1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Porn or art? No ban on explicit nude photo

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Nov 11, 2010.

  1. CSBC

    CSBC RIP (News Editor)

  2. brummie

    brummie Well-Known Member

    rubbish is what I would say, its not even any good. have seen better from nd photo students, its just a bit of flesh normally reserved for some websites , that half the populuation have and its not even well done, oh but its art so it must be good !!!.

    brummie
     
  3. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Probably just done for 'shock effect'.

    Personally I wouldn't call porn, nor would I call it art.
     
  4. Nod

    Nod Well-Known Member

    Wot Fen Sed!
     
  5. spangler

    spangler Well-Known Member

    A smutty snapshot, which by admission of the photographer, was not originally intended for publication. It certainly is a controversial and unpleasant image but not obscene or pornographic and probably little more disturbing than the winning image of the "huntress" and her quarry. The winning entry does, however, have more artistic merit.

    Andrew
     
  6. turbulentwheat

    turbulentwheat Well-Known Member

    for me it's neither art nor porn but like a dare, if the photographer thought it would be artistic it fails. If he wanted a naturist shot (or is that naturalist?) then it fails again because she's not naked. Personally at a quick glance her bits look like a his bits!
     
  7. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I agree it's neither art or porn, seen far better of both.

    As for her "bits" as you put it, perhaps it is where the Greek photographer put his kebab while taking the picture :D
     
  8. jnev785

    jnev785 New Member

    I certainly wouldn't call it art but then we all have our own preferences.

    As for pornography it depends on your definition. One meaning is "obscene writings, drawings, photographs...esp. those having little or no artistic merit" - a clear case given the lack of artistic merit shown here and that armpit hair is definitely obscene in civilised circles.

    Personally, as a teenager I remember cadging copies of Fiesta which had similar shots, and none of the grubby raincoat brigade supplying them were deemed award winning photographers.

    Ultimately, a sad shot from a sad man and one that will probably bring his wife more attention than she will enjoy.
     
  9. Jacqui Jay

    Jacqui Jay Grasshopper's Sage

    Agreeing with some of the comments above, it would be very difficult to consider this informal portrait of a woman as art. It is very much a "Readers' Wives" picture, albeit better composed, lit etc. than the usual fare of this kind.
     
  10. Mark

    Mark Well-Known Member

    As I (like other photographers) am incapable of making decisions with a moral or ethical component, I shall wait until I receive guidance from the Information Commissioner. ;)

    BTW: Shouldn't her face be blurred just in case?
     
  11. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Like other poster on the forum. Shots like this have been around for years. It is just a typical wife snap for the husband's private viewing. :eek:

    Where as the winning shot is miles away in skill and composition. Great light the landscape scene in the background the postion of the rider and horse.

    You could get a bit suspicious that the entry is there just for shock and news value. :(

    If you are going to shoot something like that make a effort in location and lighting. :D

    I am alittle surprised his wife allowed the shot to be used. If was orginally a private image. :eek:
     
  12. surf_digby

    surf_digby Well-Known Member

    Hmmm, not in black and white or grainy enought to be art. Nor does it look like it's had sufficient forethought put into it for it to be considered a work.

    Shot from eye level, moderately wide angle, it looks more like a "well, it's a nice day, give us a smile. Tell you what give us a quick flash" snapshot.

    There's art that I understand and don't like, and art I don't understand but like. I don't like or understand the aristic merit in this.

    Are there other examples of this guys work around? Maybe it's part of a series, addressing the subconcious voyeurism begat by the holiday snapshots of bikini clad nubile young ladies on social networking sites.

    Anyway, can't hang around here all evening. I'm off to Facebook to (ahem) test my theory.
     
  13. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    I think its a comment on what is deemed acceptable. Unfortunately its a comment that doesn't need to be made anymore. Anyone else find it ironic that she has a tonne of under-arm hair? :eek:
     
  14. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Ironic, maybe, but not

    as was observed earlier. Neither is it

    IMO.

    It's art in as much as Richard Billingham or Wolfgang Tillmans work's are art, but not great art, not even average art in the 'candid' genre of the likes of Tierney Gearon, but neither is it porn in 2010 - mild titillation and/or curiosity, if that.

    It's vaguely inneresting, in a 'was it her idea or his?' kinda way.

    Had the camera been in the other hand, as it were, would it have made 2nd place I wonder... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
     
  15. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I know I'm rather contradicting myself here, but I don't honestly think it's worthy of much comment - I find it dull and poorly executed, TBH.
     
  16. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    To me its just a poor picture of what I am sure is a charming lady,no its not porn but I do not see why a picture like this has to be on public display, there is nothing nice about it and surely the bit thats offending should be covered up........as others have said its not really worth commenting on!
     
  17. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    A very unremarkable and overrated "beaver" shot............unless you want to enter it into a "beavers that look like kebabs" competition in which case I think it might do quite well! :eek: :D ;)

    BigWill
     
  18. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Can I have some of what she's been smoking? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

    I actually quite like it as a snap....a nice moment to record and says a fair amount about the couple. Not sure it's anything more than that though. One for them to look back at in years to come.
     
  19. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    someone I know has a picture of his wife taken oooh about six weeks after she gave birth. Unfortunately it's identical to that one in many ways. There are however distractions in his photo such as the new nipper so you don't notice anything...at first :eek: :eek: for some reason I spotted it straightaway whilst he'd never noticed it for the last twenty years...... :eek: :D

    PS the reason she was Nicholas was because she'd been "unwell with womens troubles"...he reckoned
     
  20. 125thAtf8

    125thAtf8 Well-Known Member

    As an image, public or personal, I have no problem with it. As the runner up in just about our most prestigious photo portrait competition? I really, really don't think so. The image is at best ordinary, and I'm personally getting a touch bored of shock value, apparently for its own sake.

    Above all, you have to wonder at the judges motivation for sticking such a mediocre image near the top of the pile.
     

Share This Page