Erotic or Pornographic?

[Gerald C Koch]

A wit once said that what distinguishes an artistic photo from a pornographic one is the presence of an urn or a plinth in the photo.

 

[Toffle]

There is supposedly a room at the Vatican with a cupboard full of penises hacked off statues by order of Pope Innocent X. I simply cannot believe that we are having (enduring) this discussion again. This is beyond ridiculous. Emil is one of the finest artists to have ever participated on this forum. Show some respect for your fellow photographers. Before you cast aspersions, look in your own mirror. You may find that the problem you see resides a LOT closer to home than the artist whose work offends you.

 

[JBrunner]

There is supposedly a room at the Vatican with a cupboard full of penises hacked off statues by order of Pope Innocent X. I simply cannot believe that we are having (enduring) this discussion again. This is beyond ridiculous. Emil is one of the finest artists to have ever participated on this forum. Show some respect for your fellow photographers. Before you cast aspersions, look in your own mirror. You may find that the problem you see resides a LOT closer to home than the artist whose work offends you.

I wanted to read that again

 

[Diapositivo]

OK - you clearly didn't get my post right!!

I said I had done some images with pornographic content, But those were NOT the ones I submitteed here - they are all mine..

I also said after the bold quote you made, that I have not and will not upload any of these as they are not all mine!!

Who do you really think I am? Do you really think I'd claim full ownership to images where I wasn't the photographer.... really?

I used the images in question as tests to see whether this idea would be an idea to follow...

The way I read your text, I understood that the "porn" images were the one you withdrew and that you had some "even more porn" ones that you would not post to the gallery in any case because they were too daring.

Regarding ownership, I did not see your pictures and I was surprised by your use of the verb to steal, which ringed a bell in my mind. I'm glad to see that you did not perform any such action. Besides, "quoting" the original source is enough for most purposes.

You may know that in some other photographic fora people actually openly admit using somebody else's work on the fallacious basis of "fair use" or something like that, so I wanted to "precautionally" raise this point, which I wouldn't have raised if you hadn't used that verb .

 

[ROL]

Over 130 replies to this thread in less than two days. Imagine that!

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Over 130 replies to this thread in less than two days. Imagine that!

Someone should post a video of them doing the "helicopter" and see how fast we can bring replies. And to make it "art" we should film it in black and white!

 

[RedSun]

Tired about this thread now. Waste of bandwidth....

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Tired about this thread now. Waste of bandwidth....

Then why are you still reading and posting in it.

 

[lxdude]

Then why are you still reading and posting in it.

Seeing as how you are too, something tells me you ain't all that Old-N-Feeble!

 

[agnosticnikon]

I try to spend more time on the edge but most of my life is spent in a cage as a sex slave under the control of a group of Amazons.

And I'm just too damn tired.

Wow! Amazon has sex slaves now! I knew they had almost everything, but this is really exciting news!

By the way, just look at some ordinary photographic magazines from the 40's and 50's and you'll see nude figure photos in almost every issue. Where was the outrage then? Any kid could probably pick one up on a news stand. Times have changed I guess. Now Janet Jackson shows a boob with a pasty on TV and the country goes crazy. Deliver me from the moral majority, or minority or whatever it is now.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sorry for the late arrival to this thread, but I was seeing it at work and the title alone scared me off of contributing until now. I remember the last time this happened. I left the "discussion" thread on my image that generated the shitstorm to preserve for posterity the evidence of what happened, both good and bad. I wish Emil hadn't yielded to the backlash, but I can completely understand how and why he would have. Frankly I'm surprised that it took this long for the teapot tempest to get whipped up again - it's been what, four years maybe, since the last one? Things in general seem calmer than last time, though - I actually got a death threat in the form of a bible quote as a result. Here, we're having a (comparatively) rational discussion. But yes, it's an old tired argument that won't ever get decided beyond Jason's well-stated summation of APUG policy.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Seeing as how you are too, something tells me you ain't all that Old-N-Feeble!

I'm old, not dead. Okay, not that old either but feeble for sure.

If I'm reading Emil's responses properly he wouldn't have deleted his images except for respect and compassion for his models. If not for their feelings I suspect he might have politely given the puritan(s) a one-finger-salute.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

... I actually got a death threat in the form of a bible quote as a result.

I don't take those seriously anymore. Since I'm going to hell anyway, I'm shooting for a reservation in the VIP section...

 

[Terry Christian]

Weston's nudes.
Steichen's nudes of O'Keeffe.
Many of Mapplethorpe's photographs, including those of flowers.
Gandolfi's bromoils.

All are nude and maybe erotic, but none are pornographic.
Just my two cents.

 

[removed account4]

Frankly I'm surprised that it took this long for the teapot tempest to get whipped up again - it's been what, four years maybe, since the last one? Things in general seem calmer than last time,

the difference is intent.

4 years ago you posted images in the gallery with the sole purpose to piss people off

i find it laughable that you suggest these two ( or more ) situations are the same.

 

[bdial]

the difference is intent.

4 years ago you posted images in the gallery with the sole purpose to piss people off

i find it laughable that you suggest these two ( or more ) situations are the same.

I think it's hard for any of us except for Scott to make a valid conclusion on what his intent was. Perhaps it was to challenge, but, I don't think it was to piss people off.
I'd say there are many parallels in the two incidents.

I like Scott's photography, I also like Emil's work, neither deserve the porn label.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

John- I've repeatedly told you that was not my sole intent - yes, I was being provocative, but were I trying to piss people off I would have posted something that was far more risque, without actually being explicit. I posted that image in direct response to a discussion that was being had at the time about male vs female nudes. And it was in fact a single image, not a series of images. I had posted other male nudes prior to that discussion that had elicited unwarranted comments (one solo male nude, unrelated to the controversial one, garnered a response of "get that sodomitic shit out of here" - it was a solo male nude, and the model's hands were nowhere near his genitals, so where sodomy came in to it I fail to see). I feel my response was entirely justified - I responded with art, instead of engaging in a verbal slug-fest. And the response to the image that was controversial was entirely out of proportion to the image. Again, nothing going on, nothing scandal-worthy except for the fact it was a portrait of a penis. Is it my fault that some folks are shocked by seeing something half of us have? Posting for the sake of pissing people off was that individual who posted the still-life of Nazi regalia.

John- your response is really just another way of saying "Emil's work is art, yours is porn". And I call bullshit on that response. If you don't like it, you don't like it, and that's fine. And if you're one of those who was upset by the image, I'm sorry. I think you're over-reacting, however.

 

[tkamiya]

What really IS the problem here?

An image can be produced as nude, porn, educational, medical, scientific, commercial or just a picture.
An image can be seen as nude, porn, educational, etc, etc, etc.
In the end, it's a photograph of a human body engaged in normal human behavior.

Intent doesn't always equal reception and perception. The image that started this thread was not graphic. "Critical" body parts weren't shown although we all know they were there.

In the end, it's an image of a human body. Parts may be seen or implied. It's been known that some people have "fun" with Sears catalog of just an ordinary under-wears. (when sears still sent catalogs) In the end, majority of people alive have "fun" from time to time.

So... what's the REAL problem?

 

[removed account4]

John- your response is really just another way of saying "Emil's work is art, yours is porn". And I call bullshit on that response. If you don't like it, you don't like it, and that's fine. And if you're one of those who was upset by the image, I'm sorry. I think you're over-reacting, however.

scott
i wasn't offended or upset by your photograph at all.
i am remembering the conversation in the chatroom when posted it.
you said you were posting an image that you knew would cause controversy in the apug community
now, a few years later, most of the people who were outraged are gone, including the people who were in the chatroom with us
on that night. you also suggested another time that someone purposefully post "controversial" ( i put it in quotes because it was a male nude
like yours, and not really that controversial ) images in the gallery so he would gain a following and be held in esteem.

i am not saying your work is anything different than a male nude, i don't think it is pornographic.
you told us in the chatroom just before you posted it, you wanted to cause controversy within the community, and it did, just as you predicted ... as i said, different intent.

 

[blansky]

Not to get off on a tangent but I get really turned on by naked mountains standing erect with a little snow at the top.

But hey that's just me.

 

[Dinesh]

...i am remembering the conversation in the chatroom when posted it.
you said you were posting an image that you knew would cause controversy in the apug community
now, a few years later, most of the people who were outraged are gone, including the people who were in the chatroom with us
on that night. you also suggested another time that someone purposefully post "controversial" ( i put it in quotes because it was a male nude
like yours, and not really that controversial ) images in the gallery so he would gain a following and be held in esteem.
.

John, your recollection of this issue is accurate. I was in the chat room that very evening.

 

[papagene]

Not to get off on a tangent but I get really turned on by naked mountains standing erect with a little snow at the top.

But hey that's just me.

"Take One and See Mt Fuji." A Duane Michaels' book.

 

[JBrunner]

Not to get off on a tangent but I get really turned on by naked mountains standing erect with a little snow at the top.

But hey that's just me.

Sorry Blansky, we had a meeting in the star chamber. That kind of filthy talk isn't allowed here.

 

[JBrunner]

IIRC,the OP is not American.

Just to be clear, the OP is not the person who called "porn". The porn accusation was in the gallery.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

scott
i wasn't offended or upset by your photograph at all.
i am remembering the conversation in the chatroom when posted it.
you said you were posting an image that you knew would cause controversy in the apug community
now, a few years later, most of the people who were outraged are gone, including the people who were in the chatroom with us
on that night. you also suggested another time that someone purposefully post "controversial" ( i put it in quotes because it was a male nude
like yours, and not really that controversial ) images in the gallery so he would gain a following and be held in esteem.

i am not saying your work is anything different than a male nude, i don't think it is pornographic.
you told us in the chatroom just before you posted it, you wanted to cause controversy within the community, and it did, just as you predicted ... as i said, different intent.

I don't recall the specifics of the chat - I don't have a transcript so I won't argue the accuracy or inaccuracy of other people's recall of a conversation over four years ago. But I did NOT advocate someone else post what he thought would be a controversial image for the sake of stirring controversy. In fact, I was talking with said individual because he approached me and said he wanted fame through controversy, and did I think it would be a good way. I told him to post the image if he wanted to post the image, wanted feedback, and was prepared for whatever reaction it generated.

I've never said I was unaware of the potential for controversy of my image. I knew it would probably tweak a few folks - the same folks who had been previously posting hateful comments on other male nudes that I had posted and should have never been controversial. But why do you consider my response of posting that image to be either meritous of the outrage, or disproportionate as a response to the contemporaneous conversation about nudes and censorship? In case you didn't notice, I sat there and took my lumps when the image caused controversy, and I took them with grace. You could say the image itself was disrespectful (I'd disagree with that), but you can't say I handled any of the responses with anything other than respect.