.....Anyway, what I totally disagree with is removing (=censoring) a photo, against the photographer's will, because someone "got offended".
Getting offended is a personal matter than one should resolve himself, facing his inner demons and insecurities.
Getting offended is a ridiculous reason to censor others.
I can't force the Muslim girl walking next to me to take off her burqa because I "get offended".
I can't stop the Christian lady in the tube murmuring a chant because I'm an atheist and "get offended".
I can't force the gay couple next door from kissing in front of me, because I'm heterosexual and "get offended".
Why should I be able to force someone to remove their artwork because I "get offended"?
"Getting offended" is a buzzword to enable people to essentially censor what they don't like and limit the freedoms of others.
I don't see that nudes are necessary in photography.
If you are a painter or a sculpter then you have to do nude studies to learn the human form. But it's not necessary for photographers.
Portraiture is a much better art form, simply because a person's face is so much more expressive than their behind.
.
Well said.
I agree with you, harsh and unobstructed criticism is of paramount importance.
Even if it's just an opinion (what the hell, of course it's gonna be an opinion, most things we say are opinions).
Even if the artist gets offended because his ego can't handle it (which is very, very often the case).
In the end, harsh criticism helps everyone in the long run.
Unfortunately such criticism is rare in fora like here, where people are eponymous and interact with each other daily, and the social norms of friendly behaviour take over honest critique.
But it is what it is.
Anyway, what I totally disagree with is removing (=censoring) a photo, against the photographer's will, because someone "got offended".
Getting offended is a personal matter than one should resolve himself, facing his inner demons and insecurities.
Getting offended is a ridiculous reason to censor others.
I can't force the Muslim girl walking next to me to take off her burqa because I "get offended".
I can't stop the Christian lady in the tube murmuring a chant because I'm an atheist and "get offended".
I can't force the gay couple next door from kissing in front of me, because I'm heterosexual and "get offended".
Why should I be able to force someone to remove their artwork because I "get offended"?
"Getting offended" is a buzzword to enable people to essentially censor what they don't like and limit the freedoms of others.
Yes, it was done artfully and quite so. You had to see the image to see how and why.... Nudity itself is nudity just as landscape itself is landscape. As far as I'm concerned, it's what an artist do with it that makes it an art. (and let's not start "what's an art" discussion!) It was an magnificent work and I don't even like nudes.
Don't understand that at all... If nudes aren't nessecary in Photography, then faces are not either - or landscapes - or houses or.... Nothing is nessecary - they are all options..
Nudes is a choise - a challenge - a daunting one, as there's SO much crap out there and because it has been done a few times over the years....
Well put, Emil. Another reason I shoot nudes (and other subjects) is because each genre I do helps expand the way I see, when shooting something else. While it may be subliminal, the nudes I've done have made me more prone to see the sensual shapes in a landscape, and the landscapes I've shot have helped me see the "geography" of the human form. It's all connected....
I don't see that nudes are necessary in photography.
If you are a painter or a sculpter then you have to do nude studies to learn the human form. But it's not necessary for photographers.
A painter or sculpter doesn't "have to learn the human form" - except if they want to do nudes (?)
John- I don't always see the connection while composing. Sometimes it isn't until I look at a dried print that I see the connections. It doesn't matter, though. Every area of photography I explore helps with every other area.
Another thing, which hasn't been mentioned, is the fact that, having shot nudes, I can appreciate the nudes shot by other photographers better. I'm aware of the difficulties inherent in the genre, and am more appreciative of a successful image. It's easy to call them unnecessary, banal, prurient, etc. when you haven't done them. It's like saying you don't like Brussels sprouts without having tasted them.
I don't shoot nudes and I think it would be hard to have a better appreciation for how difficult it is to shoot good nudes than I possess.
Painters and sculpters need a very good knowledge of anatomy even to do artwork of people with their clothes on. The proportions of the body always have to be spot on or it will look all wrong.
Photographers get that fror free.
What bothers me about nudes is that they so often deny sexuality. In our culture, open nudity IS about sex unless one is taking a bath or a shower. So, what is there to be offended by? Seeing a (typically) young naked man or woman draped over a rock, or leaning against a tree is so patently false it's almost laughable. SHOW the arousal...give a REAL reason for posing without clothes instead of the uptight attitude that manufactures a silly excuse to bare it all. Or, just don't bother.
... Looking at the deleted posters, I instantly knew what happened, as has happened many times before (and has been confirmed above).
Seeing a (typically) young naked man or woman draped over a rock, or leaning against a tree is so patently false it's almost laughable.
I suppose it is up to individual perception, but when does artistic nude photography move into pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?