I briefly took a photojournalism class in college and as a result have a deep fondness for the freedom of photography in public space. In some countries this freedom has been curtailed. In France for example, you are not permitted to photograph children in public spaces, even in news situations. For some this is a privacy issue, but a number worry about the long-term results of these laws. Photography in media and art, has played an important role in recording and telling history. Can you imagine someone telling Henri Cartier Bresson he was not permitted to photograph a young boy buying gorceries? Or if someone had stopped Dorthea Lange from her series on families in the Depression Era?
Laws such as these are one of the motivating forces behind Polixeni Papapetrou's Between Worlds series. She presents children as a hybrid: both animal and child, both leisure-seeker and field worker, both shaman and innocent. Despite bright colors and whimsical depictions, this unexplained dichotomy leaves the viewer uneasy. Although their faces are obscurbed by animal heads, they aren't "play-acting;" they appear to be engaged in all sorts of activities, but none are them of children in sterotypical acts of frivolity.
Her work really picks apart the cultural concept and representation of childhood: what is the true condition of childhood and how do we commonly choose to depict it? An archetype of what childhood is has led to extreme laws that span media and art. Yet, as soon as teenage-dom is acheived over-sexualized images of these same individuals is fully acceptable. By hiding and silencing the darker side of childhood what sort of issues are created? This series seems to speak to those issues and the confusion that arises from mis-matched signals. The title itself could be an indication of those who stand between childhood and adulthood, or minds which wander between reality and fantasy...
This series which instantly captivated my eye, quickly occupied my mind and left me pondering the very issues Polixeni sensitively addresses. A very thoughtful and thorough article on Between Two Worlds can be found here.
all Polixeni Papapetrou
all Polixeni Papapetrou
**It is also illegal to photograph children in Spain and Germany; this is not an exclusively French law or necessarily a characteristic example of French laws.
33 comments:
these are neat!
Beautiful photographs, an exact depiction of those in between stages of childhood and teenage years, which are so immersed in confusion
These are fantastic
Fascinating photographs!
Those are amazing photographs!
http://andohsofancy.blogspot.com
these are awesome photographs. you definetly bring up an important topic about media laws about children
Amazing post -- very informative and beautiful! XO
Wow...I never knew laws like that existed. I can understand the need for privacy, but still...
Just another reason to be glad to be an American. =)
I do love those shots...very creative.
OMGosh! Thank you so much for sharing these. I love them so much and doubt i would have found them on my own.
I thought the first one was you =P
I gave you an award!!
check it out here
http://bellesmee.blogspot.com/2010/09/tanti-baci-award.html
Bellesme
Thats quite a concept to tackle but she does so swimmingly in these photos
I love these... so awe inspiring! I'd love to get another comment from you on my blog! :) it was so very nice of you!
love, polly :D
What you've mentioned is very thought provoking; and true; these children in the pictures doesn't... portray children as we often think they are!
It's probably an understatement but I think that you're an awesome writer! You're one of those people that I envy in school; churning out such beautiful, yet intelligent materials.
Kudos!
They're certainly interesting. I particularly like the bird's heads, the two boys on the beach and the girl with the owl head. But they law forbids photographing children in public spaces altogether, or only spontaneously/without permission? The French are full of slightly strange/troubling laws, but I try and give them the benefit of the doubt in many cases... And the portrayal of children throughout history is very interesting indeed. I've always disliked the candy-coated image of the last 150 years or so, but that may be because I don't much care for children...
Where I live (argentina)photography can be sometimes an issue, people is paranoid (and I can't say without a reason) and believe that under every unasked shot there's a dark reason. If you shot a building they may think you want to plan a robbery, if you photograph a kid that you want to kidnap him, etc... And it's a real shame, because I live in an incredible city with an amazing history and buildings that we end up hesitating to photograph unless you want the police behind your back. Of course, you can always ask for permission but sometimes you miss that moment for a unique shot, sometimes there's no time to ask.
Well, I just wanted to reflect that France is not the only country with that kind of problems. I'm not aware if there's any kind of law related but the threads are enough.
As for the photos they are great, a little creepy (which I guess is one of the intentions) but great. I'm still having nighmares with Donny Darko's bunny...
I'm right in the middle of this really intense book called regarding the pain of others by susan sontag. Its about photography and war, it really gives you some perspective on what is public and what isn't. There are actually no pictures in the book which makes it just so much more eerie. These pictures are really beautiful though, thanks for sharing, I love how they are shot, even though they are a little creepy they aren't too over the top.
Thank you for such an interesting and insightful post. I will definitely check out the article you linked to when I get a moment. I was unaware of the French law forbidding photographs to be taken of children in public places. It reminded me of a situation a friend and I found ourselves in several years ago while vacationing in Maine. We were walking a scenic trail and spotted a father and daughter sitting on a bench looking out at the water. It would have made for the sweetest photograph, but we were unsure if it was alright for us to take it without their permission. I'm sure we could have gotten away with it without a problem, or we could have asked, but still, if it doesn't violate any laws does it then become an issue pertaining to social mores? I haven't thought about this for some time. I think it's worth looking into.
laws like are always troublesome. france has some strange laws that i think infringe upon regular life too much.
your article is very interesting. I'm a french reader and blogger and I never tire of reading your blog. Your photographs are really amazing, and so your style. Sorry for my bad english ;)
I hope you enjoyed your trip in France.
what great photos. beyond surreal. love it. thanks for sharing.
thank you thank you so much for this! i've been looking for photographers like her, this is the best inspiration for my photography! ♥
i'm so happy now :D
thank you!!!
oh thanks for sharing!
the concept behind these photographs is so interesting
xoxo
boy I ADORE this!!!!!!!!!
Mmm, I'm French and I never heard of this law... I mean, a law specifically dedicated to children (I know you're supposed to ask for someone's permission if you want to take their picture in the street though, especially if you intend to publish it online or in print). Where did you heard this? If this law really exists though, it doesn't shock me that much.
When I was in the UK, I was walking in the street and noticed a building with some beautiful architectural details. So I was starting to take pictures of it when a woman arrived and yelled at me because it was forbidden to take pictures of a school! I didn't even notice it was a school... There was no children around, I was just photographying the building in itself, and yet, someone found it shocking.
I think there is not comparison between the photos of Henri Cartier Bresson and what is happening nowadays in France. When we analyze some event we must do it thinking about the moment it happened, or it could give us a wrong perspective. Is not the same context and therefore it needs different analysis. But, this new french censure could be seen as a symptom of the french contemporary society and its fear of losing privacy at the begining of a new era of social networks and easy sharing.
Now, I belive this fascinating work you present has not much to do with any criticism of the french society. But, it talks about contemporary subjectivities, how we perceive ourselves, and clearly about sexual issues. Yes, completely uncanny, in terms of Freud. It could be interesting to make an investigation taking into account the psychoanalysis perspective. Nothing new, yes I know, nothing new in this portraits either and not for this less interesting.
In the case of the use of children for arts purposes I think Miguel Ventura with his NILC could be a good work to begin the reflection.
http://www.ojoatomico.com/produccionesojo/nilc/nilc2.html
Anyway, thanks for sharing and please continue.
A really interesting post - and for sure, laws like this would have prevented some amazing and iconic historical photos, for sure.
I have to say, I am really inspired by these photographs though, they are really thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing! I look forward to checking out more of her work
@Anonymous, hunting down the name of the law is next to impossible for me now for some reason. It also exists in Spain and Germany, so I don't think it's characteristically French or even an isolated event--it feels like a trend.
Anyway, I believe the slang/short name is "Droit à l'image" law. The article link in my text actually refrences this law as well.
@sophie,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I really appreciate your input.
I'm wondering first off if this is not just a symptom of French society, but other parts of Europe as well since the law exists in Spain and Germany too. Perhaps it is a trend.
However, I still maintain the comparision to Henri-Cartier Bresson as relevant. I agree that we must look at what is being photographed in this moment and analyze those motives and the end photograph as well, but this law doesn't do that. This law prohibits a broad group in society and curtails freedoms. I think that you can't look at anything today without some historical perspective--b/c that is history that we remember today. What we create today will effect tomorrow and if we stop certain creations today then that also effects our tomorrow. If this law had existed in Bresson's time his photograph would not have been created and there was misuse of photography (and other art forms) in that period as well; people didn't become exploitative in our century. So, since photography is a record of time, I don't think it can be purely looked at "in the moment" without a perspective of it as record and examples of other historical records (which is not to say photography can't lie).
This is not to say that the law doesn't have its good qualities or that photography is always positive. Even media "diaster" photography tends to be as negative as it is helpful and certainly plays on the viewers emotions rather than actually attempting to bring voice and power to those photographed.
However, every example of the misuse of photography is not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to prohibit photography in public areas. I would prefer laws censoring the publication of certain photographs, or questioning the purpose behind them than blanket rules.
Anyway, I definitely appreciate your comment and I'm checking out the link you left.
That's so interesting. I didn't know that.
It's an understandable law, I suppose, but I don't see how it would ever even be a very big issue. Maybe a couple cases...
Well this is something new. I never knew something so pure and innocent can be illegal. I don't see the logic.. how can you not capture a child's smile or when he/she eats. Guess they don't know what they're missing. I love me some kids photos. They always bring back my own childhood memories..
xoxo, http://heelsandwedges.blogspot.com
yes yes, that's the thing. I know my english is not the best, so I hope there's no misunderstanding.
What I was trying to say is that the actions don't have the same meaning (Henri Cartier Bresson - french laws). Speaking in art terms, for example, is not the same to talk about the monochrome of Malevich at the first decades of last century than to speak about Yves Klein's monochrome in the late 50s. The condemnation laws are not the same since the time of Henri Cartier Bresson. But you are right about photojournalism.
Every year when I visit the World Press Photo exposition (prepared with a strong stomach) I noticed that there are a lot of pictures about zones in conflict. To be more specific mostly about third world countries in difficult situation. So what does it say to you when in one hand you are committing a crime taking photos of children in France, Germany, Spain or Japan, and in the other hand you are being awarded for pictures of intimates moments of desperation or sadness? Every year I ask me the same question: Is the photojournalism necessary to bring light for those who are blind about contemporary events? Is it necessary such a exposure? In a lot of World Press Photos appear children.
You sound little bit melancholic about a time we were free. I think these are interesting points to start reflections.
Thank you for your response and your smart point of view.
I don't know about this particular french law, but I know that in Germany, these specific laws are to save children of prominent people (after the person, who requested these laws, they are nicknamed Princess Caroline (of Monaco)- laws).
They should be allowed to have something like a "normal" childhood and don't be attacked by photographers the moment they leave the house...
When you want to publish pictures in the news, I guess it is in general the question if you need an admission or not, is it important to differ: the picture is having a public theme or a public person/ person of interest you mostly don't need a permission, but when the public person is doing something private, like going to the doctor, that might be different and not allowed to be published without permission... with most anyways private people the magazines often seem to publish and regulate that later, if anyone complains... at least I do read a couple of German newspapers and there are enough pictures of German children as well. I never saw any special accumulation of child from behind, child with hair falling in the face - pictures, like mentioned in the provided link.. :)
There is something similar to this in Australia. Not an actual law (as far as i'm aware) but most primary schools (at least in Queensland) won't let you take photos at the school productions/award ceremonies etc. They hire a photographer to take general photos and then you can purchase them. Apparently this is mainly employed as a way to make it difficult for pedophiles to get easy access to children's pictures, as well as for general privacy reasons, which I understand, but you have to ask, how many pedophiles gain access to a closed school event, and if they have access (because presumabley they're related to one of the kids) surely they can buy the photos on offer. It is one of those things that you can see snowballing, first they bad photos of children, then what?
ban*
Post a Comment