Random Images: Blasius Erlinger

(Last Updated On September 10, 2022)

This disclaimer is to inform readers that this artist and his agent object to the presence of his work on this site.  Although, the request seemed to appear well-considered, it betrayed a narrow-minded bias and total lack of understanding of the purpose of this site.  Given the importance of this material and the lack of compelling reason for its removal, I have declined the request.  Mr. Erlinger also did not take up my offer of revising this post so it could “properly” convey the desired context of the these images to our readers.  It is really distressing to see people with artistic talent to exhibit this kind of intolerance and not want to contribute, in some small way, to a better world.  [Incidentally, Pigtails operaties under the Fair Use Clause of the Copyright Act of 1980 and corresponding laws that exist in most countries]  -Ron

This artist was born in Germany in 1961 and has traveled extensively throughout the world, mostly operating out of Australia.  He now resides in Miami with his wife and three daughters.

Erlinger may have been trying to imitate the style of Jock Sturges here because his photographs are usually in color.  These girls are probably two of his daughters and appear in many of his photographs; these two are perhaps the most artistic and sensual.

Blasius Erlinger - Two girls (1)

Blasius Erlinger – Two girls (1)

Blasius Erlinger - Two girls (2)

Blasius Erlinger – Two girls (2)

2 thoughts on “Random Images: Blasius Erlinger

  1. This photo is of my sister and myself, and I ask you to kindly please remove these images from your website. We agree with my father and his agents objections and ask you take these photos down.

    Whatever vision you might have for this website is entirely besides the point when you include images of young girls in a collection called “Flirt” and have other images of young girls behind a pay wall.
    I strongly object to these images of myself and sister being posted on a site like this. Please remove them.

    • First of all, thank you for your comment. I will reemphasize that the purpose of this site is to bring to light the images of young girls—in various attitudes—in the history of art and media. These images give us insight into the nature of our humanity. It is therefore short-sighted to say that our vision for this website is “besides the point”; it is precisely the point. I stand for your right, from a democratic standpoint, to object to the display of the images but there is no promise in a democratic system that every citizen will get his/her way.
      Regarding the ‘Flirt’ reference, that is most likely the source of the images. It is a title of a series by a website called The Stack which does not seem to be operating at the moment. So I have removed it’s reference (one line) at the end of the post. Your father may have a complaint against that organization but I am not privy to the details of how those images were meant to appear online.
      With respect to a “pay wall”, there is no such thing. This is a site run by volunteers and we have collected no money for special access to materials. The controversial nature of our site demands that we be as transparent as possible. What you may be reacting to are the restricted images. None of these images are unethical or illegal. We simply have to contend with the fact that hyper-vigilant people (and now AI systems) are screening for these things and reporting them. Instead of engaging in dues process, the corporations running the web find if more convenient to just terminate service. We have never received any official requests from law enforcement or the courts of any jurisdiction. Restricted images can be viewed by anyone who personally requests it. They are simply given instructions and a password. We were simply trying to mitigate the shock value for those who are close-minded about the legitimacy of nudity.
      I do get tired of repeating things, but I am aware the readers often do not take the time to read the various comments/responses I make that shape the political tone of this site, but it is necessary to do so again as needed:
      The only justification for removing a post or specific images if some kind of harm is demonstrated. Simply stating an objection is a weak argument and belies a deeper unreasonable bias. You and your father have both been tight-lipped about the true motivations of your complaint and have refused to offer clarifying information so that we may present the artist’s desire for producing the art. From what admittedly little I know, you girls were not harmed (strenuously coerced) in the production of the images, nor is there reason to believe that they are doing harm now. If you or your sister find that playing this kind of part in art history is emotionally taxing—fame can be an unnatural strain on human beings—please do see help from a qualified psychotherapist.
      We are not harming any of you here and we are trying to offer an olive branch to remedy whatever misinformation you may believe is taking place here.
      Thank you again for your time but do not bother us again unless you have something more substantive that we need to deal with. -Ron

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.