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. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    We all do, and we each have differing views, perceptions, opinions, biases, prejudices and tolerances.

    However, the OPS tend to get the last, although occasionally penultimate word, as is evident in their insistence in removing more than a few pieces of 'art' over recent years.
     
  2. gollum

    gollum Well-Known Member

    Which ultimately means our say is diluted through the election box........and yes its crazy...how many paintings from way back would fall into this category ;)
     
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    It isn't porn, it isn't art, it is a decent'ish portrait but the cropped (censored) version is a better photograph. Still don't rate it much though.
     
  4. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    censored by persons who'm are usualy demasculinated by a sticky out foof? hahahah

    by people 'apsolutey disgusted by...by...that word! you know...that word we dare not say'... eeeeek the words sex, and i know your parents did it at least once, or procured some devious cunning plan to avoid that gastly copulation and came up with the turky baister???

    next are the ofspring of the sooooooooo posh that they have no genitals, never pass wind, and certainly would never pass a number 2, let a lone take a dump!

    or those to scared to see the truth. to scared to dare speek out... or those who just enjoying a little persicusion thats pritty much way below the belt by any humane standard.
    ( its all a bit monty python isnt it...'the nights that say...ahhh he said it...you just said it...now i said it....').


    we're doomed......


    light after edit.

    i've just had a thought, it didnt hurt eather, but, couldnt we let the people who have a clue deside? sniggers.

    apologies for a second edit but... left to the old ways of general ignorence and a zero intalectual forwarding motion, the church actualy made all art contain flat hands and feet at one point, the crowd then (in literal fear of some really bad treatment for the good of their soles) agreed heartaly that the new flat handed non female subject was just fabulous...
    whilste today the average sun reader still outraged at the States for not sharing the UFO enginering desided it wasnt shiney enough...
    sy for the sarky humour but it is poposterous...'it's only a willy for goodness sakes.........'

    at the end of the day the image doesnt seem to be of a sexy female bit as the entire subject, yet its what everyone looked at, that is a diferent subject of taiste,shaven or not..
    the image looks more like a once in a lifetime candid, of a personal nature that few would even dare to try,let alone actualy acheive. Therefore as an amature image is or at least has merit as a photogragh, reguarding 'art' (not in the literal by hand and human mind) it is there...or sazan was just a perv? along with any tog takin a female's part's image.(that leaves any male or female even thinking of procreating a monsterous dirty filthy 'that word'er'...yawn.)

    my apinion on the pic is that yes it could have been a bit more glossed or slightly bettered in some way but only as a profesional and pre posed image, but then the basic essence of what it is would be lost, the theme would have pritty much been falsed and indeed it would have been a totaly diferrent image.
    who's actualy seen such a sight..a loved one? a child even, just in pure inosence turned at that moment in time.. did you gasp in horror? or just see the loved one..now try to photogragh that moment only to be riddled about a minor detail.(or a misconception...).



    thumbs up from me..
     
  5. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member

    It's a picture of a woman showing her genitals, done with intent to shock and therefore get people talking about it and attempt to move it into the bracket of "art".

    It's just another piece of "art" with a capital "F" and really doesn't deserve any more time being wasted on it.

    All credit to the photographer though - got a result from a rather bad photograph and got everybody looking at it and talking about it. Including me... oh bu99er...
     
  6. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Sorry Alan, but I can't follow your reasoning at all. The word "Censored" in my post should have read "Censored?"
     
  7. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    my post was a generalision about the general public on the general ignorence isues, and a little towards generalised psycologies etc.

    i try not to 'target' or take folks on etc as it just starts a war sort of thing.

    the censored bit was just a reply based on the aged old echo from the past basicaly, where people just repeat bindly then hold to a beleif..(hints at the church and no female and flat hands and feet earor that holted art dead for a while).

    i try to keep it simple but show the reasoning to why i've said something, hopefully in a manor that makes at least someone stop and think, hopefully bringing out a discusion, unfortunatly a discusion can rarely be summed up into yes n no or one liners. alas in general peeps tend to go of in a huff lol.(that or just assert their apinion with no basis other than a simple 'said so'.)

    i'm against taboo/and predudiciol issues that hold up the progresion, but not against commen sence 'censering' where something would cause a harm to a lot of people.

    its the age old ashamed of yu bits in coman desency...verses the average sun reader gawpin at the boobies.
    admitedly quite a few peeps cant deal with anythng more than a one subject, sun on it and no 'details/story' with in the image, but..it's only a matter of self development.(in general..)

    Alan.
     
  8. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member

    What makes you think the general public are so ignorant?
    There is nothing shameful about "your bits" as you call them, but there is the matter of respect...

    Would you be happy for a similar portrait of the woman you love to go on public display, bearing in mind the reaction it has provoked?

    I suspect that for the majority of people their first thought on viewing the image in question will be "well, that's one way to keep the flies off your lunch..."

    Personally I think the winning image is even more tasteless and it seems the judges picked the photographs purely for shock factor, and nothing to do with "art" at all... Still, it's one way to get the punters through the gallery doors...
     
  9. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    "well, that's one way to keep the flies off your lunch..."

    thats classed as humerous remarks or disrepectfull. yet its accepted as the narm. fear of reprisal from the people who think its disrispecfull, like a litte power trip.

    the steven fry QI quiz... the public myself included are suffering from 'general ignorence because of tabboo's and illfounded 'rumours of life.........'

    what is disrepectfull is branding the human form as rude gastly etc one minute, then secretly lusting after the bits you cant see..( a double standard issue)
    think it's called 'victorian standards', e.g. comiting a wife to the lunatic asylum as a nymfo slut for having an orgasm, then nipping down the brothel 'cause the whores cum?

    end of the day a few years ago if you sent a film to be developed and it had a nude child and nude parent 'OMG PEDAO WITCH HUNT'.. or..now it seems it's only a basic bonding thing, skin to skin.(theres an obvious line to be crossed all said and dun, if...if you can atleast see it).
    thats the extreme of it. general ignorence crossed with the higher and mighty taking things into their own hands with no real founding..and then science was born to actualy find out, but, it updates as time goes on..or 'evolves' 'go's forward'..knowlage improves. As does peoples spirituality and idealisms.

    or..lets play the macorthy years, the rules are just find some one who doesnt have the power to fight back and call them a commy, then every one can join in too.

    or...omg you have an image of genitals.....fffffffffffffffffft.....

    i say again, the greek n romans walked nakid, yet the civilisations managed the basis of todays maths and engineering, yet nudaty is still classed as a bad thing, unless done in a way that you are told too, or in the club..in the know blah blah.
    now there are or should be limits..i think we all know how stupid things can get when 'people' are just aloud to take over and the power gets to them..(the word 'blindy' applies).
    the Question is the morality, if you cant see past a willy and a bit of titivasion then just maybe you'r not in the best posision to be judgeing (imparialy, methodicaly..knowingly..etc).

    if my loved one wanted the photo up, i wouldnt be horified, slate her down etc, but, if she didnt like it i wouldnt force the issue just to feed my own 'want it want it's'.
    in the same way that you have the right not to be forsed into nude/public embarisment, you should have the right to have your body shown in a gallery, 'you dont have to look' is the same as having the right not to look, but it doesnt mean you sudenly have the right to govern every thing that you can just for the sake of it.
    everything in it's place and context.(when the context is shunned and idividualts refuse to see it, it's the individuals problem, surely every one else shouldnt have to bandy to it.)

    civilised? ermmm persicuting peoples willies? ludicrous.

    why?

    e.g. a woman breat feeding, one bloke takes the hump, the the other see's the beauty of it.
    the basis for the beauty is, it's a new life and a mother feeding, it's only a beuaty if you understand it, or have been involved with babeys, rearing etc.( or a cheap tit veiw thrill...)
    to the guy who took the hump, he has some issues with himself, or he was brought up beleiving its rong to see it?
    (eventualy some chauvenistic remark will apear).

    now.. a boobs ok as long as it's portrayed in the standard 4.6 lighting, published in my printer factory..and sold in my shops.. or else it's rong.

    next, in one country the sight of a female is covered up, in another society it's actualy shunned for covering up, another the legs cannot be shown...another armpits omg! you can see her arm pits!!..etc etc.

    back to the mother feeding a babey pic, heaven forbit the mothers skin be bare? or 'oh it'ds ok as long as theres a porkypine sat up the corner'??
    so now the genital has sort of lost it's power as a fear facter if, or when you see it for it is.(self imposed no less)
    alas..........everyone has their little hang ups, how they were brought up 'propa' like' and it meets in the middle for the big battle for ultimate controll..for the rights to 'MY WILLY!'. exscuse me though..it's mine is it not? as is the right not to have my willy shuvved in yu face..metofiricaly of course lol.

    sheesh it's only a photogragh lol..it hardly threatens an ego let alone scurges the demise of standards or even everything that holds a society together.....
     
  10. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member

    Lost me now, I'm afraid...

    Why what?

    If you want to see detailed pictures of genitalia there are millions of textbooks out there... Go look at some, they really are not very exciting.

    But is it right to put a "not very good" photograph in the "art" category and give it a prize, merely because it has a woman's genitals on display?

    Can you honestly say you looked at that photograph and appreciated it for the "art"?

    What have porcupines to do with it? I am aware that skunks are becoming established in the wild in this country, but porcupines???? I'm baffled. I'm also bored now.
     
  11. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    ok, i looked at the fed woman seeing a camp/trecky trip, its hot, then saw the foof there, chuckled at the cheek then continued veiwing the shot..
    then realised its not a smoothy so that'll upset a few.

    at the end of extreme hot days the body just takes over in a survival mecanism...'yu shed anything that adds to the heat', couple that with a good apitite and a cool evening etc..who cares if anythings showing, it seriously isnt an issue of concern, but..it is a sight to see if your there.



    why ban a pic or even rate an image on the merrit of ooooo you can see a jalo showing? or boob...or ooo thats a nice image 'i cant see the rude bits' then titter like a kid lol.
    (it seems the genitals have such a hard grip on everyone doesnt it)

    mr. peeney saw-a-willy and gawped to see if yu could see it propa..mr brain meanwhile continued to see what was there without the willy focal point, i got over it with no adverse effects too lol.

    the 'art' side (or whats captured) has no less lost nor gained because of the detail..the shock facter fed the tittering kiddies and overly protective 'fridgeds' like..made folks first talk about (got a pow facter) then sooner or later somebody looked at what the image was, so now its got a status...and 'messages' to talk of as well as something to look at( not just lady bits)..
    so in short didnt matter if it was good or bad, it got there..got notised..and people looked.
    the rest..maybe lost or maybe dome one found theres more han the simplistic one one way to look at image and evolved spiriyualy a little..
    i saw the scene because i knew the curcumstance..didnt bat an eyelid, i was suprised at how much negativity was thrown at it and wandered why though..

    the judges usualy have an itenery of some sort, because fair to say they wont keep their jobs too long if they cant do it..(interpret the headings in the comps?? hmmm lol)

    what have porkypines to do with it?..exactly, whats the willy got to do with it?
     
  12. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member

    Everything... without the female's answer to it on display the shot would be just another holiday snap.

    That's the point I'm trying to make.
     
  13. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    You seem obsessed with justifying this shot... It's a crap picture - live with it.
     
  14. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Maybe he's the tog? :rolleyes:
     
  15. Alan43

    Alan43 Member

    the justification implication negates all that was 'discussed' about an issue within the subject, but..why's it a crap pic? anything on that front? ....
     
  16. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Rather a poor example of a reader's wives snap. Not art, not porn, not even a nude. Just a smutty snap.
     
  17. suzieq

    suzieq In the Stop Bath

    My wife enjoys having her picture taken naked - we do not think that the naked female body should be described as porn
     
  18. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Does she pose nekked in a DeLorean DMC-12 or a TARDIS?
     
  19. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I am not sure why this thread has been thought worthy of revival but for what it's worth I don't think it is either porn or art, just a bad picture
     
  20. Charlie59

    Charlie59 Well-Known Member

    Compared to some of the art I have seen the best I can say is that at least you know what it is you are looking at! An art critic would probably defend it by saying that art is meant to challenge ideas and evoke emotions positive or negative so I guess by the fact we are debating its relevance must make it art!! ...... now where did I put that jar of old toenail clippings!!
     

Share This Page