I'm afraid I tend to lump most authorities on body language in with graphology and NLP. Open legs means X, one leg on the floor with the other crossed towards a stranger means Y, crossed away from a stranger means Z. Yes, body language fills in a lot of communication gaps, but its interpretation is an inexact science. Its a tool more noted in its absence ( as in the case of Aspies ) than in agreement about how to interpret the information it presents.

Claims that "she says 'yes,' but her body says 'no,' " are just as bad as their reverse; particularly when we confuse the performance with the performer's mental state. Dakota Fanning was not raped in Hounddog. That's why they call it acting and pay her the big bux.

The performer is hired upon their ability to manipulate all language convincingly. Their job is to create a convincing simulation of a mindset they don't have. "Out of character" emotions are edited out of printed takes.

Overgeneralized misinterpretation is common among students of body language. Mehrabian has to keep reminding those who quote his 80%+ nonverbal claim, that he was only talking about the nonverbal display of an emotion in the context of a discussion about the emotion.

So the interpretation of nonverbal cues might help us further understand any communications Eva had at the time regarding her consent. Unfortunately we aren't presented with any such discussions. What we're analyzing is the performance of a performer. ( Further, one might ask whether any expressions made in the custody of a stage-mother can be other than convincing performances when they agree with Mother's choices? )

Privileging the unexpressed, "I can tell child exploitation when I see it," plays to the hands of the child suppressors. Our arguments that we are more sensitive to the "hidden language" of children is mirrored in their arguments that Peds only see what they want to see and are insensitive to the "hidden language" of children.

We already have a system governed by the "know it when they see it" standard. It is heavily stacked against the expressed desires and claims of minors. Note the futility of Olympia Papapetrou attempting to tell the child advocates that the exploitation they see isn't present. Not only are the Antis more sensitive to body language than the Nons, they are more sensitive to it than the child models is. Olympia might be deluded about consent, but her pictures tell the Antis that she didn't consent.

Not to sound like a broken record, but Eva's vacant expression is that of Bill Henson's model. Or, I should say, that the expression in the artwork of Irina Ionesco is no different than that in the work of Bill Henson. And I have no clue about what transpired in the making of these images aside from what the artists and subjects are willing to claim about them.

Of course its easier when everyone agrees about the experience as a positive one. But our ethics must also address when parties disagree; both at the time, and much later. This can best be addressed by listening to what the children have to say, and not allowing it to be overwritten by what their performances as artistic collaborators in another's script might lead us to believe their characters want.

We have been confusing the character and the actor for far too long. Its the goal of art that the actor becomes invisible within the character. But I would hope that ethical considerations protecting the interests of those involved concern only the nonfictional persons.

Dante


Exploited by his mother's camera