- About
- Blogosphere Buzz
- Archived Posts 2007-2008
- Register for Email Alerts
- The Book: Before You Take That Pill: Why the Drug Industry May Be Bad For Your Health
- Follow me on twitter @dougbremner
- Subscribe to my podcasts
- Rave Reviews for “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg: Accutane, the truth that had to be told”
- Follow me on goodreads
- Catania! The movie
Larry Rivers and daughter Emma
But a spokesperson for the archive said he didn’t have the “authority” to go back and figure out which parts of the archive are innappropriate. I say someone from NYU should use a little bit of f-ing sense and get rid of their child porn collection. What do you think?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Hi –
Could you please post the name and address for the person responsible for this nonsense so we can write to them directly? (Or maybe to the public relations people at NYU?)
Thanks!
Susie
PS: The *possession* of child porn is illegal in many countries — that should counter their argument that they don’t have the capacities to check through their d*rn archive.
I would say, write to the president of NYU libraries:
Carol A. Mandel
Elmer Holmes Bobst Library
10th Floor
New York, NY 10012
While I support the daughter in her efforts to have this material returned and kept hidden from public view, having lived through the culturally tumultuous late 60′s and the 70′s as a late teen and 20-something, I feel that in the context of the rapidly changing mores and changing rules of sexual conduct that was a part of that era, it was not at all clear at that time what were the limits of acceptable behavior. We were coming from the morals of the 50′s and articles still appeared in women’s magazines about whether a woman would be able to find a man to marry her if she lost her virginity before marriage. Then came the pill, and everything turned on its head and people were discussing the etiquette of sexual orgies. Artists have long created images of naked bodies. The NYTimes article said the film included the mother also showing her breasts in comparison so surely it was not intended to titillate; the film(s) were intended as art pieces. It is easy in our highly conservative time to look back on an artist during an era of changing and looser morals than today and judge him as a pornographer, but I don’t see him that way.
I suggested to my blog readers, after I received a few comments,to email John Sexton, President of NYU (john.sexton@nyu.edu) plus Maloney, Schumer and Gillibrand. I feel very bad for how these girls were (and continue to be) violated.
When I was in art school, I used to admire his early work: Things like his Dutch Masters and Camel cigarette series, but this is atrocious. I’ve been in therapy for a long time, and childhood abuse and trauma at the hands of my father is why. This makes me sick. He should exploit himself that way and called it art: Your children are not objects for you to use as you please.
Poor America and its endless moral struggles.
“Poor America and its endless moral struggles.”
Oh, please. Why do you insist on erasing the woman who was exploited? Or does she count at all in your estimation?
Some of you folks seem to think that this only has to do with puritanical morality, as if we were trying to raid Stonewall all over again. But the daughter he filmed and exploited, the daughter who felt she had no choice (who was berated and guilt-tripped into doing it), who has dealt with the psychological fall out of this, actually does count more than some douchebag’s artistic sensibilities. FFS.