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

Claire Senft · May 28, 2006

Andrew, puleease! There is a bumper sticker that I saw back in the seventies that may be appropriate: "The Moral Majory is neither"

It might be well the remember the instructions to Charley: "Starkist does not want tuna with good taste, Starkist want tuna that tastes good."

Ed Sukach · May 28, 2006

Peter De Smidt said:
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?

Can someone explain to me why there is a "genre" of anything in ART? - Or why ANY photograph is held in high esteem?

Interesting to think about. Think!! - I'm not sure -at all -that I WANT to know.
The surrounding mystery is too valuable.

BTW - any comments of Gustave Courbet's L'Origine du Monde (The Birth of the Universe) - 1866 ?

Peter De Smidt · May 28, 2006

livemoa said:
Ummm, define attractive and unattractive....

Of course one can always point out the relativity of such things. Tastes due differ. But is that the really the explanation for a fairly large body of this type of work? Let's say nude photographs of people who weigh over 450 lbs? Does the artist really think that these people's nudity is aesthetically pleasing (so it's just a matter of different taste), or is he/she simply being provocative?

Regarding another post telling me to look at some art. Well, you know, I have. I (generally) prefer the nude as done by classical artists, and by those working in that that tradition. These generally depict people in good health and of pleasing proportions. They were, in fact, idealizations. Not only are these works simply beautiful, but they can serve as ideals to which we can aspire, and doing so would be a good thing for our health. In other words, these works are uplifting. They treat the body as a temple, and they bring out our relation to the divine., which I think of as a transcendent ideal, more of a Platonic ideal than an anthropomorpic individual.

Moving against certain cultural trends, fat is not healthy, nor is it beautiful. (Really thin is also not healthy, but this has to be really, really thin, as recent studies indicate that there might be health benefits in reduced calorie diets even for people of "normal" weight.)

David A. Goldfarb · May 28, 2006

George Papantoniou said:
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

You may be a grown up, but not every member of APUG is, and I think we want young people to be learning about traditional photography. There have been a number of post reports. Not every deleted post was specifically offensive, but they were of a group.

As far as the links go, I don't think of photo.net as a pornographic website, so I'm not inclined to delete the links. As to whether photo.net thinks the images are pornographic, that's up to them. In general, I don't think we should be having a thread on APUG about what's appropriate for photo.net. I'll leave it to Sean as to whether he thinks this should just be closed.

Peter Williams · May 28, 2006

The best part is that if you click the link at the lower left hand corner of either photo you can email it as a greeting card.

jd callow · May 28, 2006

This thread is useless.

There may be some issue within this thread regarding ethics, but it is more internet ethics than photographic. The thread starter wonders if this kind thing happens often on serious sites. That depends upon what you mean by serious, but it happens all over the internet. Photo.net has a gazzilion people posting images of every variety. Some are good or even great and many if not most are neither. The ethics issue is really a side bar to the ultrapluralist nature of the internet and large sites like photo.net

I would prefer and it would seem far more appropriate if this thread were posted on photo.net than here.

Wayne · May 28, 2006

Andy K said:
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'..

Well thats a gross misunderstanding/overstatment of what actually transpired. What actually transpired is a couple of people came down with projectile potty mouth and someone whose job is it to clean it up simply did so.

Wayne

Petzi · May 28, 2006

timeUnit said:
Hi!

I was looking through the Portfolio pages over at photo.net

I wonder why you discuss it here and not on photo.net?
I wonder why you discuss it at all?

Dave Parker · May 28, 2006

To me, it is a complete non-issue, it has nothing to do with Apug, if it needs to be discussed at all, it needs to be done on photo.net.

R.

Curt · May 28, 2006

Photography that can be interpreted as pornography by some and fine art by others in the form and presenation of a photograph is fair game for discussion no matter where it comes from. Unless you want to be narrow minded or have another agenda. Discuss it or hide from it, it's out there. I see a good number of people from this site on that site and others. Is there a double standard going on?

Andy K · May 28, 2006

Wayne said:
Well thats a gross misunderstanding/overstatment of what actually transpired. What actually transpired is a couple of people came down with projectile potty mouth and someone whose job is it to clean it up simply did so.

Wayne

I saw no foul language at all. A few posts about cats and dogs, nothing more.

Dave Parker · May 28, 2006

Curt said:
Photography that can be interpreted as pornography by some and fine art by others in the form and presenation of a photograph is fair game for discussion no matter where it comes from. Unless you want to be narrow minded or have another agenda. Discuss it or hide from it, it's out there. I see a good number of people from this site on that site and others. Is there a double standard going on?

Curt,

I am not narrow minded and have no other agenda, that is why I said "To Me" it is a non-issue...

Nothing at all behind the scenes, although, I don't go to p.net and talk about apug either...

R.

jd callow · May 28, 2006

Curt said:
Photography that can be interpreted as pornography by some and fine art by others in the form and presenation of a photograph is fair game for discussion no matter where it comes from. Unless you want to be narrow minded or have another agenda. Discuss it or hide from it, it's out there. I see a good number of people from this site on that site and others. Is there a double standard going on?

That isn't the discussion though. The point is standards on the net and photo.net in particular. Do you or any here have questions about APUG?

unregistered · May 28, 2006

Oi kavolt! I thought I left this issue behind when I got banned from there for bringing up the censorship issue. And I see there's people here who aren't able to NOT click on a thumbnail that might offend their sensibilities. I guess it doesn't matter where you go...there's gonna always be people upset at something.

Pnet has serious problems with censorship and images some people think are offensive, and they don't deal with such issues evenly across the board. Jock Sturges was asked to pull his images off the board because the models were nude and under 18, and yet there were many other images that were the same (under 18 and nude), yet they didn't get deleted. Another poster was banned because she showed a woman sitting in a chair, naked, with her legs propped up in the chair, exposing her vagina...which showed up about the size of this ----> 0, and as the original poster brouoght up, there are many instances of the same type of images, or ones more explicit, that are allowed to stay. Discussions about censorship are always deleted (and the reason I was banned) although there was one that was let to stand because of the uproar over Sturges being asked to remove his images. (Thats why these kind of issues can't be discussed there).

One thing seems to be certain, and thats if you don't like something, don't look at it...and don't try and suppress what others, who can look at something and not be offended, can see. Its called self control.

I personally came here because this seemed to be a more mature group, and I hope I wasn't mistaken.

Wayne · May 28, 2006

mrcallow said:
Do you or any here have questions about APUG?

Can we post pictures of women fiddling with themselves here? I have no such pictures, I'm only asking this as a public service. I have a feeling the question is going to come up very soon.

Wayne

blansky · May 28, 2006

Wayne said:
Can we post pictures of women fiddling with themselves here? I have no such pictures, I'm only asking this as a public service. I have a feeling the question is going to come up very soon.

Wayne

I certainly see nothing wrong with it.

Michael

rfshootist · May 28, 2006

timeUnit said:
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.
Reactions?

I believe we had this issue some months ago already, when sombebody complained that nudes aren't kept in a special Offense- Gallery here. Because he got caught with that nude on the screen?

The issue hasn't got less strange since then:

It was clear that in times of digital imaging all the public galleries in the www would attract those who looked for free place to exhibit their private porn, for what reason or purpose ever. It started very unobtousivly with some femal nudes and has now finally achieved the final state of gynecological details as it was to expect. At pnet there had been a totally nuts chick once who photographed her own vagina and claimed this would be art.

And it was clear too that the list or gallery owners would let it run as it ran, this kinda primary school sensations sell well and they attract a lot of members, and for the owners of the server it is all about members, about nothing else.
So far it is all "normal" now , as we all had to expect it to be, nothing to feel surprised about ?? The money makes the rules, as always and your whining sounds in some way naive to me.

You want to label IT ? What for ? You want to watch genitalia only if you are in the right mood , if I got you right? Or when nobody is around ?
I don't get it. Why don't you simply stay away there ?

bertram

tim atherton · May 28, 2006

rfshootist said:
It started very unobtousivly with some femal nudes and has now finally achieved the final state of gynecological details as it was to expect. At pnet there had been a totally nuts chick once who photographed her own vagina and claimed this would be art.

bertram

As in Steiglitz's photographs of O'Keefe?

(of course those have generally remained hidden from public view - but no doubt if the internet was around, he would have probably posted them - what with his proclivity for kneaded breasts and all... I always wondered if one of his sessions with O'Keefe, or when he was seducing Strand's wife went something like "now, take you clothes of. Right, now, put your hands on yours breasts. Okay, now, pretend you you're making bread..."

Curt · May 29, 2006

Should women be fiddling around in the dark?

Curt · May 29, 2006

By the way "Frida" is playing in the "Star Chamber", no pop corn allowed.

So this fits with the APUG forum; watch the movie and see the Dorf 8x10 and Ilex shutter with a lens I can't make out that Mr. Kahlo uses to photo the family. References to Tina M and others in there too.

Ed Sukach · May 29, 2006

Peter De Smidt said:
Regarding another post telling me to look at some art. Well, you know, I have. I (generally) prefer the nude as done by classical artists, and by those working in that that tradition.

I assume that was me. I am not trying to COMPEL you to do anything ... only using a "Classical" work as an example of a point I am trying to make.

Do you regard Gustave Courbet as a "classical" artist? - I certainly do. The work I cited most closely resembles some of the work in question at Pnet.

I can give more intense examples of "work that would be banned here - and most probably on Pnet as well" ... one in particular comes to mind ... by Rembrandt van Rijn ... done in 1631. "Rembrandt + 1631". Sounds "classic" to me.

These generally depict people in good health and of pleasing proportions. They were, in fact, idealizations. Not only are these works simply beautiful, but they can serve as ideals to which we can aspire, and doing so would be a good thing for our health. In other words, these works are uplifting. They treat the body as a temple, and they bring out our relation to the divine., which I think of as a transcendent ideal, more of a Platonic ideal than an anthropomorpic individual.

I will not argue that "generally" - taken as "many" - were of pleasing proportions ... etc. I will take exception to the expansion of "generally" to mean "ALL". Additionally, the question arises ... "Pleasing" - to whom?

The idea that "To be "art", it must be "uplifting" - or a vessel to "improve" oneself is also interesting, I take no opposition to anyone seeing art in such a light - but as for me ... there is much more. My opinion is that art CAN be beautiful: but also that anything that "changes our emotional state - that displays to us the human condition", is OF VALUE, as well.
I will apologize for the constant shifting away from photographic examples - I am trying to dodge the question of whether or not ANY photograph could be called "classic" art ... but one more significant work - generally regarded as "Art" ... What is your opinion of Picasso's Guernica? To me, it is not "beautiful", and certainly not "uplifting", but it is, unquestionably a significant work of "Fine Art".

Moving against certain cultural trends, fat is not healthy, nor is it beautiful. (Really thin is also not healthy, but this has to be really, really thin, as recent studies indicate that there might be health benefits in reduced calorie diets even for people of "normal" weight.)

Interesting observation... A bit "off topic", though. BTW - I disagree.

rfshootist · May 29, 2006

tim said:
As in Steiglitz's photographs of O'Keefe?
(of course those have generally remained hidden from public view - but no doubt if the internet was around, he would have probably posted them -

Unfortunately I did not ever see one of those !? I only know some of the "decent " O'Keefe nudes of Stieglitz and and some of them I found to show a kind of obtrousive intimacy.

I myself still guess btw what sort of man one has to be to feel "offended" in the sense of violated by seeing female genitalia on a photo ? Misplaced, tasteless or whatever, but where is the offense, for heavens sake ??

If there is anything offending in all these galleries then it is the incredible amount of terrible shitty photos and , even worse, the endless gaga talk of all those boasters, wannabees , smart a**es and image neurotics, who are forced to build up a second personal reality in the virtual spaces of the www,
because in real life nobody listens to them.

bertram

timeUnit · May 29, 2006

rfshootist said:
You want to label IT ? What for ? You want to watch genitalia only if you are in the right mood , if I got you right? Or when nobody is around ?
I don't get it. Why don't you simply stay away there ?

bertram

Now, I think you interpreted me the wrong way. Also, it's not nice to imply that I lurk pnet for other reasons than my deep interest in photography. ;-)

I not trying to hide my personal intentions, I'm just surprised, that's all. If I'm in the mood for watching genitalia, pnet is not where I'd go first, nor is it APUG.

Labeling (sp?) graphic nudity and showing it on a designated page serves the purpose of making it easier for people to choose wether they want to see it or not. It might also serve the purpose of raising the level of nude photography as it is concentrated to one page where discussion about the subject matter etc can take place. The cons of this is that it can become tucked away and a place where only the "shy" lurk. Also, the portrayers of nudity might feel censored. Looking into my crystal ball, I cannot clearly see the outcome...

On a swedish site I frequent, image content is organised in to "pools". If I put an image in my personal folder, I can also choose to post it in the "Fine Art Nude" pool, to show my work and receive contsructive criticsism. I think this is a good way to keep such a "sensitive" art form thriving and evolving.

As for the comments about this being a discussion beloning to photo.net, I think that's a bit narrow minded. Pnet was just the place where I encountered this graphic nudity in that way on a serious site. It could just as well have been here on APUG. The discussion is not about pnet, but about how to organise, or not to organise, image content that might be offensive, sensitive or straight out porn, to some.

That this thread streered away totally from these questions and was more about clever eufemisms for vagina doesn't mean that the original intent was "useless", IMO.

Andy K · May 29, 2006

Most that is being said in this thread has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on APUG. For example (there was a url link here which no longer exists), (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

rfshootist · May 29, 2006

timeUnit said:
I not trying to hide my personal intentions, I'm just surprised, that's all.

Well , if it is only your surprise, which makes you post: You should not be surprised, it's just what was to expect, as I said already.

Your expectation to get it all properly sorted ( and hidden) in categories
is not realistic : This stuff is intentionally NOT hidden at pnet, it is part of the advertising concept.

BTW the suggestion to discuss that all at pnet is not narrow minded at all IMO, the answers you will get there will make clear what sorta place that is and what people meet there. Best case some of them will laugh at you I suppose.
It simply does not make sense to go to the idiots play ground and then complain about all the idiots around you.

What shall not mean ALL pnet members are of that kind, the real surprise is that still some very few good photogs have not given up their efforts to contribute on a certain artistic level.
The rest tho is a lunatic asylum, producing an endless stream of visual diarrhoe and weak minded babble. I don't go there any more, since a long time.

bertram

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

Claire Senft

Ed Sukach

Peter De Smidt

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Peter Williams

jd callow

Moderator

Wayne

Petzi

Dave Parker

Curt

Andy K

Dave Parker

jd callow

Moderator

unregistered

Wayne

blansky

rfshootist

tim atherton

Curt

Curt

Ed Sukach

rfshootist

timeUnit

Andy K

rfshootist

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

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency