# Am I A Prude?



## feenix (May 27, 2008)

I've asked this question on another forum, but was just wondering what the attitude of the members of this forum would be;

My niece (aged 11) has been told by her art teacher to research a photographer called Rankin.

Apparently Rankin has been featured by Jamie Oliver on the program Jamie's Dream School.

Now, I don't think that I'm but, and its a big but, they've been told to research the artist at his official website HERE.

Let me know what you think if it was your daughter/son.


----------



## tixntox (Jul 17, 2009)

That's a tough one. It looks like a teacher who is bang up to date and although some of the content may appear shocking to you, it's often much the part in current society. I'm a big believer in that children should be allowed to be and stay children for as long as possible but at 11, the world is starting to open up. If you are in any doubt, you need to discuss it with her parent/s and teacher. If you or her parent/s are still not happy you could go to heads of department/heads of year/ head of school/ governing body as needs must. That's my lot. :smartass:

Mike


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

That appears to be the sort of material you will see in any mainstream fashion/womens magazine or TV advert.

Later,

William


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

I wouldn't be happy. 13, yes, but there are "young" and "old" 11 year olds


----------



## inskip75 (Jan 10, 2009)

I would be concerned if my daughter was supposed to research that photographer at age 11 - maybe i'm a prude or just old fashioned - but too much for an 11 year old.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2011)

There are a couple of risque photos' but the rest you can see in many mainstream magazines, I do think that 11 is a tad young though-I certainly wouldn't like my 11 year old daughter seeing some of them but my other daughter was much more grown up at that age. The joys of parenthood eh?


----------



## alg59 (Mar 4, 2011)

i can see where you are coming from. i suppose it all depends on how mature your 11 year old is. i still remember my second daughter when she was 11.

i can tell you she would not have liked some of these images. still that was a long time ago and kids seem to grow up fast nowadays so maybe it is appropriate viewing for to-days 11 year olds. i suppose they are exposed to this and more on the tv. magazines. etc.


----------



## gavinjayanand (Nov 25, 2008)

Definitely not a prude. I would not want a 11-year old seeing something like this or this (possibly NSFW? Or avant-garde?







)


----------



## Barreti (Apr 18, 2008)

I don't even have kids and I think the teacher is either niave, a perve (god forbid) or looking for a reaction.

I wouldn't be happy at one of my nieces seeing this kind of work just yet, let alone being TOLD by a teacher they have to research it

This for instance (nsfw)


----------



## feenix (May 27, 2008)

Thanks for the input guys.

Theres no doubt in my mind that this guy is talented. He's got some great shots, and many of them are noteworthy of discussion and research. But some others are clearly NOT imho.

I did think of displaying a few of these on here, but I'm sure that if you looked at the site you will have already seen the some of the ones I've seen, or more.

I don't mind the pictures myself, as a 47 year old adult male. But I don't understand how a professional can set a home-work project on a subject set by a popular TV entertainment program.

To compound the problem, it was a two week project set for the kids. When it was handed in they were told that none of them had done the project in enough depth and to take a further week and do the project again. I think some of the lack-lustre projects may just have been a result of the kids being uncomfortable with the subject matter.


----------



## itsguy (Nov 16, 2009)

Rankin has devoted a whole book to naked young ladies lying on a sofa so I understand your misgivings. (Nice work if you can get it, I thought at the time...)

It's a tough one... On the one side, I wish I'd been given such interesting projects which would certainly have helped prepare me for my future career. And with the amount of media kids are exposed to, it does actually make sense for them to develop a critical attitude to commercial and fashion photography at an early age. It would be very sensible for girls of that age to have a proper discussion leading to an understanding of the manipulation of fashion images, and that they represent artistic extremes rather than role models or images of typical healthy people. A lot of girls end up anorexic because they fail to appreciate that models are picked for being atypical and are not ideals. The fashion press takes a lot of flack for this, but ultimately it's a fair argument that photographers like Rankin should be allowed their artistic freedom, and it's not their job to photograph govermnment sanctioned public health adverts. This issue has been a very hot potato ever since the so called 'heroin chic' photography of the late 90s that brought in Kate Moss. It is actually quite important that kids are savvy about this by the age of, yes, eleven or twelve, before they start to be bombarded with this kind of imagery as young teenagers. They will quite likely look to the fashion press as they attempt to carve out their own identities, with little understanding of the competitively extreme and confrontational artistic genre they are buying into.

On the other hand, while kids seem to grow up faster these days, it's hard to imagine I'd personally have been able to get my head around it all at that age... Times change I guess.

Perhaps the best thng is to listen to your niece's opinions of the work - then you can judge for yourself if the exercise has been worthwhile.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Is it even legal to show a 11 year old pictures of the naked form?

I would at the very least expect to be asked by the school if it was OK to set that sort of homework to my 11 year old.....


----------



## martinzx (Aug 29, 2010)

No your not, there is no way 11years of age!!, that's just wrong IMHO,

I would certainly make a few waves..........................


----------



## tixntox (Jul 17, 2009)

jasonm said:


> Is it even legal to show a 11 year old pictures of the naked form?
> 
> I would at the very least expect to be asked by the school if it was OK to set that sort of homework to my 11 year old.....


Public art galleries have lots of naked images. It is up to the viewer or the "teacher/parent" of the viewer to decide whether or not there is anything "wrong" with the naked form in question. Italian churches are full of naked images and sculptures.

Mike


----------



## Deco (Feb 15, 2011)

A prude? No. Just be thankful it's your niece and not your daughter.


----------



## gaz64 (May 5, 2009)

I wouldnt call you a prude but neither do I see anything wrong with an 11 year old viewing these images.

I think as parents we can often be very naive when it comes to what our children know and expose themselves to within their social circles.

If you want an insight into your childs life (if they use facebook) just have them added as a facebook friend after a while they forget your there.

Then again dont if you want to maintain a rosy parental view of your child


----------



## tall_tim (Jul 29, 2009)

You are certainly not a prude. I would not want my daughter to be looking at these at 11. I am certainly not naive to what my kids know or get up to - as any decent parent, you should know what's going on when they're that age, or at least know how to read the signs. And my kids won't be using facebook until they are 15/16 which FB rules dictate - although never enforced. Some of the stuff on facebook makes my ears bleed!

Where we live we are sheltered somewhat in that we are in a very rural location and they're at a very small school. The reason we moved here was to bring up kids in, what we perceive, as a safer environment for kids, and if it means they stay kids for longer - great, they have their whole adult lives to look at pictures such as these, but until then - I think not.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

tall_tim said:


> You are certainly not a prude. I would not want my daughter to be looking at these at 11. I am certainly not naive to what my kids know or get up to - as any decent parent, you should know what's going on when they're that age, or at least know how to read the signs. And my kids won't be using facebook until they are 15/16 which FB rules dictate - although never enforced. Some of the stuff on facebook makes my ears bleed!
> 
> Where we live we are sheltered somewhat in that we are in a very rural location and they're at a very small school. The reason we moved here was to bring up kids in, what we perceive, as a safer environment for kids, and if it means they *stay kids for longer* - great, they have their whole adult lives to look at pictures such as these, but until then - I think not.


:thumbsup: People sometimes comment how young my daughter is for her age, she's 9!!! I see some of her classmates at her school do's in full make-up, needless bra's and stumbling about in high heel shoes, they remind of those weird US kiddie beauty pageants, No way! I honestly don't think it's me or my good lady who are wrong.


----------



## gaz64 (May 5, 2009)

tall_tim said:


> You are certainly not a prude. I would not want my daughter to be looking at these at 11. I am certainly not naive to what my kids know or get up to - as any decent parent, you should know what's going on when they're that age, or at least know how to read the signs. *And my kids won't be using facebook until they are 15/16 which FB rules dictate - although never enforced. Some of the stuff on facebook makes my ears bleed!*
> 
> Where we live we are sheltered somewhat in that we are in a very rural location and they're at a very small school. The reason we moved here was to bring up kids in, what we perceive, as a safer environment for kids, and if it means they stay kids for longer - great, they have their whole adult lives to look at pictures such as these, but until then - I think not.


Being divorced and not living with the kids means I dont get that much of a say but I will agree that some of the things on FB are cringeworthy


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

facebook have a minimum age of 13, my daughter is year 7 age 11 coming up to 12, the school did a survey of all year 7's and over 90% said they had a FB account! My daughter won't be getting hers at 13 unless she can prove to me and the wife she is grown up enough, I really hope she can't! On the OP's question no I don't think you're a prude and if my daughter came home from school with that project I'd be straight down to the headmaster demanding an explination


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Well, from the lofty position of being nearly 70, I'd say this website was soft pron! :yes: And I can imagine what the 11 year old lads would be doing "research" on - like "Who's fastest?" and can go the furthest!

I don't think it's suitable at all, and I'd be onto the school asking her to be excused this exercise without comment from/by any teacher so she was not singled out by class mates.

:bad:

"I'd think twice about posting some of these images here unless it was on the password protected section "


----------



## Big_bazza99 (Mar 29, 2011)

Most are OK, some are probably not what you would want.


----------



## Davey M (May 18, 2010)

If its the sexualized connotations in some of the images then , that is held within the eye of the beholder.

Its partly your own thoughts, beliefs, etc that make some of the images sexualized.

The view of the young woman on her knees looking up will have a personal insinuation, (if you think its a sexual image than that will usually come from that of sexually aware adults.) Not sure what a child would make of it.

The lingerie shots are mainly those that you could see on any advertising image or page three of the sun.

The image of the naked mature lady- well I'm unsure why an 11 year old shouldn't see that.

Do we object to TV images, National Geographic etc showing people in other countries, going about their business in a state of undress?

Again its the context and I wonder if it was this that the project was about.

I am struggling to see the educational benefits of researching this Photographer. What was the aim of the project?

I think that if you allow your child access to the Internet then you are mistaken in thinking they maintain their innocence.

Equally theres a debate to be had about children being naturally innocent anyway.


----------



## feenix (May 27, 2008)

Davey M said:


> If its the sexualized connotations in some of the images then , that is held within the eye of the beholder.


Not sure about that.

To me a woman on hands and knees, gagged, naked and with a saddle on has NO artistic merit to an 11 year old.

Likewise, a close up of a mans head with the word C.U.*.*. (without the *'s of course) carved into his forehead with a sharp object seems to be, likewise, missing in artistic content to an 11 year old.

Perhaps I'm a little old fashioned.









Problem has now been resolved anyway, the school admitted liability, apologised and reprimanded the teachers involved for not 'researching the topic correctly'. Can't ask any more than that.


----------



## Davey M (May 18, 2010)

When I looked again I would agree that there were one or two images which were quite 'overt' so agree a little, but not on the subjects I mentioned or a previous poster linked.

It does confirm your concerns though that the Teacher was reprimanded. Thats a worry surely. Not just for you but the Teachers at the school. Wheres the leadership and management of the curriculum?

Equally though I thought some of the pictures were linked to your concerns.

The one with a very heavily made up and styled young woman with at shirt saying 'Im only thirteen' was the very thing you are concerned with.


----------

