Eugene Atget Appreciation: a sideshow about 'knockers' and the ethics of forum posting

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would like to second my agreement with what @DREW WILEY and @Vaughn have said. I think it is too common for oafish comments to get lightly dismissed as, "boys will be boys," which may be true enough, but none the less, likely to sound offensive to some forum members.

One litmus test participants might use before posting a comment about female anatomy would be to ask themselves, "Would I say this at the dinner table if my mother, wife, and daughter were present?"

To my ear, the comment, "I've seen better knockers," does not sound like part of an inherently respectful exchange of views on a public forum, and probably should have been self-censored.

I apologize if my pun offended anyone. I'm curious how many women are offended by posts of photos of nude women under the guise it's art? It seems people can be more concerned about my play of words than the pictures themselves.

 

[Vaughn]

I apologize if my pun offended anyone. I'm curious how many women are offended by posts of photos of nude women under the guise it's art? It seems people can be more concerned about my play of words than the pictures themselves.

Not offended, but it is like someone making a very dirty joke in the wrong setting. It is rude, a bit surprising, and makes one sound morally questionable to some.

Research the "Male Gaze" if you are truly interested in many women's response to photos of nude women under the guise it's art. Here is an Ai definition:

The male gaze is
a concept in media criticism describing the depiction of women in visual arts, film, and advertising from a heterosexual, masculine perspective, presenting them as passive sexual objects for pleasure.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I apologize if my pun offended anyone.

I was not offended. But I am not a woman, so it is impossible for me to hear your comment about "knockers" from the female perspective. You might ask a female whose opinions you respect if they think yours was an appropriate comment to make on a public discussion about photography?

I'm curious how many women are offended by posts of photos of nude women under the guise it's art? It seems people can be more concerned about my play of words than the pictures themselves.

To me, it sounds like your assumption seems to be, nude photos are inherently "dirty," and crude comments about dirty photos should be of less concern than the actual photos?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back to the sub-topic, Atget's photos of prostitutes seem to have been just another part of his documentation of "authentic" Paris street life in his own retrospective definition of it. They aren't voluptuously idealized at all like the nude photos, but stand fully dressed in generally shabby common wear in front of their run-down neighborhood residences with big street numbers - looking tough and cynical, and certainly not attractive - pretty much a hybrid of his "coin" street corner architectural shoots and his gravitation toward down-and-out career subjects, which included organ grinders with their monkeys, and odd street fair vendors, circus types, and so forth.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would like to second my agreement with what @DREW WILEY and @Vaughn have said. I think it is too common for oafish comments to get lightly dismissed as, "boys will be boys," which may be true enough, but none the less, likely to sound offensive to some forum members.

One litmus test participants might use before posting a comment about female anatomy would be to ask themselves, "Would I say this at the dinner table if my mother, wife, and daughter were present?"

To my ear, the comment, "I've seen better knockers," does not sound like part of an inherently respectful exchange of views on a public forum, and probably should have been self-censored.

When I said, "I've seen better knockers." I was answering another post referring to door knockers. Apparantly, you read more into what I said, which reminds me of the joke:

So this guy is with his psychiatrist, who is showing him Rorschach ink blots.

"What do you see in this blot?" says the shrink.

"Well, I see a couple having sex."

"And what do you see in this blot?" asks the shrink, showing him another blot.

"Well, I see another couple having sex?"

"And what about this third one?"

"Well, again, I see a couple having sex."

"Well," says the psychiatrist. "You really do have a dirty Mind?

"Me?" responds the patient. "You're the one showing me all those dirty pictures."

 

[cliveh]

When I said, "I've seen better knockers." I was answering another post referring to door knockers. Apparantly, you read more into what I said, which reminds me of the joke:

So this guy is with his psychiatrist, who is showing him Rorschach ink blots.

"What do you see in this blot?" says the shrink.

"Well, I see a couple having sex."

"And what do you see in this blot?" asks the shrink, showing him another blot.

"Well, I see another couple having sex?"

"And what about this third one?"

"Well, again, I see a couple having sex."

"Well," says the psychiatrist. "You really do have a dirty Mind?

"Me?" responds the patient. "You're the one showing me all those dirty pictures."

There is joke thread you could use instead of one about Atget.

 

[koraks]

which reminds me of the joke:

Spring is in the air, huh?
Last year, it came a little earlier.

 

[Vaughn]

When I said, "I've seen better knockers." I was answering another post referring to door knockers. Apparantly, you read more into what I said, which reminds me of the joke:

...

No, you answered by quoting part of a post (#611) that was specifically referring to breasts as knockers...so the cloak of innocence does not seem to fit...even with a halo over it. But again, it started at as a mildly sexual pun, not the "fairly innocuous pun" as claimed -- and from one small snowball, such avalanches can form.

This is why I much preferred having mixed trail crews in the wilderness. The campfire talk amongst only men can be a bit uninspiring.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Spring is in the air, huh?
Last year, it came a little earlier.

Hey, it's; a good joke for a photo forum.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, you answered by quoting part of a post (#611) that was specifically referring to breasts as knockers...so the cloak of innocence does not seem to fit...even with a halo over it. But again, it started at as a mildly sexual pun, not the "fairly innocuous pun" as claimed -- and from one small snowball, such avalanches can form.

This is why I much preferred having mixed trail crews in the wilderness. The campfire talk amongst only men can be a bit uninspiring.

Well,, it was the best way to lead into the joke I wanted to tell about the Rorschach ink blots. Also, the fact is he did seem to have an affinity for taking pictures of nude prostitutes. I don't buy the argument made by others here that he only did it to sell to artists who wanted to paint nudes but they didn;t know where to get models. He was commissioned by the government to photograph the outside of these buildings and took it upon himself to go inside the brothels to get these photos. Does anyone really believe he had no prurient interest to at least capturing pictures of naked women before Playboy was available? And what else did he do with these ladies of the night? My pun was actually deeper than you figure. I was comparing Atget's nude photos when referring to seeing better knockers, pointing out Atget's other photo hobby. Like Paul Gauguin's paintings of South Seas nude girls, there's more that meets the eye.

 

[koraks]

Everyone has made their point, now knock it off.