Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hummingbird
On 08/05/2011 22:09:08
Wadda ya think, the girl is 10. http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/parents-fury-at-10-year-old-supermodel.html
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By LlamaLlamaDuck
On 08/05/2011 22:11:43
I have no words... I really don't.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/05/2011 22:18:09
I would say the first picture wouldn't be TOO bad if the heels and leopard print wasn't in the photo. I think that her makeup is fine in this one. The one that bothers me is the one with dark red lipstick. That is shouting "seductive" to me if an adult took that pose. I don't look at children as "seductive" but this photo is bordering on that line big time.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By LlamaLlamaDuck
On 08/05/2011 23:05:47
If it were a kid playfully posing it would be one thing... but really it's not. Where the hell were her parents when they were taking those photos?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Cien
On 08/05/2011 23:28:27
Honestly, I don't think the first one (of her in the red dress) is problematic at all. Maaaybe the leopard print, but that doesn't really even bother me. Sure, she looks like a kid playing dress-up, but so do most pageant girls, so that first photo...I don't know. I don't really see the "sexy" or "sultry" part of that particular one. That said, they get progressively worse; the gold one with the bunny is getting closer to that grown-up model feel, and then the one of her in the sleeveless dress is just sort of uncomfortably weird. And is it just me, or is it also kinda creepy that the 15-page spread is called "Gifts"? The one part of the article that bugged me was this:
It included shots of...Thylane...with her legs and neckline bared.
Oh, gods, we can't have anyone showing their legs AND neckline! Horror of horrors! (I know what they mean, but the phrasing sort of makes it laughable.)
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heart
On 08/05/2011 23:32:35
I had actually seen [url=http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qLJN7vtK4xaAqxQAFgEcSQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/401/2011/08/05/voguead2_130148.jpg]this left picture[/url] out & about somewhere & didn't even realize she was that young. She's a fantastically talented model. I agree with Lauren... where the heck were her parents? I'm kind of creeped out, but I can get behind this quote:
On one fan page a woman wrote: “I don't find this unusual, she is super talented...plus it’s French Vogue!!! FRENCH. VOGUE. Totally ok."
They wanted to get people talking, and we're talking. Outrage sells magazines. Don't feed the troll, yeah?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By SiyoNqoba
On 08/06/2011 00:21:09
She is exquisite. But yes, those photos are disgusting considering her age. She'll be just as beautiful for years to come. Let the little girl be a little girl.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Kekoa
On 08/06/2011 01:20:41
The only one I find outright disgusting is the one in the goldish dress with the low neckline. I can see how they're inappropriate to some people. However, I was a super girly girl and my mom would deck me out in full makeup for fun sometimes and I'd walk around the house playing dress up with her clothes. Modeling isn't real. This little girl is playing dress up. I would guess with 99% certainty that when she's not modeling, she's wearing jeans and sneakers and playing like any other ten year old. If they'd left out the gold outfit, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. We're all suckers for cute little kids playing grownup. Is she being sexualized or is she just playing grownup like lots of little girls do (but with a makeup artist and better clothes)? That's entirely up to opinion which is why stories like this cause such a fuss.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panic
On 08/06/2011 07:59:15
I don't have a problem with the pictures per se. She's fully covered and I don't think any of the poses are overtly sexual. However, I see these photos as part of a larger problem - the fashion industry's sexualization of children (those 16-year-old catwalk models are children IMO). But that's not a new problem. This is from the 70s.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By aerial
On 08/06/2011 09:08:12
No worse than "Toddlers in Tiaras"
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By webstAr
On 08/06/2011 09:15:47
The ones in that article aren't as bad as some of them in this one: http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/thylane-blondeau-the-10-year-old-supermodel Sorry, but that's not a child playing dress-up, any way you slice it.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By tumblebug
On 08/06/2011 09:46:45
In nearly every photo she has the same dumb look. I'm not a fan of her look personally.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/06/2011 10:28:50
^ I think the actual model is doing her job well. I think she is stunning and has a bright future ahead of her.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Chaconne
On 08/06/2011 12:34:05
I'm not a big fan of this. When I did photography professionally I was asked on occasion to do this sort of thing, but I only did it once (before I knew anything about the pageant circuit.) A colleague had a daughter, then about age 9, who was into pageantry (actually I think the mother was really into it more than the girl.) The father (parents were divorced) was also one of my students in a portraiture class I taught. The girl I did wasn't in the league of this girl and what I shot was nowhere near as provocative. I guess I lump this into the same bag as Jon-Benet Ramsey, the six or seven year old pageant girl who was murdered in the 1990's, though the photos I've seen of Jon-Benet struck me more as a six-year old with some make-up on rather than anything provocative. I thought of those photos as somewhere between bizarre and comical. The photos Hummingbird linked to strike much the same way. BTW the girl I did soon lost interest in pageantry, didn't find work as a model because our area really has no fashion industry...you really have to be in NYC or LA for this and her interested, according to her dad went more to theatrical things, particularly musical comedy but the time she was in high school. I do not know what became of her. She'd would be in her late 30's by now. I photographed quite a few 13 year old girls in a variety of settings in conjunction with their Bat Mitzvahs. Often I made a big poster (which was used as a sign-in/memory board at the reception) and I did the girls (and some guys) in whatever fantasy they pictured themselves as...athlete, theater, dancing, fashion model etc. This can work for a 13 year old girl much better and more appropriately than a girl of, say, age 10. I would much rather see young girls photographed in the manner of the Italian Vogue offshoot which featured children's fashions and photographs children as children (this magazine does ages 0 to about 10 or 11, then they graduated to something akin to Teen Vogue which for the most part shoots teens as teens.) Some rather famous actresses and models did do this sort of thing though when they were young. Tatum O'neal was tarted up as a child prostitute in Paper Moon. Mila Jovanovitch was shooting things far older than she was at the beginning of her career...photographers played on her rather extreme tallness. Brooke Shields was perhaps the most famous child model, often presented as older than her age (again the tallness factor.) Some neighborhood teen girls are taking photography in school. One of their parents (age peer of my own kids) remembered me from my little league team photo days and asked me to critique their work. I've been coaching them in fashion photography and lending them some of my old lighting equipment, but as of yet I haven't done any shooting myself. They are trying to emulate Teen Vogue,Your Prom, and Seventeen which I think is totally appropriate for them. The youngest is almost 14 and the two others are 15 and 16. Jon
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Hoosier
On 08/06/2011 13:35:33
I don't care for it at all. Kids are adorable as they are, it just looks like they are trying to make her a mini adult. It doesn't look like dress up to me, if it were the shoes would be too big, she would have a purse that is too large, etc. That's what I remember from playing dress up at least. I know this is Vogue and all but I think they could've gone about it a different way. It reminds me of my cousin actually. She had dressed up as a leopard for halloween one year when she was probably 8 or 9. The costume was super tight, she had weird heels on, and quite a bit of makeup. Obviously not her fault, but her parents. Anyway, she was lying on the couch in their livingroom watching TV and her mom saw her. Her mom then decided that it would be a good idea to take a picture of her posing seductively (according to my aunt she was already in a "sexy" position...who says that about their child under 10??). She showed me and thought it was just the cutest thing that her young daughter looked so "sexy." I was so incredibly disgusted and still am. I just don't get it.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By tumblebug
On 08/06/2011 16:03:12
^ Those photos are much better. At least she had some diversity with her expression. Much better than the "Hi I would like to sell you some crack" look.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By tumblebug
On 08/06/2011 16:25:54
^ That is disgusting.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Hoosier
On 08/06/2011 16:40:11
That is wrong on a million levels. Who lets their kid do that?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By bethnee_rose
On 08/06/2011 17:13:14
I feel so sad for that child. I was shocked but not toooo horrified (Have seen some worse things on toddlers & tiaras!) until I saw the picture in that last link. My jaw literally dropped, and apart from that I really have no words. That isn't art, it is child pornography. And her parents need to be LOCKED UP for letting someone take a photo like that... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!?!?! That child needs to be taken to a family that has even HALF a brain, and maybe just one iota of common sence that would tell them photographing a child naked in make up standing in a seductive pose and then allowing it to be put on the internet is NOT A GOOD IDEA!!! Turns out I did have some words. I am so upset!
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hummingbird
On 08/06/2011 17:26:36
I know what category I'd put that last one in and it ain't artistry!
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/06/2011 18:08:42
^ I actually don't think it is porn, so don't feel bad. I have seen photos by this very famous photographer ( not sure what the name is) that has naked people in the photo sometimes. There was this photo of children in a warzone setup and they were naked. I can't recall the name of this photographer, but I know she was in some nature magazines. End of hijack
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By hummingbird
On 08/06/2011 19:28:13
There's a big difference between a photographer who sets the subject matter to one who takes the shots as they happen Jazzy and that's what a photographer in a war zone does, this kid was not photographed in a war zone, all of those shots were purposely posed. That was my point, is this right?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By J1ll
On 08/07/2011 12:58:32
As the mother of 2 daughters and someone who has struggled with self image my entire life I despise this overt sexualization of children. I'm not saying it's new because it's not but it gets progressively worse. I do not want my daughters to see this and think for a fraction of a second it's ok. And let me point out- if a Father had his daughter dress up and pose this way in the privacy of their home it could be grounds for pornography. Why is it different because it's a professional photographer coupled with one more set of parents looking to cash in on a famous child.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heart
On 08/08/2011 16:14:27
Art isn't porn. I don't think it's child porn. And child porn laws are notoriously overly rigid and ridiculous, so I think that is neither here nor there...
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/08/2011 16:21:14
I'm a bit surprised that would be considered KP, interesting what I learn each day. I guess I thought of KP having sexual undertones. A topless child doesn't seem to ring too many bells for me, because I used to run around topless as a kid at the ocean etc. I guess that I am not a mother, so I don't have that "sixth sense" in what is considered too sexy. For me, that child with red lipstick rang bells, but the topless one seemed innocent like a kid playing in the ocean. If she were my child, I still wouldn't want her topless because I wouldn't want that to come up when she is an adult. At a few job interviews they asked how I felt about porn, have I posed in porn. I think being topless as a child would create a possible blur/obsticle in adulthood.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panic
On 08/08/2011 17:04:24
Just because I wouldn't let my kid do it doesn't make it kiddie porn. This is NOT PORN. And when you say it is, you're making a mockery of the families who have legitimately been affected by the kiddie porn industry. There is absolutely nothing overtly sexual about these images. My mother is an amateur photographer, and she loves to dress little girls up in all kinds of outfits - including wedding dresses and couture gowns. Do I think it's creepy? Sure. Would I let my daughter do it? Not for Vogue, although I probably wouldn't be able to stop my mother from doing whatever she wanted. Still, it's not porn. Clearly. NOT PORN.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/08/2011 17:17:46
^ The photo that got deleted was the girl topless without any time of top. She was just wearing pants. I agree that it isn't porn, but I'm not sure if you missed the topless photo that people are talking about.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Christine
On 08/08/2011 17:24:20
Yes, part of a bigger problem. Aside, PLEASE don't let this child walk in these shoes. (Notice the poor fit...) Keep On Dancing*
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panic
On 08/08/2011 17:46:06
The photo that got deleted was the girl topless without any time of top.
Aah. I didn't see it. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Europeans and Americans have VERY different views about breasts (generalizing, of course). Are we debating whether girls should be photographed topless? Or are we debating the modeling pictures posted in the OP? Those seem like 2 separate topics.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/08/2011 18:01:20
^I think the thread got a bit hijacked by the topless photo. I guess we should get back to debating the Original Topic because the majority of the members missed the topless photo.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Spiorad
On 08/08/2011 20:13:51
^^^^Topphilly- The first thing I thought of when I saw those pictures was that I thought they were sexed up. The second was that her feet looked HUGE and it was a horrible idea to put her in those things because she looks so out of proportion! But she is a beautiful girl and I wish her all the best!
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heart
On 08/08/2011 20:26:43
If you look for the topless photo it's out there. Just saying.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By MarlaSinger
On 08/08/2011 20:35:42
Do the Vogue pictures remind anyone else of those ads Steve Madden used to run? [image=http://www.bwgreyscale.com/adimg02/adv_0978.JPG] [image=http://www.bwgreyscale.com/adimg03/adv_1374.JPG] That's the first thing I thought of when I saw how out of proportion her feet looked to the rest of her body.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/08/2011 20:37:29
Oh my gosh. I searched her _____ ( pm me if you want to know) There was a photo of her topless on a bed, with a boy who was also topless standing by her. This was NOT innocent by any means. The boy seemed older and had a lot of muscle, and this girl was topless and sitting curled up on the white sheets. I know this is a hijack, but I am wondering what these parents are thinking.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Heart
On 08/08/2011 21:19:02
Proceed with caution. Golden-star-mod-approved-by-imadanseur links to censored no-wait,you-really-think-that's-seductive?-Because-I'm-not-into-feathers images below. [spoiler] [url=http://i56.tinypic.com/21akenn.jpg]You really can't see anything.[/url] [url=http://i55.tinypic.com/5d9itg.png]I've seen kids do this because... gasp... it was hot out and there was no AC.[/url][/spoiler]
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By DeStijl
On 08/08/2011 22:08:06
My family has photos of my sisters and I topless in the backyard growing up. The difference between the existence of those photos, and these photos is that these photos we're staged. There isn't any innocence to them. They aren't a candidly captured moment of childhood innocence and play bound for family albums - they're staged fashion photographs intended for wider publication. Possibly intended to sell something. Don't go ignoring the context in which they we're produced, because I think thats the underlying issue here, not the content itself. You can't just be like "Oh but kids are naked all the time and its natural!" - because yeah, kids are naked all the time and it is natural ... in the safety of their own homes whilst going about normal kid business, NOT under the flash bulb of strangers for a world famous publication. This does cross some lines for me. I'm referring mainly to the photos Heart posted. More so, it crosses a line because this kid is only 10. Her semi naked photos are all over google for anyone to see and discuss. She is 10 years old, how can she possibly understand the ramifications of this whole saga? How could her mother or father possibly be comfortable with the notion that anyone in the world can now access topless pictures of their 10 year old? Fashion photography has always had an obsession with these dirty-blonde blue eyed aryan-type children. I find it creepy whether they're clothed or not, really. I don't put make up on a cow and present it as a sophisticated individual, because it is what it is. Kids are kids, why exactly do we need to portray them as anything else?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panic
On 08/08/2011 22:19:12
There isn't any innocence to them. They aren't a candidly captured moment of childhood innocence and play bound for family albums - they're staged fashion photographs intended for wider publication. Possibly intended to sell something. Don't go ignoring the context in which they we're produced, because I think thats the underlying issue here, not the content itself.
I assume you're inferring that these are pornographic. Do you think any of your reasoning matters to a pedophile? I think not. A ten-year-old boob is a ten-year-old boob no matter what context it's in.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By CheesePlusCake
On 08/08/2011 22:51:14
In regards to the original Vogue pictures, I think they're more comical than sexual. I didn't think there was anything wrong with them because I found them hard to take seriously. The clothes are big on her, the shoes are huge, and she looks ridiculous with all of that makeup on. At least she doesn't have skin showing. I don't think it's tasteful, but I don't think it's pornographic either.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By DeStijl
On 08/08/2011 23:07:08
I assume you're inferring that these are pornographic. Do you think any of your reasoning matters to a pedophile? I think not. A ten-year-old boob is a ten-year-old boob no matter what context it's in.
No,that wasn't exactly what I was inferring. I don't personally see them as being 'pornographic' , but I don't doubt that a pedophile would. I just don't think its a logical comparison to compare them with kids being topless in their own backyards or because there is no A/C, thats all. All I was saying is a line needs to be drawn between the two. If anything, I think just because we don't find something sexual, doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about protecting kids from people who do. I think the fact that these photos are so posed and so readily available on the internet invites trouble. I don't think that was the photographers intention , but I think it is a reality that we need to acknowledge.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By reel_faerie85
On 08/09/2011 05:57:36
I think the photos are very beautiful and well done, they are in fact stunning. However they do have a child in them and I feel the sexuality is a bit OTT. Saying that, I've seen kids out in the street wearing less and flouting it about.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Hoosier
On 08/09/2011 07:13:16
I just really think that kids have no place portraying adult sexuality. There is no point. I think it is completely distasteful. She is a pretty girl, she will still be pretty in more kid-friendly photo shoots.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By panic
On 08/09/2011 08:35:45
^Yeah, but if she only did kid-friendly shoots, we wouldn't be talking about her right now. Like it or not, the ad was super-effective.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By YumYumDoughnut
On 08/10/2011 17:57:21
In this case, I think the child is the brand. I didn't know about her until this whole thing, and now I am curious about her because she is a talented and gorgeous model. I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were using Vogue to make a name for their child within the whole world and not just France.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By Hoosier
On 08/10/2011 18:13:21
Maybe it's just me, but I typically don't buy products because I saw it in an ad (unless it is a sale ad lol!). My husband and I are both pretty particular about things so anything new we purchase has been researched (as far as electronics, etc goes). I am a jeans and t-shirt kind of girl so I don't even look at clothes ads. I buy the same type of jeans because they are the only ones that fit well and feel comfortable. Ads almost never make me want to buy something...the exception being food lol. So for me, this ad, or whatever it is supposed to be, is useless. But I won't even begin to argue with you, Panic, that controversial/shocking/etc ads can get more exposure and attention. And that can lead to more profits for the company. I just think there is a fine line that, when it comes to children, shouldn't be crossed.
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By dust2dust
On 08/12/2011 17:00:40
Am I the only one who thinks the 'problem' here is that the fashion industry is showing 20-40 year old women pictures of 10-16 years olds (cat walk models, advertising, ect) and saying that's what they should look like?
re: Child exploitation or photographic artistry
By SoloJazzDancer
On 08/18/2011 22:46:37
I agree the girl is beautiful. I wish I was as beautiful as her. That being said, she's 10 for heaven's sake! I'm not sure I would call it kiddy porn or child porn but its close. Can you imagine how many pedophiles bought that magazine? They say how easy it is over the Internet to find out anything about someone including e-mail and home address. Look at how many movie and TV stars are stalked and they are grownups. Her parents didn't think of any of that? What kind of parents are these people? I also agree that the title of the pictures, Gifts, is way past creepy. For those who had photos of themselves without clothes when they were kids, unless you have one of those creepy, hands on relatives that should be arrested, how many pedophiles saw that photo? How many pedophiles do you think saw her photos? It's just way to creepy for words and something should be done about parents who let their way to young kids do that. They are the ones in charge and I think they aren't doing their jobs.

© 2022 - www.dance.net -- 08/09/2022 13:42:25