Someone recently expressed concern over an exhibit she’d seen where the artist painted his own children in various clothed poses. It was her contention that a stranger might see the art, track down the artist, and kidnap his kids.
I recall a photographer friend relating a remark by a visitor to the effect that there were too many children included in the show. Sally Mann received similar criticism when she photographed her young ones. When Larry Kramer did the film “Kids” he was criticized for using actual teens to portray his adolescent protagonists.
Natalie Portman said she is still reminded by admirers of her first film, “The Professional,” done when she was 12, which contains some of her best work. Some “concerned” citizens had complained about a sexual subtext between her character and the much older man who took her in.
It amazes me that even in the face of a continuous assault of incidents involving adults who have access to children violating that child’s trust, these vigilant watchdogs persist in clinging to the myth that the biggest danger to children is the bogeyman stranger.
Right behind that “horror” is the creative artist whose work is scrupulously examined for anything that might be turned into something salacious, or worse, stimulate said stranger to act against children. Their urge to limit and constrict the artist persists unabashedly, righteously, vigorously.
I’m not discussing Internet dangers, which are a separate category battled most effectively by parents who know exactly what their kids are doing online. The charming stranger does come into play there. I’m referring more to face to face, daily living contacts.
As I type this, a news report is describing the beating death of a 3-year-old girl at the hands of her own father. In a newspaper story, a respected teacher and girls’ basketball coach was convicted of four counts of sexual assault against a teenage girl on her team.
It was similar to so many stories reported. The coach plied the girl with gifts, phone calls, praise, charmed her and pounced – again and again.
People have a choice of professions. No one HAS to choose teaching or coaching or any individualized instruction that puts the adult in close proximity to the child in an isolated situation, as with music teachers.
No one HAS to choose volunteer work that involves kids. You can work in a food pantry or collect clothes.
My point is, instead of demonizing innocent strangers or creative people, these watchdogs need to convey first to each other, then to kids, that those who need monitoring most are those whose positions put them in direct contact with kids.
Maybe the mother of that basketball player would have acted on the red flags of inappropriate attention by the coach toward her daughter early on if the dangerous stereotype of the stranger had been replaced by the truth of what’s really happening in our society.
Joe Del Priore is a frequent contributor. Comments on this piece can be sent to: current@hudsonreporter.com.