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

[timeUnit]

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]

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]

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?

Some might call it tasteless soft porn, looking at this photographers portfolio I would call his work bad and corney.

 

[david b]

Yeah, it's not very good. Not offensive to me but could be to others.

 

[blansky]

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

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

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]

Thanks for the heads up.

Cause every time I log on all I get are pictures or snails of 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

Michael, It must be our ages...LOL

 

[George Papantoniou]

Thanks for the heads up.

Cause every time I log on all I get are pictures or snails of 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

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

 

[benjiboy]

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

 

[gr82bart]

What's the link?

Art.

 

[Andy K]

Whats the fuss? as I said elsewhere, thats what the internet is for! Check out Google Trends to discover what people search for.

 

[timeUnit]

Whats the fuss? as I said elsewhere, thats what the internet is for! Check out Google Trends to discover what people search for.

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]

What's the link?
Art.

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.

 

[timeUnit]

Here's John Running's shot that surprised me:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4496526

And here's the other dude's (Marco Maria something) shots:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=603620

 

[Sparky]

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]

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.

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

 

[Alex Hawley]

- because I thought p.n was much more controlled by "moral majority" people. Many things from the USA are. --

Naaaaaaaaa, you got us confused with France. Now THAT's offensive.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Here's John Running's shot that surprised me:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4496526

And here's the other dude's (Marco Maria something) shots:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=603620

I did not find the images erotic or repulsive but the APUG members comments that David has seen fit to delete not within the criteria of Philosophy & Ethics but sophomoric boy talk.

I know I can ignore any thread if I choose.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

Ugh!

[And here's the other dude's (Marco Maria something) shots:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=603620[/QUOTE]

Very similar to Edward Weston's B&W nudes from 80+ years ago. (Thanks for the link; I wondered what all the fuss was about.)

 

[Peter De Smidt]

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]

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]

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.

 

[George Papantoniou]

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]

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?

Ummm, define attractive and unattractive....

 

[Changeling1]

Here's John Running's shot that surprised me:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4496526

And here's the other dude's (Marco Maria something) shots:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=603620

Shocking would be more like it! Who in their right mind would wear those tacky black stockings with that hideous striped dress... and then forget to put on underwear?