casnell wrote:Who is the Australia Institute/ Does anyone know if they have a barrow to push?
My understanding is that they're a left wing think tank.
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Sexualisation of childrenModerator: Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
My understanding is that they're a left wing think tank. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Just asking a question here with no particular agenda....
Wendell - where do you draw the line in terms of "I was doing what I was paid to do" ? At what point do ethics kick in or can it always be blamed on whoever's paying for the shoot? Does every photographer have his/her price after which they'll shoot anything? I don't agree these photos are a problem at all. In fact, I think they are highly tasteful and do what they are supposed to do - advertise fashion for a particular market. I have far stronger feelings against the kinds of articles written in magazines targetted at young teenage girls. (Yes I have daughters so I've seen the tripe that's published) Simon
D300 l MB-D10 l D70 l SB-800 l 70-200 VR l TC 17-E l 18-70 f3.5-4.5 l 70-300 f4-5.6 l 50 f1.4 l 90 Macro f2.8 l 12-24 f4 http://www.redbubble.com/people/manta
when i was approached to fred bare i wasnt interested in the money that was a bonus I just wanted the opportunity and the challenge as not many before me have done a campaign in such a manner and been successful, i thought if i could knock it off that would be quite an achievement.Also thought if you i could knock it off i could pretty much do anything because shooting a campaign like that is more than just photography it requires a lot of other skillsets as i had to earn the kids trust, parents work out many commercial concerns, the ethics and logistics it may have been bad judgement on my part that i could undertake the huge responsibility of shooting kids fashion as i have successfully done it beofre for fred bare winter 2005 i was probably disillusioned by this by this achievement so i proceeded for a bolder campaign for fred bare summer anyway all day i have been talking with fred bare because of the current climate they wont be shotign the winter campaign schedule for mid october so if anything we are all learning from this experience and i have smoken about 10 cigarettes so clearly it has affected me
Simon Here here I have daughters as well and there not 12 and much more advanced.
I have stated before we need to move on. Wendell has done his professional bit and i Feel sad for the poor bugger. This is a sad indictment of todays sick society and exposusure to the media who rules our everyday life and the government. Let us all move on. Wendell keep it up jethro shoot it real.
look! and see. Shoot and feel
Well, Wendell.. As a father of 3 girls 9,6,3 I didnt look at any of your Fred Bare stuff like that at all.
Its amasing how living with so many girls, I now actually look at young girls clothes with an eye to how they will look on my daughters. Not until this was mentioned did I see you shots in any other way.. But people can find anything if they look hard enough. Yes, children will be exploited . This is unfortunate, it will take people with responsibility to change this. It seems from your post Fred Bare has taken this on board, so this may end in a positive fashion. I also agree Manta I've read plenty of tripe ins tuff my 9yr old reads. Cheers MATT Last edited by MATT on Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Indeed - and you've proved yourself in these areas too.
I don't think there was any bad judgement on your part at all Wendell. Judging by the photos, you made all the right decisions.
Well, I'm sorry the incident has had this result. All it's succeeded in doing is giving some publicity to a mob that would have been scratching to get attention any other way.  Simon
D300 l MB-D10 l D70 l SB-800 l 70-200 VR l TC 17-E l 18-70 f3.5-4.5 l 70-300 f4-5.6 l 50 f1.4 l 90 Macro f2.8 l 12-24 f4 http://www.redbubble.com/people/manta
My two cents.
That article from the Australia Institute read like a script from 'Today Tonight.' Completely biased and lacking in thorough research and credibility. Don't be disheartened Wendell. Those people are sensationalists looking to make names for themselves at other's peoples expense. They are wankers and should be ignored, regardless of any substance in their opinions. There are far superior people in society who are better qualified to make judgements on ethical issues, than the Australia Institue. They are the general public. I stand by my opinion. Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 | Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
Wendell, you have bigger fish to fry. Really just concentrate on the other stuff you have to do.
Can I make a request not to keep referring to the Fred Bare campaign which Wendell was part of for the remainder of this discussion? I understand that there was no malice by bringing up the campaign but consider what consequences your words may have on another person, especially if the affected person is a fellow member and friend of this community. The whole "they gave me the brief" rationale was obviously given long and deep thought by Wendell. Sorry but from some of the posts I've read, it sounded like his judgement was being questioned. The shoot was done and it's over now. There's no point questioned what has happened in the past. The most important thing is to move on and have a discussion about what can be done from this moment on. Am I supporting and possibly protecting Wendell? Yes I am as he's one of the most humblest, most helpful and sometimes most craziest person I know. Wendell's also been kind enough to teach me a whole lot of different photography techniques which has really helped me further explore my photography. Even if I didn't know him, I'd still stick my hand up to support him for the amazing work he shares with the community. From what I've read of that report, the only more suggestive/disturbing images are the frangipani photos as has been already mentioned. Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Wayne, I agree 100%. Lets stop referring to Wendell in this and asking or inferring his justification of his shoot. Lets just refer to "the images".
Wendell keep on shooting, many love your work. Interestingly I don't see sex in those images, I just see young kids. I would hope most normal people would. I think people who are looking to get sexual gratification from such photos are probably looking elsewhere too. If any of those photos had a 23 yr old buxom blonde in them I still wouldn't rate them as racy.
Glen interesting you brought that up.
It's unfortunate that when you compare these photos to photos of girls in their mid to late teens in swimwear looking rather provocatively at the camera, no one bats an eyelid.... Err also does that mean Target, Kmart and all the other lower market shops will have to re-address their catalogues as pretty much all of them have teens wearing bras, underwear and bikinis. No one's brought them up at all. Also why does the finger have to be mutually exclusively pointed at the media and the advertising agencies out there? I mean everyone at one point or another will take a photo of their child in a swimsuit. Some people WILL post those photos online to share or to get critiqued. Should we stop them from posting as well as the photos could potentially end up in some paedophile's computer? I'm guessing some people will say no as it's their right to share their own photos. Sorry but what's the difference then? The subject is still a child, in swimwear which - from what has been mentioned before - could be used to fulfill a lost soul's enjoyment. If it's not at the beach, then it'll be at the pool. Hrmm I believe we had this discussion before and there was a rather large protest which ended up with victory for parents to bring their cameras to the pool to photograph their kids. Life is wayyyy too short to be paranoid and incredibly (and sometimes stupidly) politically incorrect. Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Now there's a voice of reason! The article struck me as hysterical hand-waving by self-righteous moralists, no more, no less. Reading through all the posts in this thread I managed to hold myself back from butting in. Just a few thoughts in random order... Children being sexualised? Children are sexual from the time before they are born. The don't turn sexual at the flick of a switch when they become 18. Childen emulating adults? Of course! That's the essence of growing up. By emulating adults kids learn skills and behaviour patterns that will eventually turn them into adults. That's why it is important for adults to be good role models, because kids will copy every aspect of our imperfect personalities. Barbie, Charlie's Angels? I had a daughter once (she tragically died when she was seven), and I can tell you that girls of that age love to pose as pop stars or supermodels, and dress up in their mothers' high heels. Growing up to fast? Kids that have the time and opportunity to enjoy themselves and have fun grow up at their own pace. Kids that have to replace a parent at early age or face physical or mental abuse or just plain aren't getting enough food and playtime are growing up too fast. I have a lot of disdain for the whole advertising industry. This industry is a large consumer of high-quality photographs, however. Luckily, I've managed to keep the quality of my photos low enough to fly under the radar of advertisers... 
Advertisers sell an image. This image must be something potential customers like to identify themselves with. "Hmm, if I drive *that* car I will come across like *that* guy and chicks will turn their heads..." Even more immediate with fashion: "I want to look like this girl! She's even cooler than that @$%^ everybody likes..." If kids don't identify with the images advertisers project then the product won't sell. Finally, who has been harmed or is in danger of harm? Apart from the poor kids that were put on a slippery rock by Wendell, I'm sure they will all remember those shoots as the time of their lives, and not as a traumatising experience. Even though I'm sure the shoots where very demanding on the kids. Really finally, these paintings of the 7-year old Mozart and his 11-year old sister: http://www.dotnet.org/dslrusers/Mozart_by_Lorenzoni_1763.jpg http://www.dotnet.org/dslrusers/Maria_Anna_Mozart_by_Lorenzoni_1762.jpg demonstrate that dressing up children like adults is nothing new. In fact, is has been the norm for centuries and specialised childrens' fashion is a fairly recent invention. Cheers Steffen. lust for comfort suffocates the soul
Steffen, some great thoughts in there, especially the images. Actually reminds me of when my mother took some photos of me when I was 4 in a suit. Wonder if I should sue for mental abuse?
Todays follow on from this story, more the other view: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/too ... 31974.html
I haven't been following this thread that much, but tangentially I am always interested in groups such as The Australia Institute. There are many such organisations which pump out opinion, and it is extremely difficult to know whether such groups are a genuine unbiased think tank (if that is even possible), or people with an agenda attempting to influence opinion (which is OK to a point but a failure to disclose the agenda disturbs me), or flat out fronts for propaganda (very popular in the USA.
The Australia Institute directors are:-
The Institute's website is here. My general policy is not to trust anything I read in the media, or believe anything anybody says about anything unless it panders to my personal prejudices in which case I embrace it. Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Interesting website, there are only 4 who work there and they seem to measure success by media take up of their papers. Interesting their article on Steve Irwin labelling him as a lowbrow performer who shouldn't be compared with people like past american presidents (as someone had) didn't get the publicity Germaine Greer did.
Firstly, I think a big kudos to this forum for maintaining a 5 page discussion on a very emotional issue without any resorting to personal attacks or unbalanced debate - well done.
Now let me change all that...just kidding. As I said previously (I think), I believe there is a difference between: 1. Kids playing adult - dress ups, etc. 2. Parents taking pics of their kids, including at the beach/pool/etc, even for posting for critique or sharing, and The advertising industry promoting the idea that kids should wear clothing/make-up or behave in a way that is targeted at making them more sexually attractive. Now, I am not saying that an 8 year old will know what behaving 'sexually attractively' means, but those who promote the idea (ie, clothing manufacturers, retailers, advertisers, etc) do. Please don't assume I am suggesting kids should be wearing head-to-toe garb to be completely unrevealing, but promoting the idea that very young kids should wear clothing which is designed to accentuate parts of the body which, some believe, are sexual - breasts, buttocks, etc, I believe is inappropriate. My fundamental view in this moral or ethical debate is not what kids should wear, etc (despite the preceding paragraph) but more the objectives of those promoting them. By the way, in terms of unbiased debate - I think the Australia Institute will sit at the left side opposite the likes of the Sydney Institute (conservative). It is up to us to take on board arguments from both or more biased sides and form, hopefully, our own balanced view. P
Just listening to an interview on the radio. Lawsie is talking with the lady who runs the Fangipani label that's been highlighted in this report.
The images the report uses were taken by this lady - the owner - of her daughter! Not by the advertising industry. The girl in question had fun and enjoyed the shoot, and there was no use of any make-up etc in the photos. The images have never appeared in any catalogue, but only on the web, and not for some months. The author of this report would have had to look long and hard, and very deliberately, to find these images that she used. The owner of the images is quite upset that these images were used without her knowledge or consent (tough titties on that one) but raises the point that this issue would never have arisen except for this report, and now needs to protect her daughter as a direct result of the consequences of the publication of this report. I think this report will end up causing more harm than good. Shame; the underlying cause is noble, but the methods are so seriously flawed. And Patrick, yes, this is exactly the style of discussion that we encourage here: active and vigorous, but staying true to the topic and avoiding any sort of personal attack. Thank you to all members for your atention to this important detail. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
I'm struggling with this a little so my thoughts... please excuse if I ramble...
this reminds me of a similiar report done in the 80's or 90's where they compared the expression and poses of women in pornography to thos of women in fashion catalogues etc. and they found striking similiarities between poses and expressions etc (but a difference in the amount of clothing involved..). This generated a lot of debate but at the end of the day regardless they were adults and directed to look alluring and sexy... not I would hope was the case in any of these shoots! The point is that sexualisation or anything for that matter is perception in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't find anything 'sexy' about any of those shots. I think I am struggling with 'sexualisation' in context of the report and perhaps in general definition.. Maybe the examples they chose were not quite correct - I would be looking at the beauty pageant industry for example, recall terrible case of jon-benet. this stuff still goes on with parents objectifying their children. So maybe it is the imposition of sexuality and objectification that is at issue rather than a natural expression. Objectification and sexualisation of young children is criminal and everyone involved with young children must take responsibility, however this report I believe has missed the point - the snippet we can download is out of context of the report and perhaps their rationale for producing the report. In my reading, it is also very subjective and also quite suggestive in it's own way.. mostly along the lines of 'if this was an adult woman, you would find her attractive in this pose, therefore because it is a child you will also find her attractive and are being dragged by the nose into being a paedophile!' I dont' think so!!! Does this report imply that all of the mothers and fathers reading these catalogues are now perceiving their children differently? Or are they still looking for nice clothes at the right price? Edit: I re-read the thread and realise i have repeated some of what has already been said apologies I am trying to portray my POV. D3 | 18-200VR | 50:1.4 | 28:2.8 | 35-70 2.8 | 12-24 f4
picasaweb.google.com/JustinPhotoGallery "We don't know and we don't care"
This interesting piece in The Australian indicates that David Jones isn't happy about being linked to the new catchphrase "corporate pedophilia" and I, for one, don't blame them. Look here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20560710-2702,00.html I also think that any references to Wendell and his work in this regard are similarly reprehensible. TFF (Trevor)
My History Blog: Your Brisbane: Past & Present My Photo Blog: The Foto Fanatic Nikon stuff!
I read that as "the researchers did a thorough job and used images that best made their point". The whole idea of a research paper is that you do need to look quite hard and find outlying examples to make the point that whatever you're talking about exists on a continuum and so on. In this case, the overall point that "sexualisation of children in advertising is increasing" is made, and being able to say "here's where it seems to be going" by pointing at egrarious examples is useful. People who might look at a single (say) Target catalogue and say "that's just kids playing dress-up" might not be aware of how those catalogues have changed over time and what the "leading edge" catalogues are doing. Nor, for that matter, what the "bleeding edge" professions are seeing - girls that don't get anorexia untiul they're 15 are now late developers, the average age of onset of that type of disorder continues to drop. The same is true of a variety of similar disorders (and yes, the causation is established by the scientists. If you believe in science, that is[1]). If organisations don't like having their behaviour critqued like this they always have the option of not committing the behaviour. [1] I say this because many people claim not to. http://www.moz.net.nz
have bicycle, will go to Critical Mass
And of course a very credible scientific report that it is, you would have to take every thing it states as a holly truth. I guess, the scientists concerned needed to justify their being. There is enough political correctness, rules and regulations in this country to closely resemble a police state. What's next? Scientists will be telling us how to dress our kids and if we dress them in a manner that doesn't comply we will be called 'paedophilic parents'? Paedophilia existed, exists and will exist. It's a sickness and fashion advertising campaigns have nothing to do with this. If a woman wears a short skirt does it mean we should ban such to stop rapists? Enough paranoia! Alex P.s. Oh yeah, and I am a scientist too. Last edited by Alex on Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
No, I don't accept that. This is all "in the eyes of the beholder stuff" and I accept that some may see some of these images as perhaps being sexual. I certainly see none of that, and I do not accept that this report makes any real points at all, except that its uthors have a barrow to push. It was interesting to see the story on this on the 7:30 report. The lady who wrote the report had these sorts of images plastered all over her wall. The point had already been made that pedophiles frequently have these images plastered all over their walls as well. Taking these points, and herself as an example, I guess this means that she, too, is a pedophile! They also had Kate (or is it Kathy) Lumby included in this report. She is a well respected expert in the fields of advertising and sexually offensive matters, and she, too, could see nothing wrong with the images. Further, she made the point that if we look hard enough at anything, we can see what we wich anywhere and everywhere, and that we run the risk of turning everyone into "pedophiles". Her arguments were well reasoned and put, and while she didn't rubbish the report, she certainly gave it little credence. I'd give far more credence to Lumby than to these other self-appointed experts.
Actually, very little. The lady who penned the report complained of a "bralette", showing the product, with a clearly evident Bonds tag. What was being displayed was a top for kids - female - that looked no different to the stuff the my mum bought for my sisted when I was about 12, and my sister would have been 4. No different at all. So it's called a "bralette". Who cares? What is sexy about that; it's a name? The same sort of product has been available for at least 40 odd years; there is nothing at all new about this. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
I won't be surprised with all this PC and paranoia that we'll end up with photos of manequins in catalogues instead. Then again, will people find something else to complain about?
Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Wayne - you bet! Manequinophilia...mmmm Alex
The 7.30 Report was worth watching. Unfortunately Video Podcasts of the 7.30 Report aren't available yet, but the transcript from last night's broadcast is HERE The transcript doesn't do it justice... I formed some fairly strong opinions about the Australia Institute. "Conservative", "Media grab" and "whinger" comes to mind.
The Australia Institute has actually done some interesting work - Clive Hamilton has done Growth Fetish and Affluenza, that provide interesting food for thought.
Unfortunately their response is invariably to demand more government regulation. In this instance, I don't think they have even demonstrated a problem, and yet are still asking for regulation, just in case. 
I think there has to be a very solid reason for governments to impose regulation on citizens, and the case is far from proved in this instance!
I agree. IMHO TAI is a necessary antidote to the near-total domination of current Federal Government policy by anti-science, politically correct (i.e., if it's right-wing, it's correct) ideologues.
The last paragraph says: "A forthcoming Australia Institute Discussion Paper will offer a range of policy measures that could reduce the risk of harm to children based on an assessment of the current regulatory frameworks covering the major sources of children’s sexualisation – advertising, girls’ magazines and television program. " I don't know if this could be counted as a demand for "more" government regulation, since there are lots of laws governing minors already. Also, I don't think that demanding government regulation necessarily comes into other issues that TAI raise, such as how industry writes the Government's global warming policy, or how the Alan Jones audience demographic (mainly old conservatives) means that governments don't really need to worry about what he says, since he doesn't change anyone's mind about anything.
I remember this issue being raised (and it was something that I had never thought about before) when I was doing teacher training 16 years ago, and the few examples shown then were far more egregious than the ones in this new report, so maybe there has been some underlying public consciousness of child sexualisation in advertising over the years. --Chuan
Holy Crap Wendell,
Look what you have done by posting these images. My opinion : Great shots as you are a true fashion photographer. : I think they look too sexy for little girls. : I think you might have crossed the line when it comes to trying to make them look like little girls. : You have a powerfull camera & a powerfull creative imagination, I think with all the adult photo shoots you have been doing, subconsiously this is what just came out. I might be wrong ? I'm not having a personal dig at you here, just my thoughts which may be totaly wrong. Live, Learn & become even better from this. After all this is what this forum is all about. Mic
We will have to wait and see the detail - there is only a summary at this stage. However, using the "metaphor" of corporate paedophilia is blatantly inflammatory, and IMO way over the top. This either means TAI is seeking publicity, or they see the issue as incredibly serious and therefore in need of significantly more regulation.
From my experience with paedophiles, I can assure you they DO NOT need images like the ones shown in the TAI report.
I have had the pleasure of arresting several of these type of scumbag and although they often have collections of 'mail order' pornography, they also always have 'scrap' books with cut out underwear adds from 'Big W' and 'Best and Less' catalogues, hardly images of sexualised children. Are these images to be banned also??? I think this report was released with the knowledge it would get attention because of the publics fear and the level of sensationalism in the media. 2x D700, 2x D2h, lenses, speedlights, studio, pelican cases, tripods, monopods, patridges, pear trees etc etc
http://www.awbphotos.com.au
Thanks for showing evidence to a point I raised earlier Raskill. Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
It seems the links to the PDF files either don't work any more, or have been altered. I can only find the summary of the report (not the report itself), and it looks like the Appendix has been taken offline.
I am not very smart, so can someone please explain to me why TAI needs to be balanced and completely impartial, and what benefit would be derived if they were?
I am sure that almost all policy organisations (including environmental, welfare, human rights and other groups) are not impartial and completely balanced. If they were, their message would not be loud enough to hear. My view, and it is only that, is that these organisations must be completely partisan and biased to counter the message which is distributed, in this case, by corporations who, in their own way, are extremely partial who need to be regulated to ensure their behaviour is controlled. The argument here is that the images of minors are structured to be teh same as images of adults which, it is argued, are generally taken to promote the idea of sexual attractiveness as I said earlier. As I keep saying, it is important to understand the motives of these corporations, which are seldom aligned with those of the general public. P
Patrick, While there's certainly no need for them to be impartial, my preference, when reading reports, road tests, or whatever, is to see them coming from a point of neutrality, and to see them examining the problem (whatever it may be) from all aspects, and thus they can provide a more rounded view of the whole situation. If there is not that neutral starting point, I generally feel - and it's too often the truth - that some perspectives will be glossed over or not given due credence, or perhaps entirely missed altogether, and for me that is to the detriment of the credibility of the report being presented. Start from a neutral point, examine all of the variables, and then reach a conclusion .... seems like a more reasonable (and reasoned) approach to me. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Gary, I understand what you are saying, however, my view is that they are simply balancing the view espoused by the corporations whose point of view is very unbalanced.
If this is therefore given, it is then up to us to form a balanced view by assessing their information and that provided by the corporations, right wing parties, etc. P
It says more about the minds and the sexual fetish of the viewer than anything else. Some people find the genital penetration of animals arousing, some find assaulting corpses arousing, others find urination or defecation arousing. I would group the people who find 'children' (however defined) arousing in the same categories as above - ie. suffering from a psychological disorder.
Wendell, I don't feel any of your images crosses the line. Some may be in poses more suited to adults (as was demanded by the clothing company clients I would imagine), but they're certainly not in lurid or sexually suggestive poses for children. Personally, I see this "report" as jumping on the bandwagon of the fear and paranoia surrounding pedophilia - and the authors having an agenda to push, all hiding behind the false pretenses of 'saving the children'. Perhaps they need to save themselves first.
For those that may be interested, it seems that DJ's are suing the authors of this report.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/djs-sues-over-child-exploitation-claims/2007/02/04/1170523959855.html
Geoff,
Thanx for that. It looks to be a real catfight. About the only person who makes any real sense in that debate is Catharine Lumby. She seems to feel that the report was somewhat OTT, and I repect her PoV and pretty well agree with it. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
WoW
 what a topic.
Wendell, I wonder & only you would know what was going through your mind when you shot the images 
Do you regret doing the shoot ? Do people look at you differently now ? Will it effect anybody ? Has it effected you ? As long as you know the truth and you only did it as a paid job, so be it. Imagine a sick pervert PF looking at the images and getting off on them Sick F#%ks. There is a big responsiblity we hold when we make decisions, but what comes from those decisions remains to be seen. I don't think you had any other idea's in your head. What will be will be. What has been done, has been done. It's probably something that will teach you and many others. Mic
hi mic
you already responded to this thread earlier I don't think it's fair to be put on the spot to defend myself again, there is too much opinion on the subject, i thought i put this all behind me to answer your question i didnt take the job simply for the money the company had faith in me and being a person of high moral standing and taste they trusted me to deliver to better understand here is some of the history 1. i had to get checked out by several kids welfare companies, even though im a young guy 2. to work with kids in queensland i had to get a blue card 3. parents were there at the shoot they saw and approved everything no one stopped me 4. fred bare management was there(they do have a kid) and are great responsible people they have been doing childrens fashion for OVER 12 years. If they were remotely dodgy or had flawed judgement in choosing photographers they wouldn't of lasted that long in the industry and this report would of got them long ago. I shot the 2005 winter campaign as well to rave reviews 5. all images past a whole team of marketing people, fred bare management and the parents of the children no one complained 6. the fred bare campaign is a far way from the other pathetic examples used in that report, it shouldn't even have been used as an example since it has it's discredited the company and myself 7. fred bare choose me because of my professionalism and high moral standing, just because i shoot high fashion doesn't mean my perception or judgement is warped. I love all things and i see the world clearly and beautifully you can't judge me simply by formulating your perception of me from the few images i post here, there is so much more to me. lots of people think it's tasteful and o.k others who are ultra conservative and have agendas think it's borderline and borderline in this context means trouble but since there is so much heat on this subject even the sightest misinterpretation of the end result is blown out of proportioned and has a huge negative reaction, Fred Bare and myself are an easy target. People don't look at me differently but reading this thread again is just painful so this whole thing has affected me I still get work and i still have the respect of the industry and many other people. If your wondering if im more cautious and sensetive to the issues now the answer is YES and i always was before and even during the shoot the editing process gave me a chance to sift out any potentially mature images. you have to take a long look at the history of photography and art and take a closer look at my work you can deconstruct my response and find flaws in it till the cows come home but i don't have the time to defend myself against every conceivable notion so i'll end it here.
Wendell is ok. Fred Bare chose Wendell to make the clothes look as good as he can. Let's all give Wendell a breather from discussing this, he has been dragged into this enough already.
thankyou glen
thing is i can stand up and face the music Fred Bre is o.k too i defend them till the bitter end I was responsible for concept and Art Direction major parts in the alleged issues of the end result this whole thing is an issue of TASTE and JUDGEMENT at the end of the day I produced work that presented the kids and the fashion in the best possible light
The whole issue is political correctness gone mad. Ban children full stop then everyone will be quiet and happy. This country is becoming a police state and I can't believe that people are so naive. Sick minds will see sick things everywhere. You dont need Fred Bare catalogue to get a sicko off, he will be happy with the Target or Kmart one from children's section - available in his mail box, shot by a mediocre photographer.
Wendell should wear this one like a badge. He's done an outstnading work and has been doing excellent work. There is nothing even remotely wrong or provocative about the work he did. Alex
Sorry Wendelt for re visiting, I didn't know this was the same Thread as before, I thought it was something new that popped up again.
Hope you are ok and can just move on. Either way I bet you have learnt a lot and that is a positive. Mic
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
