Изложеност: Што научивме од затворената изложба на Џок Стурџес

These questions are not about children in general, nudity or creativity, but specifically this exhibition “Without embarrassment” in Moscow, at the Lumiere Brothers Center for Photography, those photographs of Jock Sturges that were presented on it, and those people who (did not) see them , that is, all of us. We do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these questions.

1.

Do the photographs cause psychological harm to the models they depict?

This is perhaps the key question if we approach this story from the point of view of psychology. “Children of a certain age cannot be fully responsible for their actions; their sense of personal boundaries is still unsteady, and therefore they are highly victimized,” says clinical psychologist Elena T. Sokolova.

The body of a child should not be made an erotic object, this can lead to hypersexualization at an early age. In addition, no amount of agreement between the child and his parents can take into account what emotions these pictures will evoke in him as he grows up, whether they will become a traumatic experience or remain a natural part of his family’s lifestyle.

It can be argued, as some psychologists do, that the mere act of being photographed does not violate boundaries and is not in any way violent, even mild, given that Sturges’ models lived in nudist communes and spent the warm season naked. They did not undress for filming, did not pose, but simply allowed them to be filmed by a person who lived among them and whom they had known well for a long time.

2.

How do viewers feel when looking at these photos?

And here, apparently, there are as many sensations as there are people. The spectrum is extremely wide: admiration, peace, enjoyment of beauty, the return of memories and feelings of childhood, interest, curiosity, indignation, rejection, sexual arousal, anger.

Some see purity and rejoice that the human body can be depicted and perceived not as an object, others feel objectification, subtle depravity and violation of boundaries in the photographer’s gaze.

“The eye of a modern city dweller is to some extent cultivated, globalization has led us to greater literacy regarding the development of children, and most of us, like the Western cultural viewer, are permeated with psychoanalytic allusions,” Elena T. Sokolova reflects. “And if not, then our primitive senses may respond directly.”

The most surprising thing is that some commentators try to challenge the reality of other people’s feelings, do not believe the impressions, the words of other people., suspect each other of hypocrisy, barbarism, sexual perversion and other mortal sins.

3.

What happens in a society where such an exhibition takes place without hindrance?

We see two points of view. One of them is that in such a society there are no more important taboos, no moral boundaries, and everything is permitted. This society is deeply sick, it is unable to protect from lustful eyes the best and purest thing in it — children. It is insensitive to the trauma inflicted on child models and indulges people with unhealthy tendencies who rush to this exhibition because it satisfies their base instincts.

There is another point of view. The society in which such an exhibition is possible trusts itself. It believes that adult free people can afford to experience different feelings, even the most contradictory, even frightening ones, to realize and analyze them. Such people are able to understand why these pictures are provocative and what kind of reactions they provoke, to separate their own sexual fantasies and impulses from indecent acts, nudity from nudity in public places, art from life.

In other words, society as a whole considers itself healthy, enlightened and does not consider everyone who comes to the exhibition as latent or active pedophiles.

4.

And what can be said about the society where the attempt to hold such an exhibition failed?

And here, which is quite natural, there are also two points of view. Or this society is exclusively morally whole, firm in its convictions, distinguishing between good and evil, rejecting any hint of the sexual exploitation of children and protecting children’s innocence with all its might, even if we are talking about children from another country who grew up in a different culture. The very fact of showing a naked child’s body in an artistic space seems unacceptable for ethical reasons.

Either this society is exceptionally hypocritical: it feels deep depravity in itself, it is convinced that a significant part of its citizens are pedophiles, and therefore it is unbearable for it to see these pictures. They cause a reflex desire to abuse children, and then shame for this desire. However, supporters of this point of view say that they cherish the feelings of numerous victims of numerous pedophiles.

In any case, the only way out is not to see, not to hear, to ban, and in extreme cases, to wipe out from the face of the earth that which confuses and disturbs.

All these questions deserve to be thought about. Compare reactions, take into account the circumstances, put forward reasonable arguments. But at the same time, do not elevate individual taste to an absolute, honestly check with your own moral sense.

And most importantly, do not get too excited — in every sense.