Surprising nudity at photo.net (not for the sensitive)

timeUnit

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
590
Location
Göteborg, Sw
Format
Multi Format
Hi!

I was looking through the Portfolio pages over at photo.net and was surprised to see a thumbnail of a woman... eh, fondling... her vagina. I thought, "I'm not seeing right", and clicked on the thumbnail. I was very surprised to see a photographer's portfolio filled with what could only be described as porn. A woman, fully naked, in classic porn poses, sometimes touching herself, some times not, was pictured on dozens of shots. Some of the shots were more artistic, with pictues projected on her body etc.

A while later I clicked on the "Gallery main page", and was greeted by a shot by John Running, featuring a woman holding a book in front of her face, and spreading her legs wide to reveal her shaved vagina in all it's splendor.

That is two times I was presented pictures of graphic or pornographic nudity, without asking for it. I was not actively looking for nudity, the pictures were on "standard" pages.

Now, I'm not in any way a antagonist of nudity or even pornography, but I like to have a choice. I found it very surpising that such graphic nudity was presented without any type of warning.

I was also suprised to see that so many borderline pornographic pictures were allowed space at pn. I'm not against it, but it might be nice to lable it, so that I don't see that kind of stuff if I'm not actively looking to.

Has anyone here seen such imagery on a "serious" site?

Reactions?
 

nc5p

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
398
Location
Alameda
Format
Medium Format
What is the site's policy on such as that? Most sites have a written policy on what is allowed and what is not. If it violates the policy, contact the moderator. From what you described it sounds like they crossed the line from art nudes to porn. I do hope the subject was over 18, or the authorities might be paying midnight visits to the site's visitors. Eraser is a good program to run, but don't forget spyder to wipe the index.dat files you can't delete.

Doug
 

donbga

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
3,053
Format
Large Format Pan
Some might call it tasteless soft porn, looking at this photographers portfolio I would call his work bad and corney.
 

blansky

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
5,952
Location
Wine country, N. Cal.
Format
Medium Format
Thanks for the heads up.

Cause every time I log on all I get are pictures of snails or over retouched landscapes.

Unfortunately it did take me a lot of pages of searching to be completely offended.

I guess I'll just have to log on there more often.


Michael
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Pfff... welcome to the Internet! If you look at photosig, it's always like that every day. Nothing to be worried about, really.
 

Donald Miller

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
6,230
Format
Large Format

Michael, It must be our ages...LOL
 

George Papantoniou

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
984
Location
Athens
Format
Medium Format

Oh, S**T, Michael, where is it ? Can you send me a URL ? I want to be offended too...
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,948
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
I'm broadminded to the point of obscenity and beyond, but I just looked at these shots and thought its the photographer who should feel a bit of a c**t, they aren't even good pornography
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
Whats the fuss? as I said elsewhere, thats what the internet is for! Check out Google Trends to discover what people search for.
 
OP
OP

timeUnit

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
590
Location
Göteborg, Sw
Format
Multi Format
Andy K said:
Whats the fuss? as I said elsewhere, thats what the internet is for! Check out Google Trends to discover what people search for.
Click to expand...

Maybe true!

I'm not saying it's bad per se, I'm just saying I'm surpirsed to see it so openly displayed. In some ways it makes me glad, because I thought p.n was much more controlled by "moral majority" people. Many things from the USA are.

I'm also glad to see the reactions here on APUG are so calm. I was a little worried that people would bash me for using "bad language" or p.n for displaying porn.

While I personally found John Runnings work extremely boring and cliché -- I mean, how many shots of naked women taken by aging men do we need? -- I found the other photographer's shots (whose name I forgot) with the full figured woman having a go at herself quite allright from a subject matter standpoint. Technically it could need improvement.

Oh well, off to the darkroom.
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
gr82bart said:
What's the link?
Art.
Click to expand...
Me, too.

I've spent a significant amount of time over there, trying to see what all the fuss and outrage was about... and every search returned *nothing* I could, stretching - REALLY stretching, - call "pornographic."

I will acknowledge that there are some who find the slightest expression of bare skin offensive ... one only has to consider the draping of the Statue of "Justice" in the Nation's Capital. I suppose that, to some, the exposure of (some my want to look away!) an exposed woman's ankle would be far beyond the pale ... but I would really like to decide the level of "pepperiness" for myself.

Possibly, the moderators over there have agreed with the "offensiveness" and have removed those images.
 

Sparky

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,096
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
maybe if we limited membership/registration to only those over the age of 17, or those who have seen a woman's naughty bits before - then there wouldn't be the 'offended' problem.
 

blansky

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
5,952
Location
Wine country, N. Cal.
Format
Medium Format
Sparky said:
maybe if we limited membership/registration to only those over the age of 17, or those who have seen a woman's naughty bits before - then there wouldn't be the 'offended' problem.
Click to expand...


I think the problem is more about those poor souls who are over 50 and haven't seen those naughty bits in quite some time.


Michael
 

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
2,642
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Format
Multi Format

Peter De Smidt

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,093
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
Format
Multi Format
Can someone explain to me why there is a genre of "art" photography that consists of unattractive photographs of unattractive nude people? The problem isn't that such pictures are shocking, it's that they're repulsive. Here's a related question: why are Weston's nude photographs held in such high regard?
 

Curt

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
4,618
Location
Pacific Nort
Format
Multi Format
Go and look at some Art History books, do you see all attractive people in those paintings? Who is to say that all photographs have to have attractive looking people and who decides what is attractive? I personally don't have a fondness of women with metal working tools aimed at parts of their body, burrrr, but who is to say what is art? On photo.net I did see some shears like mine, I think they are a No.5 heavy metal cutoff tool. The ones shown are rusty like mine. I didn't know that I had studio tools in the shop.
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
Oh now I get it. Links to female genitalia under the pretence of surprise and critique, (but really for tittilation: I see no women partaking in this thread), are not in bad taste but a few light hearted jokes are bad taste. I will never understand America's 'moral majority'.

The first shot is ok but boring, seen it a thousand times by a thousand different photographers,.
The second link seems to be to a bunch of extremely dull 'Reader's Wives' pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George Papantoniou

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
984
Location
Athens
Format
Medium Format
Well, after careful examination of the pictures I can say the following:

The lady who shows her genitalia while holding a Schiele book is not so bad (I mean the picture, not herself, for I don't know her). It could've been better executed (if the photographer's intention was to create a homage to Schiele's nudes), for instance the dress she wears could be better suited to the Schiele's painting's philosophy. And her look could be closer to the one the ladies in Schiele's paintings have, although this could be really difficult to achieve.

The other guy's pictures are REALLY offending ! Not because of the nudity, or of what the little lady is doing, but just because they are SO BAD ! I could include them in my lecture about 21st century KITSCH ! I am sorry that there is not a real BAD TASTE CENCORSHIP TEAM in Photo-net deleting this kind of pictures and there lies a serious danger that some young person, that has not yet a concrete and inalterable view of right and wrong (taste) could see those pictures and have his/her sense of aesthetics distorted for ever !!!! This is really dangerous, and people should be warned about it !!! The French would never let something like that happen !!

By the way: Mr Goldfarb, I know you are protecting us by deleting bad taste words from the posts in APUG, but I'm a grown-up now, and I like having fun reading bad taste things (especially when it's Claire that has written them). Could you send me the posts that you have deleted, please
 

livemoa

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2003
Messages
434
Location
Was New Zeal
Format
Multi Format

Ummm, define attractive and unattractive....
 

Changeling1

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
655
Location
Southern Cal
Format
4x5 Format
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…