Ah, I knew things were going to smoothly. This morning both girls slept past 7:00. This is a huge deal for me because they usually wake up before 6:30. I thought was an auspicious beginning to our day.
Of course, L then decided to refuse her morning nap. We can’t make it later because the cleaning people arrive in a few minutes.
This is bound to lead to an early afternoon nap, followed by an early bedtime. Most likely leading to a 5:30 am wake up tomorrow.
I can hardly wait.
_________________________________________________________
Due to the extreme boringness of my posts yesterday and today, I am going to leave you with this link that I found on Harlow’s Monkey:
These photos are creepy as hell. I would use this as evidence that A) Those stupid fake silk dresses are a bad idea, B) you should never let yourself be suckered into getting your photo taken with your pre-pubescent daughter’s hand on your thigh or in a bed with you and C) smiling makes a person look a lot less like a pedophile.
Those pictures make me so uncomfortable. Every single one. And the people in them look equally uncomfortable. Someone needs to talk to that photographer about appropriate posing and how to make people look happy and comfortable!
What the heck is that site?? My goodness.
I am an amateur photographer – and I know a lot more know about how much the effect of the photographer’s manipulation can have on how the final subject comes across and these shots come across as creepy.
The juxtaposition of ethic differences is a part of that, but I think the same effect could be had with any parent/child combination – I’m sure I could lead my unwitting husband and kids into what would ultimately be unsettling shots- – -
Now I will be thinking about ethics, photography and art.
Interesting link, thank you.
His hand is cupping her ass – WTF? Gross. Man I hate that shit.
Yes, I saw that this morning. A parade of fetishized little girls. Which may have been her intention? I don’t know but I couldn’t look at the whole series.
Oh, and also, in contrast did you see the photos of the children in China? It’s like night and day.
I don’t get it. From the photographers description, it seems like she is trying to say something like, “What is in your dirty little mind? They are father and daughter! What were YOU thinking!” As if the race thing is what gives people false ideas.
Which is crap. There is no way in hell my father (or most fathers, I think) would ever pose with their kids in some of those positions. Because its tha hands on the asses, the girls posed with their inner thighs hanging out in overtly sexual ways, the kids on the beds, etc. which is what gives these photos the ick factor. The race differences exemplify that, because, yes, there is so much white dude/young asian girl p o r n out there. The sexualization of the photos and then the “shame on you! the exhibit is called “daddy and me”! just doesn’t work for me.
Gross
Yeah, I think the creepiness factor absolutely was the artist’s intention – especially reading the artist’s statement about the show. Actually, it really bothers me, because I remember when the artist solicited FCC NY fathers to be photographed with their daughters, and made it seem like a happy and sweet project, with none of the sexualized stuff. I get what the artist is saying, but I think the end result is really unfairly manipulative. I even recognize a really sweet dad and daughter from my neighborhood (though the family now lives in China).
Why is it EVERY image highly sexual? If the artist was truly interested in exploring a true father/daughter relationship, why are none of the picture non-sexual? (Sorry, double negative) If he’s really interested in exploring “feminine power” why are the girls not doing anything? He deliberately choose a format (portrait series) that would only serve to show these girls as sexual props. I think the artist’s true purpose was to inflame and suggest that American adoptee fathers true motives in adoption are sexual. How incredibly harmful and insulting.
The artist is a cruel, sick, angry and manipulative person. How could he/she have deliberately posed people in ways that are contrary to their real relationships? How could she have used these children in such a despicable way? How could she have made a photo record that might even cause these children to question their relationship with their fathers? She may have wanted to make a point about some racist attitudes and beliefs but to use these families in this way without their full knowledge and consent of her purpose borders on child abuse in my mind.
Taken separately, they remind me (in a way) of old photos from the end of the 19th century–where the patriarch and his brood are all standing around in frozen poses, awkward due to the need for standing still long enough for the photo to be taken.
Taken collectively, though, yes, these provide a really creepy sensation. No-one looks happy. No-one looks loving. This photographer deliberately chose the most awkward, wooden, odd selection from each daddy-daughter shoot…and the end result is just squicky, a series of cold portraits of old(er) men (seems like only 2 of the guys were any younger than, say, 42) with young Asian girls that keys into sexual stereotypes in a variety of creepy ways.
Bleah.
That is creepy beyond belief.
Good art. If it wasn’t, no one would be talking.
I’m glad someone is redrawing the line.
While I agree with Annie Malie above in some respects (I appreciate good and interesting art, even if it is controversial), I do think the artist’s method for soliciting subjects for this project and her treatment of them was unethical. I remember her call for subjects on the local FCC board, and it was incredibly misleading. The subjects were, in my opinion anyway, unfairly manipulated from start to finish, and I do have a problem with that. I would be really curious to know what the subjects think of the artist’s final products.
I found some of the photos weird, but ONE (the daughter on the wall, the father looking up at her) seemed to relay honest love for his daughter.
Creepy.
My first reaction to the pictures was akwardness. I’ve gone back twice to take one more look, and I just can’t come around does pictures. I don’t like them, they’re unsettling.
The poses, the wardrobe, where they’ve taken, it all contributes to the creepyness of the photos. They just don’t seem father and daughter (and it has nothing to do with them being from different races), I don’t think I would have guessed the series title just by looking to the pictures.
It disturbs me a bit the way the author has decided to portray the relationship between these girls and their fathers. May be it was not deliberate, but it does seem so – these aren’t “natural” ways to pose with your children. Also, it seems the uncomfortable reaction we all got from looking at them is what the author inteded when compared to the Horizon series; there’s a BIG difference in how she chose to portray those kids and these girls.
It is my impression that the subjects have being manipulated, I don’t think they agreed to pose for what turned out as the final product. And as someone else said before, it would be interesting to know what the subjects think and feel regarding the series.
The artist is wholly responsible for these poses. People being photographed are so flattered and honored that they usually don’t have the slightest clue as to how they’re being used. Not only are the children objectified in the photos; the fathers are, as well. Too often artists think themselves above reproach, and above their subjects.
I find the photos to be incredibly disturbing. And I agree with Brooklyn Mama’s comment and am bothered by the manipulation of the subjects (particularly since she has first-hand experience with the call for subjects). The use of deliberately provocative poses is just downright creepy. I don’t consider this good art, just offensive. And BTW, has anyone seen the comments on apc about this project? I don’t know why I’m surprised but the majority think the photos are sweet. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a pervert. Riiiiight. It must be God’s will.
I think its sad that this photographer subverts a positive thing
to make a negative statement with this series. That hese photographs perpetuate stereotypes and use devices to suggest
sexual exploitation to make a political point is distasteful and cheap. She is using adoptive families as a metaphor for her own political agenda. I think it is shameful that the artist objectifies the children in this shabby exercise. The photographer is a woman by the way. The context and intention of the artist makes these images unsavory and I see that as exploitive. I find it disturbing that she is trying to suggest something about race and power through these images using unwitting and yes, possibly naive, families but these pictures could easily be of our own husbands and daughters and I am less quick to judge the fathers. I think they were mislead and the photos were choreographed and manipulative.
How’s it going?
Just want to check in and make sure your family is alright with the flooding and such in the midwest. Take care!
What Tracie said. I’ve been thinking of this all week and unable to formulate my comment. I think these families posed in good faith, and I can actually see the photos both ways-innocent and suggestive-thus, I think some of my response is framed by the artist’s statement, and the discussion around the photos. Very sad for the families involved.
So, I hope you are recovering from last week! ~lmc