The Slide

CHAPTER THREE

The Slide
The issue of consent versus exploitation

“Little Boy kneels at the foot of the bed,
Droops on the little hands, little gold head.
Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares!
Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.”

From' Vespers', A.A. Milne

Can parent/artists be accused of exploiting their children if they use them in their work? Christopher Robin certainly felt so. The success of A.A. Milne's work meant that he was taunted mercilessly at school. He later lamented: “ my father filched from me my good name and left me with the empty frame of being his son.” In adulthood he became estranged from his father and refused to touch The 'Winnie The Pooh' millions after his father's death, preferring to live a quiet life as a bookseller in the West Country.

The issue of consent is a difficult one, especially when dealing with children. Is it really possible for a child to give their consent when they are too young to comprehend the artist's true intentions or too immature to know what it means to be depicted in a work of art? Even when they are teenagers and seem capable of giving their consent in an adult way, could they come to regret it in later life?

Lucien Freud made several paintings of his daughter, Esther. It obviously made a deep impression on her as she wrote her novel 'Summer at Gaglow' about the experience of a daughter being painted by her father. At one point the character says: “Sometimes while my father painted I stared up at the huge beast of my body, my gargantuan breasts, my widened thighs, and tried to find the charcoal outline of my former self."

I was interested to find out what she thought about the parent-artist and child-model relationship and spoke to her in an interview last year. Initially she said she had been delighted when he asked her to model for him as it meant he wanted her to be a part of his life, something she had not felt before. Her parents had separated when she was very young and so her father had not been a part of her upbringing. This seemed to be a way for them to get closer. But the results were not entirely pleasing to her 16-year-old self: “ I had an idea of myself as gorgeous and fawn-like and when I saw how large and fat he had painted me I said to him “I'm not that big am I?” But later on I came to realise that he was painting my big personality - who I was, and not just a representation of what I looked like.” As Esther grew older and understood more about his work she was glad to have had a part in it. It helped too that he paid her to model for him. It meant that, by giving her the same treatment and respect as he would a professional model, she did not feel that he had exploited the parental relationship.

One incident though, which did make her feel uncomfortable, was when Time Out magazine ran a feature on Lucien Freud and used a picture of her with the headline: 'Vile Flesh at the Tate'. She recalls how upset she was when she saw it: “it was as if the title was a reflection on my body and not the style of the painting.”

Of course, there are so many ways a child can be exploited by their parents. Is a parent who puts their child on the stage or pushes them into child modelling any guiltier than the artist? Anne Higgonet describes the situation today as: “the ideal of the child as object of adoration has turned all to easily into the concept of child as object, and then into the marketing of the child as commodity” In this day and age when the image of the child is ubiquitous can we really point the finger at the artist?

Most would argue that the parent-child relationship is one based on trust but one could also claim that the parent is the last person from whom a child could withhold their consent. Parent-artists may claim that they would stop using their children if they were asked to, but how many artists actually ask for their children's consent and how many children would dare to refuse their parents anyway? Children see their parents as authority figures that must be obeyed. It might not occur to them that they had been exploited until they were older.

If parents offer to pay their children to model for them, as in the case of Esther Freud, then at least one could say that some sort of contract has been entered into. But is that any better? Should a child not give up their time freely in love and in respect of their parents? Is paying your child to model for you any different to paying your child to do the washing-up? The contentious issue of the rights of the child has been endlessly debated in the media in recent years. Most people would agree that children have a right to be protected from harm, but who is able to assess the harm caused by such a project?

When Tierney Gearon exhibited pictures of her naked children (see plate 1) at the 'I Am A Camera exhibition' at the Saatchi Gallery in 2001, there was a public moral uproar. Following up three complaints from members of the public, police asked the gallery to remove the photos from the exhibition. Andreas Whittam Smith, President of the British Board of Film Censors admitted that, for Gearon, and probably lots of others, the images were indeed innocent, but he was concerned about perverts who might be aroused by them. I am concerned about her children. What about their feelings? How did they feel that photographs of their bodies had caused such a media debate? If they are not aware of it now, will they feel exploited when they are able to view the situation with the hindsight of an adult perspective?

Generally, the more extensive a parent's project the graver the long-term damage can be, as seen in the example already given of Christopher Robin Milne. In a similar way, two of JM Barrie's “lost boys” (his 'adopted' sons) were so affected by the 'curse of Peter Pan' that they were driven to commit suicide in later life.

Sally Mann, however, who photographed her children over many years, describes her pictures as 'gifts from her children'. One of her pictures is entitled 'The last Time Emmett Modelled for Me' which implies that he was a willing model and that there came a time when he asked her to stop and she did. It would be interesting to find out how her children feel now about her photographs and whether or not is has any long-term effect on them.

When artists use children who are not their own, they usually get the consent of the parents. This situation may be slightly less problematic as one would hope that the parents would have the best interests of their child at heart and be able to apply censorship if required.

The artist Robert Mapplethorpe, more famous for his photographs of gay men, also took pictures of children. The controversial image of Rosie (see plate 12) caused a furore in 1976 when it was exhibited at the Cincinnati Art Centre despite the fact it was taken with the full consent of her parents. The director of the gallery was taken to court and a debate ensued about whether or not it could be called 'art'. The image shows a small girl, barely more than a toddler, sitting on a carved stone bench. As she reaches out to touch her foot, her summer frock innocently lifts up to reveal a view of her genitals. She appears completely unaware of this and it seems a truly innocent image - something one might see on any summer's day at the beach or in the park where children are playing partially clothed or naked. Rosie, in later life, confessed to liking the picture herself and she had no problems with it's content. As it was taken with the consent of her parents she did not see it as exploitative. But different peoples' reactions to a certain situation can vary so widely. What may seem a traumatic event to one may seem total harmless to another.

More recently, another photographer whose work has caused a fair amount of controversy is Hellen Van Meene (short-listed for the 2001 Citibank Prize). She takes pictures of boys, girls and young women in poses that are staged but naturalistic, showing their braces and bra straps, capturing the gawky bit between childhood and adult maturity (see plate 13). Meene takes umbrage at the fact that she has been accused of making pornographic images: “I don't think people look very carefully if they say this is porn… these photos have so many layers. And I get annoyed when they say things like that. I have great respect for my models, if I did not, I would not be able to make these pictures.”

Van Meene always gets consent from her models and their parents beforehand. She selects her subjects, who are always strangers to her, by approaching them on the street or at the bus stop. When she explains to them what she wants to do, they usually agree to participate in her projects. The young people she chooses are generally interested in her ideas and curious about her work. The results are hauntingly beautiful (see plate 14) - often her subjects do not engage directly with the camera but stare into the distance. They appear to be in a world of their own - one wonders what they are thinking? Van Meene claims, “Only one parent has ever said that they didn't wish me to use the photos of their child. Because I love the photos, I hope they will too, no matter what the critics say, and a lot of the parents do love them.”

Inevitably consent will remain a key issue for the artist where children are concerned. Any investigation into the circumstances in which an image was made has to include questions about coercion, power imbalances and authority. We can never be sure that a child has not been exploited, but ultimately it has to be a question of finding the right balance for the individual involved