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. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    Money, publicity...
     
  2. NikonNik

    NikonNik Well-Known Member

    I prefer the cropped picture.
    Bad pose/posture seem to have accentuated the size of the ladies left thigh and the kebab adds nothing.
    Also one of the couple should have done the washing up before getting the camera out.
     
  3. Nod

    Nod Well-Known Member

    Malcolm (above) seems to have hit the nail on the head. There seems to be far more discussion about the kebab picture than there is about the huntress with buck one (have to say that neither would get wall space here!) and like many others, I had never heard of the sponsoring company before this brou-ha-ha started.
     
  4. surf_digby

    surf_digby Well-Known Member

    Maybe so, but it's not generated sufficient interest for me to look further into the sponsoring company, the photographers other work, or even look at the other entries.

    Wilde may have said that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, but talk is cheap only if there's a return. In this case, the banal shock for shocks sake approach has generated nothing but apathy.

    Publicity fail, as the kidz say.
     
  5. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    Yup. Me too.

    Looking at some prize winning photo's sometimes makes me feel a little better about my own photographs. This is one that makes me feel better.
     
  6. 4BIKER2

    4BIKER2 Well-Known Member

    Well at least it got me motivated to find my glasses :rolleyes:
     
  7. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    in reply to porn or art,,

    is there any sex in act?
    'exsplict' being a tecno term to discribe 'ooooo willies,rudies' tittering like a kid, scowling like a medievil religous nut...

    is it photograghy or art is more the question.......

    i think it's obvious it's not 'porn', more like a candid or 'natural' portrait, it has worrent 'as a photo' because its composed, has a 'theme' or 'story line'.. and the exposure and or after service is pleasent enough.

    regaurding art or photograghy, well.. it was pleced in a compotision and they want to show it publicaly, so it's met some kind of 'majority' vote. (theres only personal apinion left).

    now then, some of the great art works from way back to the greeks and romans, they all involved boobs pecks n genitals in some way, as far back as man goes in evolution we all had genitals, yet i see no teeth or mystical power coming from the assaid regions so why's every one so afraid of....oooooo a genital?
    next is who's so important as to brand my bits as offesive? or come to that some one elses bits to be deamed ok?

    isnt it time we aged past puberty and accepted that our bits both male and female ar'nt actualy scurgy horrable pervy bits?

    it's clearly not porn...
     
  8. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    It's not porn, it isn't art, and in my view it isn't in very good taste either. Like others here, I prefer the cropped version.

    If the lady's 'bits' were more attractive, and/or the photo had been in soft focus I might have felt differently; but the [open legged] pose and sharp focus make it mediocre and vulgar in my view.

    Look at it in another way; photographers often try to create photographs where the viewer wants to explore the scene for themselves. In this case there is nothing left to explore!

    Once again we are celebrating mediocrity, which is something our culture seems to be increasingly fond of doing nowadays. :(
     
  9. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    ahh yes 'the mystery' facter... cant see it but it provokes what ever your mind wants to imagine.(personal preference).
    side isues on the mystery, she looks like she's going to... 'what evers rude in your mind' verses she's just there and not doing lude things..porn shows you what lude things.(it ruined your titivasion no less by not being rude in some way in your mind perhaps?)

    the scenes as it is..and you dont like her bits..so 'what is beauty' is next.(they look fine to me...)
     
  10. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    apologies for a double post but i have things to do today..

    what is the definision of art...for most its more or less a group of pleasent to the eye shapes and colours, hues..chromers, adding up to a balance we see as a 'pritty picture' no more and no less.

    introduce apealing to the ID or the subconsous and quite often advertising, evoking some need, some desire and have 'add in sex' or stick a boob on it and it'll sell.
    it's only when the personal 'wants' cloud the judgment that things sudenly take on some kind of social 'power' as individuals become side tracked in judgements, such fraises as 'it'll sell' generaly mean theyre popular at the moment, and no doubts more than one critique or the likes has and will always pass the coment 'they'll by anything'...implying people have truely lost site of whats before their eyes, both moraly and in actual plain fact.
    based on what a person thinks first then fits what they see to what they think, instead of just seeing whats there without making themselves the center of an image that some one else has taken, sort of makin the picture their own then 'allowing or disalowing' it..
    the personal weiw eather saw a lady sat at a table, or they only heard 'fanny out on a pic'.

    whats the basics to photograghy? seeing whats infront of you.. whats the most basic mistake?... missing a detail. the rest is down to personal preference and the true basic esentials become devoid and unnessary, therefore art and photograghy no longer matter, it's only the power to shout it down or say it's good, only to feed one's own ego.(arts then lost).


    if you veiw the image and see 'eeeeuw rong 'standard' of genital', followed by a simple female parts...sex...therefore porn.. your seeing sex not art.
    when a models veiwed in a glamour shot more often than not she's eather pepped up for sex,dressed but pepped up, her hands held in such a way as to sugest her fingers in some orafis,or going to go there... etc etc 'aluring' the mind to a carnage of subcontous inuendo, now surely thats pornagraghic. (its certaily the 'raunchy apeal affect of sex is it not). side isues of 'conning a hard on' verses you can see the truth....

    art... a pot with flowers in, a woman sleeping(with or without bits out).. a tree..an abstrct, you look and it is nice or not..without sex being the only visual point driving ones own penis.(what are you looking for verses what can you see).

    in the photo, she's had something to eat, perhaps a good feed straight out of the pot on the table, she's slightly turned from it full (of food) she's not consously 'turning you on', sort of just finished eating and totaly self unaware hense her bits are on show(quite visably and atrictive within the whole image..), the shock facter is 'theyre on veiw' and 'we're not used to', so it is 'art' and it is photograghy.(untill other detracting factors are added to make it what you want, and not what it is).

    minor details then subject to yes and no side issues of preference.
     
  11. JohnDuder

    JohnDuder Member

    Hmm...

    A lot of reaction - and much of it offensive, or potentially so, to the subject of the picture.

    For my money, this is a lovely and natural shot of a very relaxed lady, clearly entirely at ease with her nudity and exposure.

    And it's clearly a big challenge to everyone who is less at ease with her state and (literally) rather laid-back look.

    It takes a deal of confidence to pose like this (or actively NOT pose), and to take the picture. I am distinctly envious of the picture, and the cool composure.

    I'm inclined to duck out of the "is it art?" debate: far too soon to judge. But it isn't porn, definitely: it lacks the gloss, and the explicit come-on that tends to involve.

    Just far too challenging for most viewers?
     
  12. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    No.............just a crap picture. Even the average porn shot has more craft about it.

    There's far more challenging stuff around that's simultaneously more sophisticated and erotic - ever heard of Bob Carlos Clarke or Helmut Newton to name but two?.......
     
  13. mjc7uk

    mjc7uk Well-Known Member

    Mine is is it photographic? Nope!

    'Uff said!
     
  14. ikonik12

    ikonik12 Well-Known Member

    So! ...
    Is this what british wives get upto in Greece then?

    and she hasnt even cleared the table or done the washing up
    maybe it should have called * Shirley Valentines alterego *

    --------------------------

    Pornography or art....whatever? ... its just some guy pointing his camera at his missess who happens to sit around in a unhinhibited way and captured her at that point. all we see here is a snap shot (sic ) of somebodies life in another country and how they live

    just because a gallery decides to select it to be displayed on a wall.. doesnt automaticaly negate that it is art or porn or whatever box you can think to tag it into ...

    if the gallery chose to display this image ... fair enough ... as to what the general public - teachers - parents or whomever see it as or whether it should be censored? waits to be seen.

    personaly as far as portraits go... theres billions of images scattered round the web that are in the same vain .. just with less washing up/junk scattered about in the frame

    :cool:
     
  15. JohnDuder

    JohnDuder Member

    Erm... Yes. I have books by both Carlos Clarke and Newton, and admire both of them.

    But I think that eroticism is perhaps not the point. Maybe shot as a snap: but, I suspect, entered in a competition as a challenge, and in an attempt (clearly successful!) to stir things up.

    I must consider how to put something like this into an AP comp... (Though as I suggested in my previous post, it probably isn't as easy as everyone thinks to take such a picture!)

    On reactions... I believe that John Hedgecoe tore down a number of pictures from Bob Carlos Clarke's graduation show (CC worked his way through College by selling pictures of female students to Penthouse, according to "Shooting Sex" - his wonderful book on nudes, glamour, and how to behave to models).

    I continue to be surprised at the strength of the reaction!
     
  16. ikonik12

    ikonik12 Well-Known Member

    are you talking about the challenge of this image technicaly or finding an uninhibited model?
     
  17. JohnDuder

    JohnDuder Member

    I thought I'd explained the difficulties, as I see them, but perhaps I was slightly muddled in the way I expressed it.

    You'd need to find a model who is at ease with her body, to an extraordinary degree. And you'd also need to be relaxed and at ease: able to take the natural shot (which I think the photo in question is), without your mind tangling you up in the "rudeness", or trying to take an erotically-provocative shot.

    People have commented (on a popular daily-postings site) that I manage to make my models look relaxed: so clearly others find it an issue. But I'm not sure that I could manage a shot this explicit, without letting the distractions make it into a different kind of a photograph.

    Given that I think I am reasonably good at model work, I speak, to a decent extent, whereof I know. I am not sure whether or not others commenting do...
     
  18. ikonik12

    ikonik12 Well-Known Member

    glad you cleared that up.. so basicaly its to do with the model / photographer relationship.

    luckily for the photographer in question Here.. as far as we can tell it was his *british wife* so.... they were already used to being around each other in an intimate capacity for it too not bother them... whether he was holding and pointing his camera at her..... or not.

    :cool:
     
  19. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    hurray we start to look at the image...
     
  20. gollum

    gollum Well-Known Member

    Thanks Mr Cheesman for that, It'll do nicely for a current bit of research on censorship :cool:

    Who decides what is porn or what is art? ;)
     

Share This Page