Erotic or Pornographic?

Thread starter cliveh
Start date Nov 18, 2012

StoneNYC

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#51

BrianShaw said:
There are some people who find pictures of sweaty feet to be arousing. Is that erotic, pornographic, or just a picture of sweaty feet?

Bahaha!! This made me burst out laughing and also is a great example in my opinion, it's all perspective.

JBrunner said:
All I know is that an image that I quite liked has been deleted from what I consider one of the very best galleries on this site offered up by a photographer and printer that I have the utmost in admiration and respect for.

This, as a result of some narrow minded dolt who felt the need to create an issue where none was, and try to force their prudishness on everyone. The fact that they have been partially successful in disrupting the gallery irritates me to no end, and I would dearly like to know who it was.

I have no tolerance for this. None. Zero.

Emil, please post any image you feel like sharing, and please simply report harassment. I will personally see them out the door.

Thanks.

I couldn't have said it better than this, I fully agree and support exactly that mentality, I have no tolerance for others intolerance haha.

And as an aside, I focus on a few different genre including landscape, fine art modeling, and "macro parts" photography, the last of which at its core is taking macro images of (mostly women but men are welcome to hire me) women's nipple/vagina/butthole's etc. this is paid work that I am hired for, they are mostly NOT models, nor porn industry people, but young women and moms who want to see themselves from a different and beautiful artistic perspective. And I would never consider what I do to be pornographic, it's certainly art... And I would be highly offended if someone pointed at it and said, that is porn, not because I think porn is bad, but because I know how others view porn, and how they don't hold it in high esteem the way they do other art. Then again, most people are small minded and can't see a bigger picture (I say this with some irony since the picture doesn't get much smaller than macro without a microscope) haha

I support the open photo policy suggested, anything should be posts le as a creation no matter what it is, if the person created it with artistic intent, then it's valid, even if not "good art" by the viewer, it's still in some way art. As said earlier, it's about intent, and perspective.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

coigach

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#52

JBrunner said:
All I know is that an image that I quite liked has been deleted from what I consider one of the very best galleries on this site offered up by a photographer and printer that I have the utmost in admiration and respect for.

This, as a result of some narrow minded dolt who felt the need to create an issue where none was, and try to force their prudishness on everyone. The fact that they have been partially successful in disrupting some of the finest work in the gallery irritates me to no end, and I would dearly like to know who it was.

I have no tolerance for this. None. Zero.

Emil, please post any image you feel like sharing, and please simply report any harassment. I will personally see them out the door.

Thanks.

Interesting to note that the gallery complainer who complained of 'porn hiding behind the bromoil process' has not contributed to this thread...

As I said in my original gallery post before the images were removed, I think the images were beautiful and not remotely pornographic. I also said I thought the complainer had fair warning of the content given the picture title 'Erotic Bromoil'. He then chose to open thumbnails with that title and be outraged...

mr rusty

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#53

Emil, I am very sad that you felt you had to take your images down. I saw them and thought they were superb. The use of colour in the bromoil process is enlightening, and this demonstration of what can be achieved is surely what the gallery is for - to inspire. I hear the comments that the gallery leans towards liberalism, and 100% concur. In Victorian England people went around putting fig leaves on classical greek and roman statues. It's a sad day if anyone is allowed to do this instead of looking away when they see something that they don't like but which is allowed by society at large.

Steve Smith

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#54

Colour = porn, black and white = art.

Simple!!!

Steve.

kuparikettu

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#55

I wonder if it would help, if the sidebar with the "latest photo" was either disabled by default or it was made to be known that it can be disabled. While I myself am not offended by erotic images, even then I'd prefer not to see them without my own consent. Browsing an art gallery can be understood to be such consent, but just reading a forum not -- at least not in my opinion.

Regardless, I agree that there should space for erotic art in the gallery on this site. On the other hand, there should also be space for those people who for different reasons do not want to see such imagery and they should have that space without being called with derogatory names. I hope this site can be for those who are interested in analog photography, what ever their values, religion, ethnicity etc.

AgX

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#56

The sidebar can be disabled as such.
I did so as I was offended by a long series of uploads.
Those were pet-photos...

Stephanie Brim

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#57

Ah, the internet. Full of cats and naked women.

hoffy

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#58

Stephanie Brim said:
Ah, the internet. Full of cats and naked women.

There's a joke in that, but I'm not using it

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#59

JBrunner said:
Emil, please post any image you feel like sharing, and please simply report any harassment. I will personally see them out the door.

Thanks.

I find it disturbing that artists are encouraged to create work that stirs emotions and opinions, and then viewers who state such emotions or opinions are then threatened with a ban for doing so.

A person stating that a photo is pornographic, is no different than the photographer who shot it stating that its art. Both are opinions, and both are equally entitled.

perkeleellinen

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#60

I think there's a difference between stating emotions or opinions which is what we're doing here and harassment which is what JBrunner is referring to.

Diapositivo

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#61

JBrunner said:
I have no tolerance for this. None. Zero.

Emil, please post any image you feel like sharing, and please simply report any harassment. I will personally see them out the door.

We should not forget that Emil spontaneously removed his pictures from the gallery. If the "complaint" is polite I don't think anybody should feel offended. The picture or pictures should remain where they were, but I think everybody should be free to express his point of view without being purged for having expressed it. A free society is free because it does not repress thought, while not being repressed by other's thought.

To "compensate" for the self-censorship I would like to posts two images

(warning: human behaviour)

The so-called Ermafrodito stante, a statue of an hermaphrodite raising his vest to show his penis in erection, Galleria Borghese, Casino nobile di Villa Borghese, Rome:

http://www.dagospia.com/img/foto/12-2011/ermafrodito-140297_tn.jpg

And a modern sculpture just sold for an awful sum (€ 2 millions), I found it on the site "cose belle antiche e moderne" (beautiful modern and ancient things)

Dead Link Removed

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#62

perkeleellinen said:
I think there's a difference between stating emotions or opinions which is what we're doing here and harassment which is what JBrunner is referring to.

I think your photo is pornographic.

I think your photo is pornographic and you are a bad photographer who will never amount to anything, why do you even try.

See the difference? I doubt someone actually did the later, although I'm late to the conversation and anything is possible.

Diapositivo

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#63

The typical "harassment" (especially in the US or Northern Europe) would actually play the victim tune:

The sensitive religious whose soul is wound:

"As a mother of two children and as an observing [Christian | Muslim | Jeovah witness] I feel offended, say hurt, by your pornographic description of the gift of reproduction that God bestowed upon us. I think you should show more respect for people who don't want to see God offended this way"

The angry feminist who sees everything as a power struggle:

"As a woman I feel deeply disturbed by your depiction of sex as a demonstration of the power relation and exploitation between male and female and I think you should remove your picture to show more respect for the weak part of society"

It's utter bullshit, but it's current and I say it's legitimate as an expression of a thought.

I came in contact with this kind of fingerpointing and moralizing attitudes, I have to say, only in international fora.

In my country we run pretty free of religious maniacs and angry feminists as compared, I have to say, to Northern Europe. Must be the sun

Ian Grant

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#64

I saw the images and can't see what all the fuss was about, the complainers didn't need to look at them. You can't please everyone but equally those of a narrow minder prudish nature shouldn't be trying to censor or stifle this forum.

Ian

koja

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#65

Damn, I am feeling like I missed some masterpieces here... With such controversy that must be really something.

SuzanneR

Moderator

Moderator

Nov 19, 2012

#66

kuparikettu said:
I wonder if it would help, if the sidebar with the "latest photo" was either disabled by default or it was made to be known that it can be disabled. While I myself am not offended by erotic images, even then I'd prefer not to see them without my own consent. Browsing an art gallery can be understood to be such consent, but just reading a forum not -- at least not in my opinion.

Regardless, I agree that there should space for erotic art in the gallery on this site. On the other hand, there should also be space for those people who for different reasons do not want to see such imagery and they should have that space without being called with derogatory names. I hope this site can be for those who are interested in analog photography, what ever their values, religion, ethnicity etc.

You can disable the left sidebar by clicking the little arrow to the upper right of the image, and it's a good idea if, for example, you check in on APUG at the office or some such. We know that there are pictures uploaded to the site that are considered NSFW (not safe for work) and perhaps not always appropriate for children. So it's up to each user to view the gallery on their own terms. I'm not the biggest fan of the female nude in photography because it's just so overdone, though I must say, Emil's work is quite lovely, and it's a shame he felt the need to remove it, and it's best if we feel make everyone feel welcome to post their pictures without generating threads like this. (Been awhile since we had one, it seems to me, but we have, a lot of them... )

We've gone around and around how to present images that are considered NSFW, but in the end it's impractical, and with thousands of images here, it'd be impossible to change the galleries or add "NSFW" to every nude or violent picture in the gallery. Don't click on images that don't interest or disturb you.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2012

MartinCrabtree

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#67

Sad. I only saw a thumbnail of one photo and it was far from obscene. The American Puritan Ethic refuses to die.

batwister

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#68

I think many of Edward Weston's nudes are transparently sexual, but not pornographic. It's even harder to see them in a purely aesthetic light when you know he was a sexual fiend who shared his girlfriends with his sons. To me, Weston's beach nudes represent the writhing obscenity of nature - the idea that nature is simply a slut, putting itself on display. With somebody like Wynn Bullock, there are no ecstatic symbols of sex in his nudes, and there's plenty of context in which, you could say, sex becomes only a part of nature, rather than the whole. I tend to think in most cases an attractive nude alone, against a black background, has the biggest effect when it arouses - all that is aesthetically pleasing about the image then pales in significance. The more conventionally attractive the model, perhaps the more context is needed to balance the 'arouse-effect' scale. The biggest factor then might be the qualities the photographer looks for in a model. From most of the amateur nude work I've seen, I'd say he simply picks his ideal mate nine times out of ten. For his own purposes in that case, he is a pornographer. But... unless all his models look like Kim Kardashian (where his intent becomes obvious) people are unlikely to label it porn. With the nude, it pays to have strange taste in women, if you have no objectivity as an artist.

tkamiya

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#69

We have gone 7 pages already... wow...

I am thinking we will never reach a consensus on this one. The most important decision right now is, were the images appropriate for this site. I think the moderators have already spoken on this subject. Secondary, was the opposition/opinion thread appropriate in the way they were worded/posted. I think the moderators have spoken on this subject as well.

I think it's time we move on and create more images or talk about which developers are best.

Old-N-Feeble

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#70

Emil, I very much liked the image I saw. I like all of your work very much. I'm envious of not only your artistic talent, insightful vision and technical expertise but of your ability to coax lovely ladies to pose for you.

If we allow the minority to dictate what we say, do and share then we voluntarily hand over all power to them. This emboldens those who would censor and control us all. So I DEMAND that you re-post your images immediately!!

I don't know if the private complaint you received was polite and a simple personal objection or a rude demand. The former is welcome. The latter is not. Be it either, I wish we all would ask for a consensus before censoring ourselves thereby depriving all of us of our rights.

BrianShaw

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#71

Diapositivo said:
To "compensate" for the self-censorship I would like to posts two images

(warning: human behaviour)

Thank you.

Old-N-Feeble

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#72

Diapositivo said:
The typical "harassment" (especially in the US or Northern Europe) would actually play the victim tune:

The sensitive religious whose soul is wound:

"As a mother of two children and as an observing [Christian | Muslim | Jeovah witness] I feel offended, say hurt, by your pornographic description of the gift of reproduction that God bestowed upon us. I think you should show more respect for people who don't want to see God offended this way"

The angry feminist who sees everything as a power struggle:

"As a woman I feel deeply disturbed by your depiction of sex as a demonstration of the power relation and exploitation between male and female and I think you should remove your picture to show more respect for the weak part of society"

It's utter bullshit, but it's current and I say it's legitimate as an expression of a thought.

I came in contact with this kind of fingerpointing and moralizing attitudes, I have to say, only in international fora.

In my country we run pretty free of religious maniacs and angry feminists as compared, I have to say, to Northern Europe. Must be the sun

The Vatican is in Rome, isn't it? :devil:

BrianShaw

Member

Nov 19, 2012

#73

J... why don't you show us how much power a moderator really has... restore the images to the gallery with a click of your keyboard!

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Nov 19, 2012

#74

ChristopherCoy said:
I find it disturbing that artists are encouraged to create work that stirs emotions and opinions, and then viewers who state such emotions or opinions are then threatened with a ban for doing so.

A person stating that a photo is pornographic, is no different than the photographer who shot it stating that its art. Both are opinions, and both are equally entitled.

Nope. Most prurient activity regarding art is centered on censoring or removing material that does not fit their worldview. That isn't an opinion, that is a menace.

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber

Nov 19, 2012

#75

JBrunner said:
Nope. Most prurient activity regarding art is centered on censoring or removing material that does not fit their worldview. That isn't an opinion, that is a menace.

Yes, but the only one who can censor it here, is the one who created it - right? Which is effectively what happened. Someone stated an opinion, and he removed the photo? Or am I completely missing the point of the converstation.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email