Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Guy Bennett wrote: >> >> >What has happened to Martin? >> >> Been wondering the same thing myself 'bout that "prince of button boys," as >> pornographer (d'après les discussions luggoises) Lewis Carroll put it. >> >><Snip> > >I recall Lewis Carroll said "Kids are wonderful! Except the boys!!" > >mark rabiner He did make a statement similar to that one, indeed many such statements, including how their bodies looked with and without clothes (boys should definitely be clothed, girls were graceful and looked good without clothes, etc). And not to rehash that old argument, but as everyone knows, L.C. took pictures of many a child, mostly girls and mostly clothed (yes, clothed). He did do some nudes, almost always little girls. Here's how he went about it: He contacted the parents, explaining his project (to make pictures of their child, perhaps even in the nude [the child, not the photographer]). He explained that they, the parents, would be present during the session and that they would determine whether or not the nude photos as he was planning and staging them were acceptable. If not, the nudes were abandonned. If so, he made the pictures, sent them (can't remember if it was both negs and a print, or just a print) to the parents. If the parents found the shots objectionable, he destroyed the negs and whatever prints had been made. If not he made and kept prints. I assume the parents also received prints. Some of the nudes have survived. I assume that means that some of the parents did not find them objectionable. (For details, see Morton Cohen's excellent biography of Carroll.) There are many books of his photography currently available. To me, the nudes tend to be uninteresting - they are contrived images of Victorian fancy (fairy scenes, etc.). The child portraits, on the other hand, are fantastic. Guy