Danger of Association with Pornography?

[nick_deckov]

<p><strong>How harmful is it to a career in photography if someone accuses you you of pornographic photography?</strong><br /><br />I have a friend. (No seriously, it isn't me. I am genuinely asking this because have a friend in trouble. No offense intended: while I enjoy photography, I can't be bothered to participate in making it.) My has been trying to "make it" as a professional photographer.<br /><br />He has aspirations of shooting in the "modeling scene" (whatever that is, and I don't know too much about it). In any case, his problems started after college. He got pretty crazy with religion. He got started promoting the "Latin Rite," as he was an avid about religion and he wanted to contribute to something he believed in. He was actually pretty nuts about it for a while and was working with an EXTREMELY conservative group. This group was so extreme that some of these "Catholics" were part of what is called the religious community which thinks that the mainstream Church has no pope. These people are so conservative that they think the popes for about the last 50 years have been heretics and some nonsense. But I digress, I just wanted to illustrate the kind of people he was associated with.<br /><br />Without going into details, he was basically excommunicated from that community when he had taken some photography of nude girls. In my opinion, these were extremely "tasteful" nudes and in no way could they be considered to be anymore pornographic than most depictions of nudity in Art for hundreds of years (In fact his photographs were more tame than most Art). However, when this extremely religious community found out about his photographic nudity, they were very quick to oust him from the community--label him as a demon--and declare that he was photographing pornography.<br /><br />He is now incredibly distressed about his future job prospects as a photographer.<br /><br />If you search his name on the internet, then you will find the accusations that he is participating in pornography. He's extremely adamant about fighting these claims, and taking this to court. I'm not trying to discourage him from speaking with a lawyer (I think more people should seek expertise when they have problems), but I can't seem to get it through his head that people are always going to be able to say what they want on the internet about you and there's little that you can actually do (I think he should consult a reputation management firm, but he doesn't like that it only "hides" the problem).<br /><br />Now, the question: Is it accurate that his career is ruined with those accusations of pornography?<br /><br />I just find it hard to believe that the problems in his life is because a very religious and conservative group is accusing him of moral degradation (who <em>wouldn't </em>they accuse, and why would any serious employer take them seriously?). Sure, his chances of photographing among that specific demographic might be ruined, but I don't see why that would harm him in any way among more secular clients. <br /><br />Is there anything that I can tell him or help him or anything to ease him. I'm beginning to think there's more to this story than he's letting on, because I just can't imagine how this could possibly even be a big deal. But I know exactly nothing about photography (I use my cell phone to take pictures and it's not even a smartphone).<br /><br />I'm sorry about the word salad, but I really couldn't even find anything anywhere on the internet stating that accusations of pornography of appropriate aged adults will ruin a career in photography (though I admit my search was brief: only about 15 minutes or so). Sure, I could see child pornography, but that's because its against the law. I don't see how anyone would think that he's done something so terrible that he couldn't take pictures for people, and I can't imagine that photographers in his line of work don't get accused of this sort of thing all the time.<br /><br />Am I naive, or is he over blowing this?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>people are always going to be able to say what they want on the internet about you and there's little that you can actually do</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you nail it there. The internet is a great way to promote yourself, and a great way to see all of that undone if other want to.<br>

In my view (note, just an opinion, there is no right or wrong answer for this) - In how far this will ruin a career depends on quite some factors, some within his control, some not. What are his future customers like - do they care that he has personal projects on the side as a photographer? The fact that he does different things alongside a "normal" professional photography business isn't a bad thing in itself. But if his clients dominantly come from the extreme conservative religious circles, it will be. A second point there is of course the kind of photography he envisions to do as a business. Studio portraits - yes, somebody who does nudes will make prospective customers possibly more jumpy. Wedding and event photography - potentially a lot less.<br>

Factors that are harder to control are the search engine rankings of the forums that rant about him. If he can get a good personal/professional website up and running, with a very good and conscious SEO effort, he may end up being listed on google before those forum rants, and that means exposure to this negative publicity becomes a lot less. There too, a lot depends on the customer - if you do read those forums, whose side do you feel more sympathetic too? In this sense, also consider if you really want to fight them - it will only generate more negative remarks, more filth and probably solve very little. Sometimes, its better to just let go and carry on.<br>

It doesn't have to ruin his career, but negative publicity does mean you have to consider your marketing even more than usual, and be aware about the customer profile you're after, the kind of work you do etc. If he's good, a sympathetic fellow who delivers good services to his clients and runs his business wisely, then things might well just work out.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>There is no clear answer between "not at all!" for a pornographer and "overkill" for a guy living mostly on shooting weddings <em>of his co-parishioners'</em> offspring. <br>

If life gives you alligators, make Gatorade?<br>

One would need to know how your friend generated his income so far to figurte out what he really lost and go into the small print of model- and IP releases in his contracts to figure out if what he did so far can at least be used as a stepping stone to reach new markets.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>However, when this extremely religious community found out about his photographic nudity, they were very quick to oust him from the community--label him as a demon--and declare that he was photographing pornography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is strange since not only has the nude figure been a staple of high art for centuries, it is employed heavily in religious art. I would consider my excommunication from such a cult a lucky turn of events. Groups like this thrive on intolerance and control members with fear and hate. I would put as much distance-physical, electronic and artistic away from this group as possible. Just my opinion.</p>

[nick_deckov]

<blockquote>

<p>This is strange since not only has the nude figure been a staple of high art for centuries, it is employed heavily in religious art. I would consider my excommunication from such a cult a lucky turn of events. Groups like this thrive on intolerance and control members with fear and hate. I would put as much distance-physical, electronic and artistic away from this group as possible. Just my opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's definitely my opinion as well. When he first reached out to me, I told him that those people weren't helpful to him anyway (and I actually had discussions vaguely about this when I was still in college with him.) Conservatives, for some reason love to think like they love someone like Michelangelo but obviously don't know much about people otherwise they wouldn't act the way they do (and for what its worth I'm fairly conservative politically, but its just so hard for me to agree with them because of these sorts of things, but currently the left is starting to look that way as well oh brother American politics is great, but I'm digressing again >.>). It really bothers me that people have such arrogant and base opinions in the way they'll demonize people for such petty things, but I (unlike my friend) have just come to a realization that I can't control what other people think. I just don't have powers of mind control, and I don't think I would take that power were it granted to me.<br>

<br /><br />Thank you everyone for your comments. I really appreciate your encouragement. Since one of you asked, my understanding is that in the past he has held jobs with, not necessarily "extreme" groups like the one I'm suggesting, but Catholic organizations in general. Obviously it has harmed his current employment, but I think if he'd just forget about the religion for a moment and focus on his damn life instead of dealing with these buffoons, he'd end up doing just fine. I'm definitely no critic, but his work seems quite good to me, and I think he has a real talent for marketing and that jazz.<br /><br />And he wants to ultimately work with more secular clientele anyway, and I don't see how this would be an issue (which is really what I think you're suggesting as well). In any case, I can see how it would be hard for him right now, but I just don't see what his fuss is about all this, because as one of you agreed with me already--there's not much you can do about what people say about you online.<br /><br />Thanks for your help so far, and maybe he'll feel a bit better knowing that you guys don't think his career is necessarily ruined.</p>

[SCL]

<p>An old adage is to not mix religion and politics. I learned years ago not to mix either with business. Catering to a particular group can limit the appeal to other groups. In the age of anybody being able to spread anything they want to millions of people via social media, one risks false accusations and alienation by strongly identifying with a group holding what may be considered "radical views". Your friend has learned this the hard way. IMHO his best approach isn't so much to fight those accusations, which will only gain him potentially greater negative exposure, but rather to refocus his business on a broader base of clientele...demonstrating his photographic skills in a way which would have broad appeal. Perhaps, as others mentioned, getting some professional marketing assistance, and perhaps getting involved in local public service or local business oriented organizations could further his introduction to a whole new base of clients.</p>

[alfonso e. perez-gonzalez]

<p>Putting distance between themselves and the accusation with bodies of work seems to work. Also, to show the work that is in question would help. Let people make their own decision. Hiding anything will force people into making your friend more suspect. Just like a horror movie; it's scarier when you don't see the monster and have to imagine it yourself. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The photographer's unfortunate association with this cult-ish group has shrunk his world (or his perception of the world) to the point where he considers the opinions of this small group of people to be representative of the wider world. Now, if every likely customer in the region where he wants to work is controlled by this group, he's got something to consider. But I'll bet, in this day, that's highly unlikely. He needs to reboot his social circle, and use the occasion of this group's absurd and toxic behavior to reconsider what drove him into their clutches in the first place.<br /><br />It's certainly very difficult to start and maintain a make-a-living going concern as a photographer. Most attempts at it fail badly and early. His best defense online is to have a winning portfolio, a busy and joyful social media presence, and testimony from happy customers. That will quickly displace the mutterings of the medieval crowd in which he accidentally found himself entangled. Good riddance to them. It may indeed be worth getting a PR/marketing pro to help him bootstrap his online image, but there are ample examples of what works out there to inspire. <br /><br />No, his career isn't ruined. It's just getting under way, and is going to be more prosperous for having been unburdened by the retrograde silliness of his prior associations. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>What field of photography your friend is thinking of pursuing? For some it might matter if you shot pornography for some it doesn't. For some people association with ultra conservative Catholicism is a warning sign.</p>

[mark_schafer1]

<p>Maybe his career is ruined for that demographic, but i suggest googling the likes of a Terry Richardson, who's doing quite well. Also, a lot of people who "purchase" photography today look at Instagram and other social media, so i think there's plenty to make up for and due to their filters non of his (as per his ex-group) "smut" will make it up there. <br>

Photography is such a creative media and there are so many clients out there, i wouldn't give up over some nuts in a non organized church basement.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>The Church's position on nudity has gone back and forth over the centuries.<br /><br />Artistic nudity was generally accepted during the Renaissance. However, the use of nudity by Michelangelo in the fresco of the Last Judgment that he painted in the Sistine Chapel was condemned by Pope Adrian VI and other Church authorities. The Pope wanted the entire work destroyed, but cooler heads prevailed. Nevertheless, in later years, some of the figures were altered cover the "naughty bits" that Michelangelo had left unadorned.<br /><br />In 1563, the Council of Trent condemned the use of nudity in religious art. In 1935, Pope Pius XI declared that nudism and public nudity to be a form of paganism and thus blasphemy.<br /><br />St. Augustin (5th C.) takes a more nuanced position in "On the Grace of Christ", holding that Adam and Eve were covered because of the shame that their disobedience incurred. Nudity per se is not inherently evil. However, nudity that engenders concupiscence and lust and that diminishes a sense of modesty and respect for oneself and for others is a sin.<br /><br />He wrote :<br /><br />"[... ] all which causes shame in that rebellion of the members which brought the accusing blush on those who after their sin covered these members with the fig-tree leaves, <strong>is imputable to the sin of that disobedience</strong> which was followed by the penalty of man's finding his own members emulating against himself that very disobedience which he had practised against God. Then, abashed at their action, since they moved no more at the bidding of his rational will, but at their own arbitrary choice as it were, instigated by lust, he devised the covering which should conceal such of them as he judged to be worthy of shame. <strong>For man, as the handiwork of God, deserved not confusion of face; nor were the members that it seemed fit to the Creator to form and appoint by any means designed to bring the blush to the creature. Accordingly, that simple nudity was displeasing neither to God nor to man: there was nothing to be ashamed of, because nothing at first accrued which deserved punishment.</strong>"<br /><br />There is a temptation for religious movements and authorities to adopt absolute, radical, extreme positions. Such aberrations must be condemned. As the Prophet Muhammad said to his followers, "Beware of extremism in religion because that was the very thing that destroyed those who came before you." <br /><br />Pornography is material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is <strong>intended</strong> to cause sexual arousal. A photograph is pornographic if it is intended to excite or if the observer intends to use it as a source of excitement. Depictions of nudity that instead foster respect and admiration for the human body (and its creator) are, by definition, not pornographic. <br /><br />However, even if nude photography is, in principle, acceptable, a photographer may sometimes find himself faced with observers who will judge his work to be pornography and not artistic. Such a distinction is not likely to be faced by photographers whose work does not contain nudity.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Its hard for me to parse the OP's language, but if he is saying that his friend's photography business is dependent on fellow church members, and church officials or other members are telling people in the church that your friend is shooting pornography, and if the accusation is false (don't forget whats pornography can be subjective) and your friend can establish that his reputation has been impugned and it can be established that the statements cost him his ability to make a living, then he/she should consult an attorney, depending on where your friend is, i.e. what country/state etc.</p>

 

[VisualEntropy]

<p>Danger of association, heck no! This creates a perfect opportunity for someone to market themselves as "The Demon Pornographer of..."<br>

(There are some places I probably shouldn't go with this, but here are a few that could be wildly successful.) ;)<br>

"The Demon Pornographer of Giraffe Portraiture"<br>

"The Demon Pornographer of Long Exposure...Waterfalls"<br>

"The Demon Pornographer of Root Vegetable Still Lifes"<br>

I could go on, but I had to stop to mention the coincidence that Barry Fisher's photo of a young man in bondage is at the bottom of this page as I'm writing. The OP's friend might've received much harsher treatment if he'd taken it, while we're fortunate that it's part of an open exchange of ideas, and not being censored by some ultraconservative sect of photo.net Elves. I'm suddenly feeling much more sensitive to the plight of those who have been subjected to that kind of repression, and grateful that I haven't been forced to experience it firsthand.<br>

I wish the fellow in question the best of luck moving forward. I'm sure that if his photographic ambition is still to get into "the modeling scene," a few tasteful nudes are the least of his worries. </p>

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>Frankly, sounds like your friends needs a new circle of friends. That being said, if he's really wanting to learn some fine art stuff, start here:<br>

http://www.meetup.com/figure-photography/events/229169259/?rv=md1&_af=event&_af_eid=229169259&https=off<br>

Otherwise, My suggestion is don't shoot models. One reason is because you'd have to put up with models. There's no money in it unless you move to a fashion center -- NYC, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Houston, Miami -- and throw your dice there. <br>

I'd still say, though leave the other circle alone. That brought me down and I'm not even close by.</p>

 

[zelph_young]

<p>Nothing good actually comes of religion and idiots like this are best ignored. Some of those idiot groups think 'bare shoulders' on a 3 year old is pornographic.<br>

Has he considered moving to a more open place to live?<br>

As for what the association with 'pornographic' can do - check out the career of Jock Sturges. He was hounded for years and it only made his work worth more.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>If this religious community is posting judgmental comments online disparaging your friend's reputation as a photographer you might want to check out this new show I just came across recently on the SyFy channel called "The Internet Ruined My Life". http://www.syfy.com/theinternetruinedmylife/episodes</p>

<p>It will at least show you the behavior of not only online group dynamics on how things can go wrong socially but it can give perspective along the lines of what Matt indicated on just how small one's world can actually be no matter how big it's perceived.</p>

<p>And just remember as the late comedian George Carlin said..."Everyone is full of sh*t." including religious communities. It's quite difficult to conceptualize the importance of this saying because of the centuries of our parent/child, teacher/student and authority/subordinate way of dealing and relating to people has been burned into our psyche with fear as the main binder. Real facts and knowledge is the only way to fight this knee jerk way of looking at the world.</p>

<p>There's 7 billion people on this planet but social groups like to make you think they are the majority. They're not. There are facts that prove this.</p>