That can be the most difficult topic to discuss in photography. As photographers, are we responsible for upholding specific standards, or should we accept that if we can photograph it, we should?
Cole Porter’s 1934 song claims that good writers now use only four-letter words and how clever sets infiltrate nude parties. It was written when risky films and scandals in the film business shocked the world. At the time, the film industry practiced a self-imposed set of moral values.
Although not legally enforceable, the Hays Code requires filmmakers to follow rules that in themselves appear uncomfortable when measured by today’s generally accepted standards. Depicting misconduct, extramarital sex, and homosexuality are prohibited. Crime can never be sympathetically portrayed and must be punished. Furthermore, powerful figures cannot be presented as anything but benevolent.
Of course, not every filmmaker agrees with that self-imposed censorship. But they have no choice but to stick to it because theaters won’t show movies that haven’t been reviewed by the nascent American Motion Picture Producers and Distributors censorship board. Admitted offenders will also lose financial support from donors.
Although the Hays code has long since expired, there are people with financial and political power that will, in effect, censor what we see. For example, actor Sam Elliott is said to have said that he thought the Catholic Church prevented New Line Cinema from making a sequel to the 2008 film The Golden Compass, based on Philip Pullman’s book His Dark Materials. . Fourteen years later, the final television series of the story is about to be released by the New Line and the BBC. Times change quickly.
Reading this far, you are probably sitting on this side of the fence regarding the issue of censorship. You might think that parts of the Hays Code should not be allowed that are films with obscene content, sexually suggestive nudity, graphic violence, various sexual persuasion, and rape. Maybe, you believe that fictitious criticisms of any religious organization are false. Or, maybe, you take these ideas for granted and think, like in the Cole Porter song, that everything will work out.
Today in the world of photography, we are torn by similar arguments. We are not only limited by self-imposed censorship, but also by rules created to dictate what is and is not acceptable. Those boundaries are forever changing.
When I was about nine or ten years old, my school collected scraps of paper to raise funds. What surprised the teachers was that some of my schoolmates, who would today be described as “colorful characters,” volunteered to keep the warehouse tidy during their lunch break. As far as I remember, they even got a reward for it.
The teachers didn’t understand why these often disruptive boys were so eager to help. The real reason is that every once in a while they will find a porn magazine. More often, however, among the tons of papers and magazines discarded are multiple copies of a low-level sensationalist tabloid. It is famous in the UK for having a photo of a topless woman on the third page.
A campaign against newspapers depicting semi-naked women on Page 3 began in 2012 and eventually saw the demise of those photographs a few years later. Despite the support of members of Congress, charities, universities and advocacy groups, the campaign’s ultimate success was largely due to protesters persuading advertisers from leave the newspaper. Like the application of the Hays Rule in cinema, the power of money has shaken the paper to the exclusion of reality.
However, with the demise of the “Page 3 Girls” photos, what some argue is another form of light-hearted pornography has been normalized. There are many images of nude and semi-nude women in the popular boudoir photography genre. Many of these images are much more evocative than the models in that newspaper.
Boudoir’s photographers objected to depicting their work as lightly pornographic, arguing it was an art form and not obscene. However, the argument to the contrary is that the models depicted in such photographs are almost always young and attractive women, and the photographs evocative of them. Furthermore, the people who commented positively on the photos were mostly men. Boudoir’s photographers also claim that their models choose to photograph this way. That then led to debate about whether women were forced, coerced or pressured into posing for pictures as they often do in the porn industry. In addition, others will claim that they are demeaning women, while photographers and models say they are glorifying the human form as art.
Is boudoir photography pornography? It was a difficult call to make. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of obscenity in the 1964 Jacobellis v Ohio case:
… I knew it when I saw it”.
It is suggestive of a subjective point of view.
The test for obscenity in the United States is is defined as follows:
Whether for the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the document, as a whole, is of particular interest.
I think the key words there are “contemporary community standards”. Standards change over time, and different communities within individual countries can have very different values. Perhaps, by today’s Western standards, the majority wouldn’t consider boudoir photography pornography, but there will be some that do. Some sections of our society would consider such images pornographic. The cultures of other countries certainly do too. Of course, there are some cultures where nudity is considered the norm.
Western cultures are becoming less oppressive, and there is a shift in attitudes towards the human body. But the unrestricted dissemination of pornography on the internet has undermined the idea of whether the images we call boudoir are pornographic. Furthermore, the concept of a porn star, once seen as a degrading profession, has become an accepted part of popular culture.
We have very little control over the depiction of nudity in the photography industry. We have the label Not Fit for Work (NSFW), but the idea of what’s obscene has been diluted by modern culture. Search engines penalize sites that publish such material without the NSFW tag, but there are few other restrictions. However, in some countries, including the UK, the government is looking at ways to restrict viewing of adult content so that it is not easily accessible to minors.
Lucy-Anne Holmes, who started the No More Page 3 campaign, did so because she said the photos she was exposed had adversely affected her body image when she was 11 years old. Some believe that the self-image of young women and girls is harmed by depicting slender, nude women. Those who claim this – have evidence to back up their claims – want tighter control. Those who take and post nude photos will certainly believe that self-regulation is enough.
The previous group is fighting a losing battle? In most democratic countries, nudity in photography is considered normal, so by contemporary public standards, nudity is not considered obscene. Politically, image censorship is seen as going against human rights. For now, that leaves only financial pressure, which is harder to inflict on individuals.
What do you think? Should photographers be free to shoot whatever they like, or should we strive to maintain some ethical standards? Is your opinion an authoritarian one? Or is it backed up by empirical evidence? Do you think we set subjective standards that are influenced by our culture and the times we live in?
I hope I’ve discussed this evenly and made both sides of the argument. I am not a boudoir photographer, so there is a lack of boudoir images to illustrate the article. It is a sensitive and emotional subject. So in the comments, be respectful of others who may differ from your opinion.
