Interesting subject here and I totally understand your frustration.
The issue of the high risk posed to children by strangers is simply a myth.
The simple factual reality, for all of us, is that any risk of harm or
violence is predominantly linked to the family and the close circle of
a person, not strangers!
Furthermore, the associated issue of sexual risk against children by
strangers is another moral panic or propagandistic myth, which not
surprisingly is amplified by most of the media and most of the
politicians (both working in what they perceive as their own
interests: selling papers, winning votes etc). Again, it's the family
members, friends and close environment that pose a proportionately
much higher risk.
One of the serious problems of course is that social policies are
often based on such myths and moral panics. (Other areas which
historically show this include the socially and very particula images
of dangerous youth, dangerous 'races', dangerous immigrants, dangerous
religions etc etc.). All those share in common their weak biased ideas
and awfully captivating effect on the public, the way they target,
stigmatise and attempt to exclude specific groups of people upon
projections and fears of stronger established social groups, and
mostly for me, how they hide where the real danger lies (for example:
domestic violence, corporate crime and state violence against its
citizens or other states -most of these crimes -commited every day
just see the news- go unpunished and often not even seen as crimes!)
The vicious circle we live in is that policies, such as the one you
describe, reinforce a myth who seems to need more of those policies
etc... and we all live in a 'nice' seemingly coherent, but confused
world of mixed realities, irrationaliry and vested interests.. A
photographer who has been affected most from such nonsense lately is
Sally Mann.Yet, all of us we might be affected sooner or later,
because either of our colour of skin, or the place we take photographs
of, or the subject we choose and other sad things..
This all is not an issue of Political Correctness, but, as we see, a
social much deeper one...
C.
On 7/23/06, Brian Swale <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> In thinking about the topic I raised yesterday, it makes me wonder how
> Dianne Arbus and her classic studies of children in Central Park NY would
> be viewed if taken today.
>
> Does the PC attitude of officials running public amenities mean that the
> photographic record of young children (and other people) in and around water
> has become a forbidden topic, and if so, what should the photographic
> community have to say about it.
>
> As I hinted previously, if I were into people photography, I would be tempted
> to hone my skills at photography by subterfuge. Actually, I think that noted
> photographers such as Ann Westra and Brian Brake did exactly this, to get
> some of the classic images they did. For example, an XA, or a Rollei 35, or
> an Olympus "O" product, sitting casually on the knee, all ready to go when
> the time is right.
>
> Cheers, Brian
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|