Fred Bare catalogue, but I bet the children models were not mistreated or sexually threatened. There probably would have been parents and chaperones present. The environment was probably safer for the children than the local shopping mall.

Let's not descend into being a bunch of wowser thought-police.

gstark wrote:<snip>
Where's the problem?
<snip>

The problem lies in the fact that the kids are being portrayed as "sexy" mature models. Nothing wrong with selling upmarket clothes for kids, as long as an 8 yr girl is portrayed as an 8 yr old girl...

ozczecho wrote:

gstark wrote:<snip>
Where's the problem?
<snip>

The problem lies in the fact that the kids are being portrayed as "sexy" mature models. Nothing wrong with selling upmarket clothes for kids, as long as an 8 yr girl is portrayed as an 8 yr old girl...

But kids will wat to do this anyway, in their normal play. Again, please look at the Charlie's Angels image, and tell me exactly where it presents any problems.

And again, please look at image 15 and tell me how old the model is, but please also tell me precisiely how you arrived at that number.

And what, exactly, does "sexy" mean? I see nothing at all sexy in those images in the report - it's all in the interpretation, and if you have an agenda - be it to be a pedophile, or a do gooder, or to simply profess to be protecting children - then clearly you have some sort of agenda.


Yes, let's protect children. But let's not get involved in the hysteria that I think this report is designed to try to whip up.

I think that parents need to take a leading hand here: parents need to look at these images with their kids and talk wioth them about the images, rather than simply buying the products advertised (to achieve a quiet life) or bury their heads in the sand.

What is the underlying concern here? The important point seems to be the welfare of the children.

So -

If children are presented in sexualised poses will there be an increase in sex crimes against children?

Or is the concern that children will 'lose their innocence' or 'grow up too quickly'.

The first seems highly unlikely, and the second is completely bound up in a whole range of social issues. Children are growing up more quickly - socially and biologically, and while advertising may create demand for products - it is also in response to demand - there are parents that want their children to look more grown up.

I agree that it is easy to become the moral police - this is a complex area and as a society we first need to decide if this is actually a problem, and second what the causes of it are.

I think that photographers pushing boundaries would be at the bottom of the list of causes.

cricketfan wrote:It's very easy for people to put forward one-sided arguments. It can be done particularly easily with any product where there is a perceived "moral" ground. We've seen it before with cigarettes and gambling, we are seeing it now with alcohol and fast food.

Because pedophilia is such an emotive issue, it is an easy mark to extend it to this situation of children's fashion and the advertising if it.

It's a very common trait for people to avoid taking ownership of an issue and to then say "I'm fat because of the fast food companies" or even "I have lung cancer after smoking for the last 20 years and it's the fault of Big Tobacco."

We all have to take resposibility for our own decision making processes.

Just as a nude photograph of say, Scarlett Johanssen, wouldn't make all men rapists, then a photograph of a child emulating what adult models do will not turn us all into pedophiles.

I wasn't at the shoot of the Fred Bare catalogue, but I bet the children models were not mistreated or sexually threatened. There probably would have been parents and chaperones present. The environment was probably safer for the children than the local shopping mall.

Let's not descend into being a bunch of wowser thought-police.

I don't think anyone here is trying to be wowserish (if there is such a word), and I would have thought the use of the term 'wowser thought-police' is, to an extant, equally emotive and manipulative.

The point is not to say that (at least as far as I read it) because children are portrayed in an adult light (via clothing, posture, behaviour) etc, that it will convert people to paedophilia or that these children were sexually threatened.

My take on it all is that portraying an image that children are sexual is inappropriate (on a number of levels, including the notion that 'it robs them of their childhood'). I guess I believe in the idea that sexuality should be linked to a level of maturity, and not marketed by corporations for the sole motive of increasing profits.

There are reasons why there are legal ages for things like drinking, smoking, gambling and consent. My view is that, apart from smoking, the others require a level of maturity to handle properly, and portraying very young children as mature, sexual beings is not appropriate and may cause harm (physical or psychological).

But, you may call me a wowser if you wish.

P

I'll postscript this by saying I have no children at this stage.

Patrick,

Reschsmooth wrote:My take on it all is that portraying an image that children are sexual is inappropriate

But I'm not seeing this in those images in this report.

My point is that this is all open to interpretation, and different people see different things, and especially so if they're actively looking to see this sort of thing.

I suspect that those responsible for the production of this report are actively loking for this sort of stuff, and just as some people seem to think that Noddy and Big Ears are homosexual lovers, this report sets out to prove and justify a predetermined agenda.

So, the principal is valid and the concerns are real, but the methodology employed is seriously flawed.

gstark wrote:
My point is that this is all open to interpretation, and different people see different things

...and thats the problem. Its should not be open to interpretation. An 8 yr old girl is an 8 yr old girl. Dressing her up AND making her up to look 18, so different people can interpret that differently is pushing the boundary of advertising. Why couldnt the ad agencies get 8 yr old girls to pose like 8 yr old girls....

gstark wrote:I suspect that those responsible for the production of this report are actively loking for this sort of stuff.... this report sets out to prove and justify a predetermined agenda.

Have no argument with you there - I would suggest that most 'reports' have a predetermined agenda, which is a common tool used in any argument.

I am not picking on Cricketfan above, but the use of the term 'wowser thought-police' is another way of arguing a point via manipulation - the process being that anyone who argues against has been predefined in a derogatory fashion.

I don't think many people would suggest that Michael Moore's books/films are balanced, but I doubt he sets out to be balanced. Does that make his arguments invalid?

P

Reschsmooth wrote:
But, you may call me a wowser if you wish.

P

I'll postscript this by saying I have no children at this stage.

But I wasn't! That was a general statement made as an appeal to all, not an accusation at yourself.

I don't have children either, and perhaps my reaction might be different if I had an eight year-old daughter.

I find the idea of child pornography abhorrent. I find the idea of pedophilia abhorrent. I agree that we should allow, even encourage, children to be children.

But, I do have a view that, as a society, we can be overly censurious. I find too many people who say "They should do something about that" or "That shouldn't be allowed".

I would prefer not to stifle the creativity of a child, but encourage it while explaining the differences between acceptable behaviour and that which is unacceptable.

Things like demonising fast food; schools checking children's lunch boxes to make sure that the parents are providing the right food; and censoring photographs of children modelling clothes as done in the Fred Bare pix leave me cold.

cricketfan wrote:I would prefer not to stifle the creativity of a child, but encourage it while explaining the differences between acceptable behaviour and that which is unacceptable.

Granted, however, (and bearing in mind neither of us are parents) the time a parent can spend explaining these issues to their children may easily be outweighed by the time they spend in front of the TV, with their peer group and surrounded by all sorts of other influences.

But, really, is succumbing to the marketing hype of a children's clothing manufacturer really expressing creativity?

I, like you, am in favour of not imposing blanket censorship and other controls and I don't know how to answer this 'issue' adequately (you can't legislate that a catalogue can't have a child posing in a particular way).

P

ozczecho wrote:

gstark wrote:
My point is that this is all open to interpretation, and different people see different things

...and thats the problem. Its should not be open to interpretation.

How do you accomplish that goal?

An 8 yr old girl is an 8 yr old girl. Dressing her up AND making her up to look 18, so different people can interpret that differently is pushing the boundary of advertising. Why couldnt the ad agencies get 8 yr old girls to pose like 8 yr old girls....

But an 8 year old girl is going to want to dress herself as an 18 year old girl, or her mum, and oft times her dad, as a normal part of her play and use of her imagination.

Are we going to call that 8 year old girl a cross dresser when she desses up in her dad's shirt, tie and shoes?

And, please bear in mind that I am never one to defend the advertising industry - I think that there's little on this earth that's lower than advertising and marketing people (sales people and politicians are there without even blinking though), so while I am not defending the advertising industry at all, I really do not respect a report that so obviously skewed and fails to present an objective PoV as this one seems to be.

cricketfan wrote:But, I do have a view that, as a society, we can be overly censurious. I find too many people who say "They should do something about that" or "That shouldn't be allowed".

I would prefer not to stifle the creativity of a child, but encourage it while explaining the differences between acceptable behaviour and that which is unacceptable.

Things like demonising fast food; schools checking children's lunch boxes to make sure that the parents are providing the right food; and censoring photographs of children modelling clothes as done in the Fred Bare pix leave me cold.

Exactly!

Well said, Trevor.

Reschsmooth wrote:I, like you, am in favour of not imposing blanket censorship and other controls and I don't know how to answer this 'issue' adequately (you can't legislate that a catalogue can't have a child posing in a particular way).

P

Well, dialogue like this can only be of benefit. We have a continuum of differing points of view. Somewhere along that line is the point marked "current public opinion" and it will move backwards and forwards depending on the various arguments.

I respect the right of anyone to voice an opinion, even one with which I am not in accord. As long as that respect is returned, as in this thread, no harm is done.

Rather, we all learn and maintain our viewpoint or modify it if we feel we need to.

Can't say fairer than that!

I cant believe I am advocating some sort of government control

cricketfan wrote:
But, I do have a view that, as a society, we can be overly censurious. I find too many people who say "They should do something about that" or "That shouldn't be allowed".

I would prefer not to stifle the creativity of a child, but encourage it while explaining the differences between acceptable behaviour and that which is unacceptable.

Things like demonising fast food; schools checking children's lunch boxes to make sure that the parents are providing the right food; and censoring photographs of children modelling clothes as done in the Fred Bare pix leave me cold.

I am not trying to limit imagination of kids. This has nothing to do with kids imagination. I am sure the little model didnt come up to the photograher and say..."Im going to put on all this make up, put on this top and puff my chest out and flutter my eyelids..." The model was directed and made up by adults who want to portray a certain image...nothing what so ever to do with kids imaginations...

OK, time I jumped in.
I'm not going to rehash what has been said so far.
This kind of thing is basically pushed by marketing and sales people. These people are only driven by the dollar. So for them to do this kind of ad, they must think that they are going to make same sales out of it.
Public opinion (At lest as far as they are concerned ) must be on their side otherwise I doubt they would put their neck on the line.
Talking about it won't change anything - any publicity is good publicity.
If the majority of people are really repulsed by this type of ad, then the best way to fight it is by not buying the product.

ozczecho wrote:I am not trying to limit imagination of kids. This has nothing to do with kids imagination. I am sure the little model didnt come up to the photograher and say..."Im going to put on all this make up, put on this top and puff my chest out and flutter my eyelids..." The model was directed and made up by adults who want to portray a certain image...nothing what so ever to do with kids imaginations...

If that is your viewpoint, then I assume that you wouldn't let your child do that sort of work. And that is absolutely fair enough.

What I am saying, though, is that your viewpoint shouldn't become "the rule" just because you believe a certain thing.

We can be far too eager to impose our own standards, morals and ethics on everyone else, as if they have neither the right nor the intelligence to have a countering viewpoint to our own.

I'm going to open another can of worms and ask what about kiddy beauty pageants/model shows then? You see them being organised every now and then but no one seems to kick up a fuss about it?

Whilst I'm not condoning having children portrayed in provocative poses, sometimes the brief of making the final style as sophisticated, modern and moody may accidentally be perceived as sexualising the child. Note the key word here is perceived, it is not forced upon the child.

So where do we go from here? Do we ban every single innocent thing that could be deemed as portraying the child as an adult because of society's paranoia? Does that mean the current generation and future generation of children are not allowed to play dress ups? Or look cute?

Unfortunately in this case, the end result of the marketing "gurus" who have decided to apply the concept of kids wanting to play dress-ups and looking like adults down the wrong path. As usual, great ideas are usually and unfortunately badly executed.

Just my 2c.

PiroStitch wrote:I'm going to open another can of worms and ask what about kiddy beauty pageants/model shows then? You see them being organised every now and then but no one seems to kick up a fuss about it?

Well, I'm glad you raised it!

What about the infamous Jon-Benet Ramsay case in the States? She was the cute little girl with the ambitious parents who entered her in beauty pageants.

Tragically, she was murdered in her house and the media started a viscious crusade against the beauty pageants generally and her parents in particular. It seemed that her parent's viewpoint about beauty contests for kids became the reason she was killed, and then, like Lindy Chamberlain, the parents were vilified and condemned as the murderers.

Now, I hate beauty pageants, particularly those where children perform like little dolls.

But, do I have the right to stop parents from doing that? What if the parents believe that they are helping their child get used to performing, or that the child has unusual ability or talent? Why should those parents be restricted by my views?

And is Tiger Woods any different? Encouraged by his Dad to play golf from an early age, and some might even say obsessively focussed by his father on winning. Is that wrong if it differs from the way you would treat your own kids? No, it's just different.

And so with the children's fashion shots. The vast majority of parents are responsible adults, and they should certainly have the right to determine what their kids do without being criticised by all and sundry.

phillipb wrote:If the majority of people are really repulsed by this type of ad, then the best way to fight it is by not buying the product.

And back that up by letting the company know exactly WHY you're not buying it, otherwise they may never know.

As a parent of an eight year old girl, I can say that these images designed by the advertising companies are exploitation of the children and having the young children pose as adults in an adult like manner is not appropriate. The parents of these models are a lot more less worried about this than me or are enjoying the rewards of the money that has changed hands. Normal play for my daughter and her friends does not involve trying to be a sex queen, this often happens later in their development. As I am also a teacher, I can think I have a fairly unbiased view of child development and the usual course of development. Lets face it. the advertisers are some of the most creative and manipulative individuals who walk the earth and they are looking to push the boundaries. They are stepping over the line with this and one must question how much is enough. Let our children be children, they grow up far too quickly as it is without dumping all of this crap on them and their developing and impressionable young minds. How many of you would allow your young daughter to do this?

Im posing the ultimate question. How do we get rid of pedofiles from our society? What is the government doing to discourage by way of say a public awareness program to seek out these degenerates.
Unfortunately the internet isn't helping these people and their own personal convictions.
Porn sites are the norm and these people don't have any trouble accessing these sites for their own personal gratification.
Im not sayng that these advertising ploys are a vehicle for the degenerates of our society but in saying that, kids in my own opinion don't need to look like they are fifteen when they are 10.
There is plenty of time to look mature and grow beyond the individuals years without parental persuasion and the so called push to inflict siblings to be something more than anyone elses kids. Get over it. Let your kids grow up naturally and enjoy their own childhood without commercial and selfless thought.
Jethro

Big V wrote:As a parent of an eight year old girl, I can say that these images designed by the advertising companies are exploitation of the children and having the young children pose as adults in an adult like manner is not appropriate.

...in your opinion...

Big V wrote: The parents of these models are a lot more less worried about this than me

...quite possibly, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad or wrong...

Big V wrote: How many of you would allow your young daughter to do this?

...and this is the point. Some may, some may not. The ones that may allow their children to model merely have a different viewpoint to you. They cannot be collectively condemned as poor parents.

The images I have seen are 'uncomfortable' and that is partly because they are shown in the context of the report on sexualistion. The person who edited the images and approved them for publication is responsible for the ad campaign and therefore should accept that the project was in very poor taste. Wendel, you need to be more cautious when you are working with children because what you do may be exploited by others in order to gain a profit. It can be difficult for an on site photographer to see the nuances of an image as he or she is shooting....but the editor has no excuse. The sexualisation of children is happening because of sophisiticated marketing targeting. This is never accidental, they are too professional for that. You can now buy bras and makeup for 8 year old girls. It is up to parents to protect their children from being exploited but many of them are too focused on the fact that their child has been singled out for attention in the media...any media....and is therefore special. Unfortunately this extra media exposure will have the marketing gurus clapping their hands with glee because they are now getting more exposure for no extra cost. That is why the push the limits and will continue to do so until the backlash is so severe it damages their profitability. Children are fragile and must not be exploited for profit.

Caught a news story (on 7 I think) about this while cooking dinner (had already read the thread).

They had someone from the Australia Institute, but most of it was about the public disagreeing with the sentiment.

Advertising watchdog also said they have not felt the need to do anything because there are not many complaints.

IMO the only ones that are borderline are the frangipani ones. And they are crap photos too.

I find the sexualisation of children abhorrent. But I see that as 12 year old girls wearing mini skirts and low cut tops and makeup. Not as any children's clothing ad I've spotted.

pippin88
You find frangipanis sexual?

The scent just gets me everytime Matt

wendellt wrote:I had a huge responsibility i thought i handled it well unfortunately the evidenc eshows i did not, so what can i do if i could burn my work

Unfortunately you shoot, they choose.

But in general terms, there will always be someone desperate enough, or stupid enough to do the work. The trick is not to get that desperate or stupid. These companies are quite deliberately pushing the limits and sooner or later someone is going to get hit. Not taking the dodgy photos, even if it means not getting paid by the dodgy company, is the safer and more ethical choice.

My approach is usually that if I have to seek reassurance that I'm making the right choice, it's because I'm not. There's a fuzzy line between "is this the right thing to do" and "convince me that this is ok".

Wendell, I honestly don't no what to say. You did what you were paid to do. You supplied what you were creatively asked to do. Your creativity was applauded by the payees and accepted by them as well. unfortunately you were the second or third party in something that has been deemed unaceptable.
Unlucly? yes! You did what was asked and you have been scrutinised..
Life is a challenge, Photography is a challenge, take it on the chin and move on. Your photography is a very high standard and well accepted.
take this onboard and dont be dismayed.
Your professionalism will be rewarded. Some people will always try to destroy your personal acheiments and this is time to reflect upon what you are about.
Keep on the great work, you are a professinal
Jethro

jethro wrote:How do we get rid of pedofiles from our society? What is the government doing

Exactly what you are - looking for someone else to do the work. Pedophilia is much better publicised than in the past, but whether there's more of it is hard to tell. There are obvious parallels in the rape and domestic violence campaigns. Whether we as a society are willing to accept the damage done by child abuse as a cost of allowing children to have easy access to adults is another question. Unfortunately most sexual abuse is carried out by immediate family, and sexual abuse becomes more likely if the child is removed from the family. So there's no easy universal fix. Simply banning all clergy from contact with children (to pick an easy target) would potentially reduce the detection rates in the short term, but again you're mostly penalising the innocent [1].

If you add in physical abuse it actually gets worse - the person most likely to physically abuse a child is the mother, then the father (this situation does not change if the father is the primary caregiver, which is an interesting stat all on its own).

What I do support is heavy controls on advertising to children. Seriously heavy control. The sort of thing I'm thinking of is a flat ban on advertising anything to children, or for children, using anything other than fully justified (typographically) meaningful text (to avoid the "ascii art" option as well). No pictures means it's really hard to hit the kids. This would naturally extend to a ban on sponsorship that showed logos, but I think allowing limited text would work.

Unfortunately this would mean refusing the "more is always better" approach to money, so it's not likely to happen. One reason driving this marketing is that the adult market for adult products is saturated, so marketing them to children is the obvious step (also to pets, which we're also seeing). Children have historically underconsumed, partly as they have not had the disposable income needed. Getting children out of the "cheap, rugged stuff" and into the expensive, breakable items market is a huge step forward for industry. Combine that with acceptance that "raising children is expensive" and you've got 90% of the the reasons why we are where we are.

edit: And no, even before 1946 it was not acceptable to say "I just did what they paid me to do". You don't have to like that, but I don't think you can reasonably disagree with it.

[1] assuming you consider any propagator of religion innocent.

Moz yes you are correct. Advertising has come of age and the next sick step is children because adult stuff has been saturated.

Jethro

I agree we all need to be a little more ethically aware as the ugly spectre the article speaks of does exist and I think we would be fooling ourselves if we believed that those companies don't try to walk the 'thin line' when developing their campaigns and compiling their 'briefs' for photographers. There is too much evidence around in advertising to suggest otherwise.

Just remember the 'brief' you were given Wendell. A lesser photographer than yourself could have easily overdone the concept and treaded 'heavily' in that murky area. I remember distinctly your choice to question and reflect deeply on your output and interpretation of the assignment. Sleep well Wendell. You shot those images with unquestionable professional integrity and 'in good faith'.
cheers
marco

pippin88 wrote:They had someone from the Australia Institute, but most of it was about the public disagreeing with the sentiment.

.

Who is the Australia Institute/ Does anyone know if they have a barrow to push?

Or are they an independent group of logical thinkers?

I suspect the former...

Chris

And for what it's worth, I think you did a good job Wendell...