http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml

Well put, Michael.

I might disagree with lots of what you say in your site, but I must say you handled this matter perfectly.

The motto of the British Order of the Garter sums it up - "Honi soit qui mal y pense" - evil be to him who evil thinks of it.

An amazing furore when you consider the vast amounts of pornographic images available at the click of a link on the Internet. In this bigger context, Lolita is quant.

The Lolita picture is a nice portrait but I'm increasingly feeling the Michael's deepest artistry is not vis-a-vis people, but rather with abstractions of natural forms.

When I first saw this image my immediate reaction was, that cyan piece of cloth shouldn't be there. The photo would be more interesting without it.

I don't often criticise Michael's photos, but I think the presence of that piece of cloth is a definite flaw.

the fact that i dont even know where the original post was posted is kinda annoying so i cant even put an opinion across.. apart from the fact the photo title is not bad, i wonder how many moral police swear or cuss.... is that not bad as well... the photo is a photo, infact probably one of the most viewed now...controversy sells....

If you want offensive misogynistic porn look no further then the R&B/Rap music videos aimed at young people on main stream TV - most of them make me cringe and I'm no prude..

The Lolita photo is for from offensive..

I saw the picture several times without even thinking about its title or what it shows, but to my amazement today I've learnt about the affair

Well, what could I say? Many people with too-shallow skin nowadays...

I suspect the girl is simply posing for a portrait with no intent to be sexually provocative.

But I do agree that the photograph is completely anodyne. The most I can say is that the artlessness of the child has charm.

In the UK it is not possibly to photograph children that you do not know, due to the current 'moral' atmosphere. And most everyone drives their children to school due to fear of kiddy fiddlers. It's madness.

With that kind of reaction, even tounge in cheek, about a child, and with that title specifically suggesting a sexual connetation again with a child, I can see where they are coming from.

I'm astonished that no-one here has an issue with the use of a term that entered the language because it originally referred to a 12-year old girl in a work of fiction that has sex with a middle-aged man. The fact that the bowdlerised subsidiary meaning has gained a common currency doesn't alter the fact that that meaning derives entirely from the orignal meaning, and anyone who uses it can expect - and deserve - a tough time from anyone familiar with the original meaning who asks them what they really meant.

Would you caption an anonymous middle aged man as Humbert Humbert, and would you think he would be completely happy about it?

What amazes me even more is that the book came out in 1955 and the movie in 1962!!! 52 years ago!!

How much longer do we have to wait for the neanderthals of the world to actually evolve?

Just get over it. It's still just a word and a photograph. As soon as I saw the image I was thinking the same thing Michael was when he titled it. She was hamming it up for the camera and that's what little girls often do at that age.

Just for the heck of it... if not Lolita, then what would you have titled it.
Anyone??

I certainly don't have a problem with it at all. I have a 12-year-old daughter (and two sons, 11 and 8) and I'm certainly not keen on her having sex with anybody of any age for a good few years to come. But she does strike kittenish poses in the photos that she herself takes using Photobooth on the iMac.

"Lolita" doesn't belong to Nabokov any more than Scrooge belongs to Dickens or Catch-22 belongs to Heller. They're steereotypes that are used in our culture as shorthands. They're used without deep, extensive reference to the source text. Humbert Humbert is not used as a stereotype.

It's quite right that our societies have become more vigilant about the exploitaiton of children and the casual acceptance of sexism. But we shouldn't lose a sense of proportion that informs mature judgment in a world where hundreds of thousands of women are coerced into the sex trade which in part feeds the petabytes of pornography infesting the Internet.

Stay the course.....

I have already responded to many threads about this in DPReview......and telling the people outraged by this that this isnt about the little girl...or the title...its about them. (which stands true for MOST morally outraged people)

THEY are uncomfortable with the title....

Changing it would not help the girl......nor will not changing it.

If they want to elicit change in this world...I invite them to buy a ticket....visit the town or village where the girl lives and make their changes there.

Wagging a finger at you for their own look in the mirror is amazingly simple minded.

Roman

I don't believe the elpased time since the publishing of the book is an issue; it isn't arcane in the literary sense or in the social issues it covers - if anything, its relevance is greater today, unfortunately.

I also don't see that Scrooge or Catch-22 are anywhere near as loaded in their implications to be sensibly used in comparison.

Per the red herrings that have been introduced in place of argument - I have no problem with the picture, it seems as harmless to me as it apparently does to everyone else who has commented.

And lastly, I have no problems with Michael's motives either - I just think it is unrealistic in practical terms to use a term loaded with such a background and affect surprise at the misunderstanding and controversy it generates.

PS Oh, and good luck to all of you relying on wikipedia entries rather than original source documents !

Michael

Anyone who knows you, personally or through your site and other media, would be aware that the art in the photograph is your passion.

Perhaps we need moral police, but if so it would help if they were competent. Police will look at all the evidence before judging whether or not to recommend prosecution (in this case, persecution).

I suppose the same people will now discover your gallery from Bangladesh and harass you for exploiting the (relatively) poor people there. And you had better brace yourself for an onslaught from the 'Happy Feet' fans, because your Antarctic trips exploit penguins......

I don't think that the photograph in question is "art". It's much more of a snapshot. Nothing really brought to that picture by the person behind the camera (IMO) Everything there, is delivered by the young girl.

This thing with naming photographs, especially images like this? Most of the time, slapping a metaphorical name on a photograph is Sophomoric. Usually, when I see an image with a name like this on it, I throw up a little and wonder why the author is so involved in trying to make me see what he was thinking. It takes a lot of the fun out of experiencing a picture and the word pretentious comes to mind in a big way.

In this case, I'm stunned that the "Lolita" choice was made. Michael, I can't believe that you were, as you said, "completely astonished" when you recieved a backlash from this. What did you expect? You ought to be spanked just for yielding to the temptation to give this image a name other than "young girl in so and so village"..do you really feel that you needed to hold the audience's hand so tightly?

Very very very rarely does an image beg for a name..when it does, it had better be a good one, or, one that tries to send the audience in a, perhaps, ironic or otherwise direction. I wonder what this girl's mother or father would have thought of this choice of a name? Perhaps they would laugh..maybe not though, you might be chased through the jungle by a guy with a machete.

So, why does this image need an arty name? If some of the audience wants to bring some sexual provocation to the image then that's their business. If not, why force the issue? Do we really need to encircle our images with names that bind them as some particular thing?

I don't find the subject sexually provocative, but the self-conscious yet naive pose struck instinctively does make the photo interesting for it's human universality. The title is apt.

How many who comment have actually read Lolita, or anything else by Nabokov, for that matter?

The smothering of our life experience with powerful modern media has many effects, but perhaps the cruelest is that when a cultural reference is made, the majority will think they have understood it's meaning.

I also took part in the unbelievable discussion on the DP Review site and this is what I said (under the title "PC Gestapo rides again"):

"The word Lolita and its associated definitions and connotations, do not imply a statement on subjects character, but a statement of fact. In other words, it is descriptive, not normative or judgmental. It is Mr. Reichmann's right to see the world though his own eyes and interpret what he sees in his own way. If the first impression he had was that word, so be it. He could be right or he could be wrong, but he has the right to be wrong (known as freedom of speech).

One of the roles art has is to provoke. Mr. Reichmann did provoke us to think about the word and the image, the circumstances and societies, morals and dilemmas. And for that I am grateful to Mr. Reichmann and his art."

Reading Michael's subsequent reply I found it interesting that he raised the same issue, the provocative role of art.

I find it appalling that we have to defend the very concept of freedom of speech years after the fall of Soviet Union, and even in countries that served as beacons of that freedom for the rest of the world. Apparently, "freedom haters" are not limited to Taliban only.

You guys really think that this particular image is art?

There are a lot of things to be said about Photography and Art.

Art is a medium for transmitting things that cannot be expressed by regular means. You can "explain" a true Art work only until some point.

Ok... are we now back to discussing is photography art at all? Because in almost every photograph, "..everything there is delivered by.. " the subject in front of the camera. Or you are saying that only manipulated photographs could qualify as art? And does one need to manipulate the subject, or just the photograph of the subject, or both, to be considered artist?

Offense is in the mind of the viewer, not the pixels of the photograph.

Whether it is or not, is irrelevant for the Lolita Affair discussion. There is art and then there is art. There are artists and then there are artists. I certainly do not equate Michael with Michelangelo, but in his own right he is doing what most artists do: trying to convey their vision of the world to the rest of us... sometimes artist's vision resonates with us, sometimes not, and sometimes only years later. In this particular case, the Lolita photo, Michael certainly managed to have it resonate with us, one way or the other. Whatever you might think of him as an artist, I have no doubt that his intentions in this photo were artistic. And by that I mean his impetus to share his vision of that part of the world and that particular moment, his impressions, associations and connotations, is the moving force of an artist.

I disagree with your statement that "in almost every photograph everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera".

Photographers worth their salt are always dictating a point of view, getting you to understand their language through a combination of tools...Juxtaposition, light, point of view, manipulation, formal/informal treatment, moment, subject, exposure, presentation, framing/cropping, direction and, yes...well thought out titling of images in some cases...it goes on.

A simple and easy example..Ansel Adams. Did he rely on the subject to bring his message? not a chance, he controlled every image he made to the last extent.

Cartier-Bresson? He did the same thing in a different, but not so different, way.

I'm sorry, If you believe that everything is delivered by the subject then you are not understanding what goes into making great images. I'm not talking about trite, run of the mill images. I'm talking about successful images.

Of course, once in a while things happen and everything comes together by force of luck...but, to be able to keep doing it over and over again..you can't just depend on the subject alone to bring what is neccesary for a successful image.

Michael

Has the original description for the image in question been edited?

If i'm not mistaken,wasn't there,originally, an assumption of the young girl being pregnant.

Mark

[quote=NikosR,May 16 2007, 08:07 AM]
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lolita-affair.shtml

An old man that does not understand the modern world!
I have earlier reacted against Michaels policy of giving children i poor countries money for being on his exposures.
The Lolita business is worth more discussion, a discussion that he wants to avoid: In today´s world places like the internet is full of, among other things, pedofiles. We cannot just pretend they are not there. On the internet people like that easily finds fellows in thought. Sex abuses happen on the internet, but often pedofiles work togehter on the internet to find new victims.
What if they use your photo to find that girl and exploit her?

LETS NOT HELP THEM IN ANY WAY!

When Michael writes "Lolita" those scums take that as a confirmation by (normal)people thas children can/should be seen as sex objects.

Michael, your site is not as interesting as it used to. Now it is more a marketing platform, your images are beutiful but not exciting. And we do not share values on human integrity - yours are representive for a typical western old man, you do not understand the world!
Per

I guess I need help understanding the real issue...

Is it that people are astonished and/or angry that:

1) MR photographed a young (and obviously under-age by contemporary civilized-world standards) female,

2) that she is also pregnant,

3) that she is also obviously posing in a fashion that appears to be an attempt at sexually-provocative,

4) or the fact he provided the image with a name that clarifies all of the above implications?

Or possibly,

5) that MR, typically a landscape and travel photographer has now presented us with a travel image that begins to cross over into the realm of documentary/street/reportage,

6) that folks are surprised MR did not anticipate the turmoil his posting of said image would incur,

7) that MR is it a relatively successful photographic artist (in landscape, travel and street purview) and has made many of the not-so-successful jealous, and thus become a target for any time his toes get close to crossing traditionally-accepted societal boundary-lines?

The one thing I am sure of is that the image in question qualifies as art. Whether or not everybody finds it appealing or even tasteful may be open to discussion, however as a documentary image, it clearly can stand on its own. And moreover, when viewed as a documentary image, it tells a complete story of one of the harsh realities of this world, regardless of the viewer's relative comfort at seeing it...

Cheers,

This is not my statement, I am just using your own words and bringing them a step further to the inevitable (il)logical conclusion. But glad you used Ansel Adams as an example: the fact he used meticulous methods to control his image does not mean he did not "...rely on the subject to bring his message...". His very message was the beauty of his subject. A great number of his photos are a simple representation of reality, or the subject in front of his camera. There are some more manipulated than others, but his control of the process was mostly intended to fight the limitations of the medium and technology available to him.

But your choice of the next example is even better one: Cartier-Bresson... His photographs are, taken literally, nothing but snapshots. And yet they are art. If there is a photographer in this world for whom you can indeed say: "...everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera..." it is Cartier-Bresson. Just lifting his camera to his eye (and sometimes not even that) and pressing the shutter... resulted in art. Of course he chose where to point his camera, but that is about it. And I am not trying to demean Cartier-Bresson, just to prove you do not need to manipulate your subject in order to create art. In that sense, Michael's Lolita is very Cartier-Bressonian.

Dear Michael,

I am very astonished by the title of this picture. With the first seeing of the picture at all an association did not arise with me that it could concern the presentation of any sexual attractions.

The title confused me not in such a way then, like your justifications on keeping the title.

How could you see in this picture a girl that presents sexual attractions?

How colud you hide yourself in your explanations behind an art term?

Did you speak with the parents of this girl? Did they agree with the title via a model release?

I hope that you dissociate yourself from your expressions!

I don't find this image any more provocative than a nude by Edward Weston. In fact, I find it less provocative. Whatever sexual content is in it is suggested rather than outwardly depicted.

The real issue is the freedom to create art, in my eyes. The artist is free to create as his or her artistic preferences dictate. This is not journalism, or news photography. This is not a reportage on the state of the Amazonian residents today.

To this end this quote comes to mind:

The great thing about this thing we call art is that it has no rules.
Kim Weston

The problem is that you are not living on an isolated island.

Children are abused around the world in a increasing amount every day. The internet is full of places where middelaged men view and discuss pictures of their Lolitas, young girls in a sexual way. In my mind a child could never be responable for his or her actions its always the responsibility of adults not to abuse.
The use of the word Lolita in this case is very provocative. This could very well be a child who have learned the hard way how to make money by sexually attracting old men.

I think Mr Reichman should make a statement about this and not try to hide behind some art bullshit.


Krister Halvars

You will think I am rude, but your posting is really silly, and takes things out of proportion. To most of us it is just an innocent picture.

And Michael Reichmann's site has always been a marketing platform, with some free reviews, articles and forums that many of us enjoy. There is no free lunch in life.

I think no one may remain indifferent with the picture, the same way no one may remain indifferent looking the images, day after day, of hundreds of people, including children and pregnant women dying on their way to reach Europe from Africa. Or the Sebastiao Salgado pictures of workers or children. Or...

But only sick people can see even a bit of indecency on them. I do not think MR picture is art, but it is a picture that removes consciences and makes you aware of other realities that you may not want to realise they exist. If the picture calls for something it is for action to remediate poverty and exploitation, not to kill the messenger.

Regards

Manuel

Please.

This

is

a

child

we're discussing here.

She deserves to be protected at all costs. Michael should have given more thought to the connotations of using 'Lolita' as a title, for her protection, if for nothing else. Regardless of everything else, he should have erred on the side of caution and not slandered her person or invited such conversations as the one we're having here for the sake of an 'artistic' image.

I myself thought it was a good photograph until I read the title. She wasn't being sexual until Michael added it. I still think its a goood photo if named "untitled". Turning children's innocence into sexuality is a aweful thing to do to a child. Ant the arguement that those days are over because of the internet and rap videos is hogwash, each and every person is accountable.

By adding the word Lolita, he has went from letting us decide what we feel about the photograph to telling us he thinks she is sexy.

Hi folks!

I don`t have strong opinions pro or contra the picture or it`s title. However, the moral indignation directed at the issue, makes it bigger. Meaning: the more you throw in your moral indignation on behalf of that girl, trying to protect her, the more you run the risk of the picture becoming a BIG DEAL. However well intended, the consequences may be worse for the girl.

Let´s consider a worst case scenario: the picture & discussion brought to the mass media (newspapers, TV...)? Who would be partly responsible for that, dispite their good intentions?

So, on behalf of the anonymous girl: shall we try to avoid making her a kind of celebrity?
By stopping this thread, and the other threads, I`m convinced that we have a better chance of protecting her.


Paul

I am afraid this has got very out of hand.

I have been critical of Michael in the past..aka site info wise..but on this one..sorry but he has done nothing wrong at all.

I was not offended..(I think its also a good photo)...I have no problem with the use of the word either. This was a shot taken from his words in the moment..and its in good taste.

Sadly if you look at photographs now...you have so many limitions..why is it people were ok about a photo of a small childs bottom 50 years ago and not now? Why can't we take pictures..in good taste..without people throwing their hands up?

We are living in a sad world indeed..and yes I have children too.

Shame on those moral police fools...they are the ones who help create a society of fear and distrust. That is why when you go out with camera now the police are onto you.....people look on you with suspicion.

Lolita is a word and just that. Whats the big deal?

Barry, are you serious?
'Model Release' and 'exploitation' are just words as well.
Does Michael have a model release for this image?
Did he get her permission to use her image to market his site?
Do you think she and/or her parents, even if they gave signed permission, would be happy if the photo of her ran with a title that suggested she was possibly sexually available?

I think not. The title (word) changes everything in this image.

As for the 'art' argument - The context of the image, on the title page of a site that has ads all over it, totally removes it from the artistic realm. (as if it ever belonged there, anyway) This is a commercial endeavour for Michael, he profits from the ads and from the sales of the videos.

If he were to put this image on a site with only his fine-art images, then the 'artistic merit' argument could be made. It would still be specious, but it would stand. In a commercial context such as this, it's indefensible.

Thank you for expressing my thoughts exactly in a way I couldn't have done, English not being my mother tongue.

I completely agree. But the fact remains it can be viewed as a documentary image -- does not have to be, but can be -- and any sexual inference is being depicted by a probably pregnant (or at least suggestively-plump) and obviously quite young, female... As such, regardless of whether Michael intended it or not, viewed as a documentary image it most certainly depicts the state of this particular Amazonian resident today...

Of course one could choose to view it as a cute travel snap of a chubby little native girl, playing dress-up complete with lipstick and make-up... But I submit if that were the case, the image would not carry the title it does.

Cheers,

Yeah, as a parent,

If i saw a picture of my young daughter and tagged with the superficial definition of LOLITA and then posted on a web site that people all over the world read...you can be sure that Michael would never forget my face after I walked into his gallery a couple of days later.

Seriously, Michael, you made a stupid mistake here and you need to realize it. No, you have not made a profound statement...Yes, you have made a sarcastic, disrespectful statement. All that without the balls to find out who this MINOR is and ask her and her parents if it 's ok to beam her image across the planet with the suggestion that she is a Lolita underneath it.

It's not the picture..it's the tag.

Easy to do this when you are continents away. Michael, would you have the balls to do this if you lived in the village down the road from where these people live, using an equivalent term in Portuguese? I doubt it.


Morality police? Michael, I'm sorry to say, I think you are showing an incredible lack of respect to many and particularly to the family of this girl. You have seriously objectified her. It has not a damn thing to do with the morality police, it has everything to do with the respect police. Your statement with regard to this incident shows that you haven't considered all the angles on this thing. In fact, it shows remarkable arrogance and that you hold a quite bit of contempt for the many people who disagree with you.

At all costs? Protected from what?

Are you seriously suggesting that on the strength of that image that someone is going to travel thousands of miles and track that girl down and do something nasty to her? And that this image would prove more likely to encourage such behaviour than a similar picture published in National Geographic under documentary auspices?

Nor is it slander, slander applies only to the spoken word. What you must mean is libel. To prove libel you must prove damage, and usually that must be financially quantifiable. So you can't mean that. What you must mean is that it's a mean thing to say, and somehow imagine that saying mean things (even when no such denotation or connotation was intended) should be illegal.

In most countries no model release is required for the making of fine art images.

When I saw that image and title I immediately thought that the girl was flirting. Someone of such tender years flirting with an older man immediately brings to mind "Lolita" as a loose cultural reference. From the title I got the impression that MR may have been slightly uncomfortable, or perhaps not. For after all such flirting is perfectly benign if the person who is being flirted with is a good and decent person who has no intention of pursuing the matter further. MR is clearly such a person.

Even if there are a bunch of dirty paedophiles furiously masturbating to the image (which possibility seems remote in the extreme) so what? They could equally well be aroused by a catalogue of children's clothing. Sick people can be aroused by things that normal people find innocuous, that is no reason to ban everything that any sick person could possibly take pleasure in.

At all costs? At the cost of our liberty? Our self-respect? The richness of art and literature?

The only comfort I take is that the young lady herself would probably hold you in the same contempt that I do.

Now run along and put "I believe that children are our future" on the stereo and sway misty-eyed as you contemplate a world stripped of all truth and beauty.



"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

– C. S. Lewis

Peripatetic,

The richness of art and literature? Please, run along and try to make your point with an image that actually merits it.

a world stripped of truth and beauty...please...you sound as misty eyed as the guy you are slamming. Keep it real, this situation is not going to threaten our liberty. The only thing it is going to threaten is the definition of art and how far you can stretch it.

(Yeah, the guy is a little over the top in his suggestion that some psycho might try to track this girl down.)

This image is trite and has been played out a hundred million times from national geographic to unicef to birthday party snapshots. It's like the next damn sunset that I don't want to see in print.

And, if you really understood Nabakov's book, you would realize that it was the Humbert who thought she was flirting. This is part of the problem...the modern slang term "Lolita" doesn't reflect what was going on in the book except on a very superficial level...which, unfortunately, is how most people read.

Oh for heaven's sake - it's a picture of a girl who is being sexually provocative for a man with a camera in a third world country. If you find it shocking that a young girl who is just bordering on puberty would wish to appear "sexy" as she imagines "sexy" is, then you live in a world that is extraordinary, to say the least. Children are sexual beings.

I see a young girl who is having a pleasing fantasy - perhaps she is thinking about some babe she saw in a magazine. Perhaps she is just beginning to think about how men react to women, even young women. If there is any man reading this who imagines that good men do not find young women sexually attractive I will not be surprised although I would not agree. If there is any man here who has never found a young girl sexually attractive at least for a fleeting instance ... well I hesitate to chuckle, but it's almost unimaginable.

For myself, a 58 year old woman, I find that this photo is no more disturbing than the young women parading around my small city in Ontario with the tops of their thong undies displayed and their daring little décolletages. Young girls playing with their sexuality is a part of the human experience.

It is in that context that I view Michael's photo. (as I viewed the book, Lolita, which I did read, in the sixties). As a comment on our shared humanity, it qualifies as art.

Whether upper middle class Canadians or under legal age Amazonians do or do not display their sexuality is not the point.

My mother always said two wrongs don't make a right and would see Mr. Recihman's actions as definatley wrong, regardless of the intent.

Personally I have no problem with the photograph, to me it's just a snapshot of a little girl with pretty eyes. I read no sexual overtones into the image until I see Mr. Reichman's title.

Titling this photograph is the root of the problem.

A well respected friend and fine photographer says great photos do not need titles or explanation and I completely agree.

I don't know Mr. Reichman's intention but if could be perceived as cheap sensationalism and since these expeditions and Mr. Reichman's dvds are a commercial endeavor this episode could be viewed as pure exploitation, unless the subject and her legal gaurdians were compensated and there was clear, informed intent.

I find the art argument hard to swallow when this photograph is surrounded by banner ads selling dvds and downloadable tutorials.

In my opinion.

JR

Is that a threat of physical violence to settle a difference of opinion?! I know you are conditioning it on affecting you personally, but nevertheless?!

This is exactly what is wrong with the reaction of the PC Gestapo: it is not that they disagree with the choice of the title, which is everyone's right... it is that they do not stop at disagreeing, they want more: a ban, apology, retraction, reparation, shutting down the site, jail time, and yes, physical violence.

I am a member who disagreed with MR in the past, but I feel the need to express my support to him on this issue, as I found in general the quality and objectivity of this site has been improving recently.

Coming from a third world county where exploiting the young is a problem, there are size of art works focus on similar subjects. These works are viewed either as forms of pure art depicting the human nature, or socially provocative type of practical art. More than often, the child depicted in the works are helped, rather than harmed, from the social awareness the art work evoked.

I do not see the either angles to look at such kind of work wrong. Actually they are often encouraged by the government there trying to raise the status of the poor country parts. Westerners who has little understanding of these places usually does not understand these kind of arts there as well and shocked by what they see when they had the chance to be in the places.

Leping
www.lepingzha.com

I have no problem with the image, and I also don't find a need to give my images a title, but a few things come to my mind:

How do we know this is a child?

What if she's 18?

Who's to say that in her country, 18 is the legal age of an adult?

Why is it that in the USA, 21 year olds can drink alcohol legally, an 18 year old is considered an adult, 16 year olds can drive cars, and 17 year olds can watch movies that are rated R, with violence, nudity, and sex?

Who are they to say that these are the legal ages for these activities, and who are we to say that this girl is too young to be titled "Lolita" in an artistic portrait?

In China, kids are driking hard liquor and the legal age for everything is 14.

My landscape works are famed for their heavenly sweetness. However, more and more I am realizing this kind of work is not what this world really needs, here and in my home country.

Leping
www.lepingzha.com

Well IMO there's nothing wrong with the pic.

It's the title obviously.

"Lolita" has never had especially pleasant connotations but in the context of the internet, the word simply means "child pornography".

Nick-T