Felipe

Andre, actually, they're not in contact with the testicles, appearances aside. He really is that big. I had him put his hands there to draw visual sightlines in that direction. And yes, it was a bit cold in my studio that day.

TheFlyingCamera,

I think it would be a mistake to assume that negative or critical postings neccessarily mean that the poster is in some way inadequate or 'confused' in their sociosexual outlook. Your ealier posting suggested that your image has in some way represented and intellectual, social and sexual challenge that has found them wanting, revealing their own inadequacies rather than those of the image. Images such as this are always going to be contentious but surely their value ought to extend beyond that. It is possible to have a balanced outlook and to be able to deal with this image quite easily......but also find it wanting or even 'gratuitous and without evident purpose or value'. There is a parallel with criticising political correctness. If you do, you are a zealot, xenophobe or similar. I personally don't find it in the least offensive, challenging or upsetting but at the same time I do perhaps see it as cynical and devoid of any particular merit.

Mapplethorpe would have handled this subject much better -- and much worse.

Hmm Lots of brouhaha on this one, it's hard to say anything.

No, not offensive. Poor thing!
Except - I think this is a man's picture of a willy, and not a woman's.

That is not a criticism of course - an observation.

Cate

1428 views. great new record for you.

great discussion. very enjoyable. even had a few chuckles.

"Except - I think this is a man's picture of a willy, and not a woman's." by stargazer

i do not think it is a picture of A womans willy either. har har har!

eddie

Yes, fair joke. But you know what I meant.

btw I meant 'in the taking of' rather than 'in the viewing of' though maybe it's both,

As I said, no criticism whatsoever....

For whatever reason (if that's it) - difficult to ...hmm...relate to, (if that's the word!) for me. Quite interesting discussion, though.
Agree more male nudes in general are a good idea...balance is always a good thing.
Cate

Like Cate, I've been reluctant to post while the ensuing brouhaha was going on. Personally, I have no problem that this image was posted and no question as to FC's right to post it. The brouhaha was more disturbing than this image!

Scott, you wote: "And to answer the question of why?
It fits in with the conversations we've been having about what is art, what is porn, and how to handle controversial images."

My thoughts are this: if you wanted to make a statement, this image might have been better served with a different kind of print. I love the look of palladium, but for me it doesn't work here. For an "in your face" image, I would like to see more aggressive printing. I'd like to see a straight B&W print, maybe with the edges burned in, so the eye is forced to the subject by a dramatic pool of light as well as by the selective focus (which I do like). To my eye, it's also calling for much higher contrast.

Overall, I believe that's what bugs me about this piece: the subject has a dignified shock value but the presentation, unfortunately, does not, leaving it with sort of a split personality, if you will. So in that regard, for me anyway, the image fails. If I perceive someone is trying to slap me awake, I want to feel it!

I'm not sure I expressed myself well, so hopefully I made sense here. Just my two cents.

Must be a gentile, eh?

I've been thinking about this image and everything surrounding it. That shows, for one thing, that it's a powerful piece, whichever way you look a it.

I sometimes find it hard to formulate complex ideas/emotions in a forum like this, (even though other people seem to manage to do so quite elegantly). Controversial issues are hard to handle on-line. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Terri's point about the presentation is an interesting one, and a valid point. I'm not sure I agree - still thinking about it - I think the picture does have shock value, but it also has a lot more, and there is indeed beauty, if you care to look further and longer than any initial feelings there may be of dismissal - shock, or humour, even repulsion, or at the other spectrum, just plain disinterest. (Though these reactions are all 'valid' of course; reactions always are). The classic kind of presentation helps this, I feel. I'm also quite fascinated by the fact that this guy obviously has a very beautiful body - why should there be any problem with this particular part of his anatomy?

Anyway, the presentation makes it very different indeed from the pornographic pamphlets from the 18th century that I mentioned in the 'artistic pornography' thread. The content itself is also, of course, completely different.....

Interesting questions.

Cate

Thank you all, especially Cate and Terri, for your comments. I'm glad that at least a few folks here could see what I was aiming for in the taking of the photo in the first place, and even if y'all didn't feel the beauty in it yourselves the same way I did, you could see it from an objective standpoint.