Child porn row shuts down US photographer’s Moscow show

[webfact]

Child porn row shuts down US photographer’s Moscow show

 

 

MOSCOW: -- An exhibition in Moscow by a well-known US photographer, Jock Sturges, has closed following a protest over alleged depictions of naked children.

 

One of a dozen or so demonstrators who entered the Lumiere Brothers Centre for Photography threw urine at some of the pictures on display.

It followed a online post criticising the exhibition.

 

Nataliya Litvinskaya, the curator of the so-called “Absence of Shame” exhibition allowed the press to see the show before shutting the doors, then explained: “I don’t want my center of photography to start having problems because of inadequate behavior by some individuals.”

 

Protesters accused the show of promoting paedophilia and called for Russian authorities to get involved.

 

“This exhibition violates Russian values. We Russians have our own values, and they don’t include paedophilia and photos of naked children,” said one man outside the gallery.

 

Sturges, a photographer best-known for photographing nude women and adolescents, said he is saddened by the shut-down, and added no other gallery around the world has reacted like this.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-09-27

[Ralf61]

So, one of a dozen or so pissed off demonstrators decide what's good for the public to view. Seems more medieval values...

[klauskunkel]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

“This exhibition violates Russian values. We Russians have our own values, and they don’t include paedophilia and photos of naked children,” said one man outside the gallery.

at least it gave them the opportunity to showcase the Russian values of vandalism, censorship and dictatorship.

[alocacoc]

Would be the same in Thailand.

[daoyai]

Mr. Sturges has been a well known artist for decades... he must be very old by now.  

[Jingthing]

Small minds can't tell the difference between art and porn. What else is new? 

[jippytum]

I don't agree with the demonstration but responsible parents have a duty to protect their children .

[samsensam]

1 minute ago, jippytum said:

I don't agree with the demonstration but responsible parents have a duty to protect their children .

 

surely it is the RESPONSIBILITY of ALL parents to protect their children.

[Jingthing]

So you think the piss throwing vandalizing GOONS had evidence that the subjects of the art photography were abused? You KNOW they didn't.

[fish monger]

<deleted> hilarious, coming from a crap hole that is one of the highest exporters of porn on the planet...!

[Johpa]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Small minds can't tell the difference between art and porn. What else is new? 

 

Yes, but even some artists, such as Sturgess and David Hamilton, have what only can be called obsessions with nubile youth. And let us not forget the ultimate pervert protected by his "artistry", Woody Allen. At least Woody keeps it in the family.  There is some hypocrisy here. If I were to take some pics of nude nubiles, and my photo skills are not so artistic, I might be locked up.  The subjective line is blurred as art, in the end, is whatever wealthy people are willing to pay for.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Johpa said:

 

Yes, but even some artists, such as Sturgess and David Hamilton, have what only can be called obsessions with nubile youth. And let us not forget the ultimate pervert protected by his "artistry", Woody Allen. At least Woody keeps it in the family.  There is some hypocrisy here. If I were to take some pics of nude nubiles, and my photo skills are not so artistic, I might be locked up.  The subjective line is blurred as art, in the end, is whatever wealthy people are willing to pay for.

There is some hypocrisy everywhere. It's not rocket science though if you're talking about photography of nudes. Is the intention to sexually arouse? The piss throwers had both small minds AND dirty minds. 

[Johpa]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

There is some hypocrisy everywhere. It's not rocket science though if you're talking about photography of nudes. Is the intention to sexually arouse? The piss throwers had both small minds AND dirty minds. 

 

In the case of Sturgess and Hamilton, yes the intention is to arouse, but in a far more sophisticated manner that is integrated into a aesthetic motif that would appeal to a more well heeled set.  Sort of like the difference between the Honey Boo Boo set and those who would send their daughters to pricey ballet lessons.

[Jingthing]

Aesthetic motif ... oh my! 

 

I don't see the images in the news story as porn. I don't think any educated person would.

 

NEXT ...