Is the Tulip Pornographic

Is the Tulip Pornographic? Remarks on the Theme of "Nude Photography"

Wolf Vogel, Social Worker, Ludwigshafen

The American essayist Susan Sontag has a very radical take onthe desire to take pictures: "To photograph people means toinflict violence upon them; as one looks at them, as they havenever seen themselves, as one obtains knowledge about themwhich they themselves could never have, one changes them intoobjects, which one is able to symbolically possess." (SusanSontag, On Photography, Hansen Verlag, Munich, l978, pg. 20)

I am willing to bet that most feminists would underline everysingle clause of this statement, if they were to get theirhands on a copy of the English photographer David Hamilton'scoffeetable book of little naked or halfnaked nymphs.Nevertheless, were they to photograph their own children on aSunday stroll, or during a vacation, they would reject SusanSontag‘s polemic as outrageous. Is it actually the person perse who drives the debate over photography, or is it nudity?

As I was writing this, an AP news item came into my hands."In Court for Child Porn," reads the headline, with thefollowing text below it: "Yesterday, in the Major CrimesDivision of the Dortmund District Court, the 65-year-oldproprietor of a photography studio had to answer chargesrelating to the production and commercial distribution ofchild pornography. The State Attorney's Office accused the trained civil engineer of, between May 1987 and August 1991,having produced and sold nationally, through a catalogue, nudephotographs and pornographic films of eighteen girls rangingin age from six to l7. On the first day of trial, the accusedpersonally denied all of the charges. According to theState's Attorney, the accused had photographed andfilmed the children "almost naked in clearly provocativeposes" in his downtown Dortmund studio. Moreover he hadoffered his studios by the hour to customers, who themselveswould have photographed the children whom he personallyfurnished." (Mannheimer Morgen, l/22/94)

How would the "average citizen's moral sentiments" – as sooften conjured up by the Federal Supreme Court – react tosuch a report? Probably initially with indignation, and then,perhaps with a certain relief that the miscreant was, ofcourse, not able to elude his just punishment. Almost ahundred years earlier, Karl Kraus had looked deeply into thecitizen's heart: "Once again, a 'den of iniquity' has beenrooted out! The innocent reader of court reports believes, insuch cases, that prostitution and procuring have, henceforth,been brought to an end. The sophisticate mourns the fact thatone learns of an address too late." (Karl Kraus, Morality and Criminality, Kosel Verlag, Munich, l970, pg. 206 f.)

Let us return, for a moment, to the AP report. Namely, thatit is not a proper news story at all. They were photographed"almost naked." But, "almost naked" is not nude photography,let alone pornography. And what is a "clearly provocative"pose? Whom does it provoke, and why? On the other hand, thetulip provocatively presents its petals to the observer. Isthe tulip pornographic? Would the last sentence of the reportalso have been printed if they had been shooting a commercialfor toothpaste, shampoo, or margarine? Anyone who reads thisnews item carefully, and does not give free reign to his orher imagination, would be unable to ascertain – from this APspacefiller – precisely why a trained civil engineer, whoowns a studio in downtown Dortmund, stands accused in theDortmund District Court of producing and distributing childpornography. With a similar lack of actual substance, the APreport might just as well have read: "In Dortmund, a manstands before the Court who is accused of having committed acriminal act." But whose interest would have been drawnto this sort of statement? No one's. Therefore, the newseditor throws in a couple of headwords whose attention grabbing effect he can be sure of, thereby stoking thereader's imagination as well. Moreover he also arouses envyon the part of the morally upright citizen, why he, of allpeople, had no knowledge of the photo studio in downtownDortmund, why even he knew nothing of the catalog of beautifulgirls. It is unlikely that more than a hundred people knew ofthis ominous catalog; but now, after it's been withdrawn fromcirculation, there might well be thousands who wouldlove to get their hands on it.

What do the models themselves think about being photographed?In my vocation as a photojournalist, I've covered manyEuropean as well as non-European countries. Whether I was doing my work in a vacation spot or a slum, in the opencountryside or a center of culture, children would come up tome and ask to be photographed. When I was photographing thecathedral in Sicilian Syracuse, five boys of about ten yearsof age jumped in front of my camera and pointedly pulled down their swimming trunks. In north African countries, I was frequently asked by children and teenagers whether I might notalso be interested in turning my camera on the attribute oftheir manhood. When I politely said "no, thank you," theysometimes even seemed a little disappointed.

Examples of this kind are not unusual. Children are veryhappy to let themselves be photographed. Children are just asvain as adults. Moreover, there is scarcely any differencebetween girls and boys. It is not unusual for me to be askedby children on FKK [Freie Korper Korps, i.e., nudist] beachesto photograph them, once they hear that I am a "real" photographer. On occasion, this wish will even be conveyed tome by the parents. What children do not like, is when thefather tediously stands there fiddling with the camera forseveral minutes, before he finally clicks the shutter. Achild notices when a photographer knows his trade, which caneven make it possible for him or her to sit still for a longperiod of time.

He or she is proud that the photographer is paying somuch attention to him or her. He or she is proud of the photothat came out well, just as we adults are proud when we aresuccessful as photographers, in "making ourselves look a couple of years younger" in the picture. Moreover, children make no distinction between "respectable" and "indecent" or "dirty" photographs. This is a way of looking at things thatis typical of adults. Envy may often play a role here: Oneis – to be sure, subconsciously – jealous of youthfulbeauty, which one is no longer able to attain through exerciseand taking proper care of oneself.

Some years ago, the following event took place within my owncircle of acquaintances: A married couple took their twochildren, an eleven-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy, ona vacation to an FKK camp. The father took photographs of hiswife as well as the two children. The girl was particularlyfascinated by the photos, which showed the beginning of herphysical development, and she proudly brought a selection of the best photos – which showed her both with and withoutclothing – with her to school, showing them to select femaleschoolmates and their female teacher. As the girl wouldrather amusedly tell it the following day, the teacher's jawdropped. The teacher tried – referring to the photos – toimpress upon the girl that, when it comes to pictures whichare taken of people without any clothes on, which shouldn'teven be taken, need to be kept secret from otherpeople. Not letting this faze her, the girl told the teacher,in front of her classmates: "I think I'm beautiful, and Istand by my beauty, and therefore, I will decide who I'll showthe photos to." The parent-teacher conference about this,which was asked for by the latter, only caused the daughter todig in her heels even more; but that did not stop the teacherfrom subsequently trying to instill in the girl the feeling that she had done something wrong.

In our society, the theme of "nude photography" is subject toa strong moral judgment. Adults typically fail to understandthat children have a completely different set ofcriteria for assessing a photos or being photographed.Virtually all adults would certainly agree with the view thata nude photograph would be compromising, or even make onevulnerable to blackmail. This is adult thinking; childrenwould not be able to understand this point of view. It isonly at the inception of puberty, when the ability to engagein abstract thinking begins, that youth become susceptible tothe adult fear that a photograph showing one's nakedness couldhave negative consequences for the person depicted. Thereason why children do not have this fear is because theythemselves would never be tempted to use nude photos to exposeor even blackmail others, provided that adults have notpointed out this dubious "power" to them.

Children also do not place the same demands on a picture thatadults do. For the former, it is almost always enough thatthe photographer is seriously interested in them, and thatthey are, to some extent, presentable in the photograph.Children often put such photos on their bedroom wall;moreover, it is, to children, immaterial whether they areclothed or unclothed, provided that their surroundings do notrespond to it negatively. Children and youth – who have not been negatively influenced– usually have no objection tophotographs of them being published in journals, brochures, orcalendars. Anyone who takes a close look at advertising willbe able to see the joy and pride on young models' faces.

Several years ago, I had to take some publicity shots of atwelve-year-old boy violin player. The parents warmlywelcomed me, and consented to the photo shoot. I believe itwas the father who alluded to the fact that his son refuses tocooperate with any photographer, and that I should not get myhopes up. But for this home photo shoot, the boy wasa completely different person. He played the part of the "photo model" with joy, patience, and concentration;accordingly, the pictures were wonderful. When the most beautiful photo of this series got printed, the boyshowed it to his father, beaming with pride. The father tooka quick look at his proud, violin-playing son and grumbled,with no trace of irony, and with a sullen expression on hisface: "Sure, the photos look good and everything, but ofcourse, you can't play at all. Have you even practiced yettoday?" The boy was stunned, and on the verge of tears. Expecting to receive praise and encouragement, he got insteadhis father's envy, at the fact that his own son wouldobviously rather get photographed by a stranger. The fatheris, by the way, a pediatrician.

No one would be against taking photographs of a violin playing boy. Had I photographed the boy in the nude, I mighthave gotten a knock at my door from the police. The nudephotograph, above all of a child, is regarded as immoral andunpleasant. The unclothed body of a lovely young person mustbe covered, in order for him to be – in most people's opinion – "handsome" and "natural." The nude body is held to be"unnatural." In order to grasp the absurdity of this view,imagine someone covering a rose blossom before photographingit, and putting a coat on a deer fawn at the petting zoo, inorder to make it appear "natural." Again, the question: Isthe tulip, is the rose, is a fawn, pornographic?

Admittedly: Young people become furious – and rightly so – when photographs of them get passed around or publishedwithout their explicit consent, or even against theirexpressed wishes. They of course direct their rage at thebreach of trust, not against the pictures themselves. Withphotos of this kind, which we adults characterize as "nudephotos" or even "pornographic photos" (and themselvesfundamentally not knowing when these definitions arelegitimate and when they aren't), children do not makedistinctions based on our criteria. To this – to adults – controversial subject, all of the fat legal volumes wouldstrike children as absolutely ridiculous, if they wereactually asked for their opinion. Nevertheless, when theysee a photograph of themselves, children absolutely dojudge it as "good" or "not so good." The criteria by whichthis takes place is just as subjective as it is with usadults. We too are not happy with every photograph.