| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. How can a forum on the `the Philosophy of Photography` ignore the female figure?
Asked by Doug, Distinctive Images
(K=165) on 2/9/1999
|
A couple of minute ago, I received an email from the Forum Admin advising me that an image I posted was being removed "because of nudity".
By removing my image "because of nudity", my work is being placed in the same trashpile as though I had posted an image from an adult site. I do in fact take offense at this. I am a professional and active photographic artist, specializing in fine art figure images, which I market as limited edition prints through art galleries. My prints have been exhibited internationally, in at least 15 states and 3 countries. All of these exhibitions were in public places, mostly in art galleries, sometimes in county fairs. Just yesterday, I received an invitation to take part in an exhibition, as part of a city fair, with the photo exhibition being held in a public school.
My work is discrete, non-exploitive of women, and mostly semi-abstract in nature. Many prints have been purchased by women. I've never had an exhibition which bared children from attendance and in fact children are always present, being brought to the exhibition by their parents. Individuals purchase my prints to hang in the living room of their homes. Many of the models in my work are volunteers who have found my web site, contacted me and traveled to Atlanta for a photo shoot from as far as Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago and Texas, at their own expense, seeking only copies of prints in payment. But my work is offensive to this forum.
I've actively participated on numerous photography and modeling forums as a regular contributor for the past four years. In 35 years of photography, amateir and pro, I've never had a single complaint about my images, until now.
How can a forum on the "the Philosophy of Photography" ignore the female figure? Would a photograph of the ceiling of a particular Chapel in Rome also be deleted?
Now I'm a courteous southern gentleman. I believe that when you are in another persons living room, you have the choice of playing by the house rules, or leaving. In this situation, I have the choice of having my work treated like a porn image or going home. I choose to go home. I may return after I calm down a bit, but just now, I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribby
(K=15) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
I have no reservations about viewing nudes or even violent photography on this forum as long as they are used to futher the debate and not prove to others that you are an artist. Allan has been incredibly kind to old Tribby but i would never defend his actions on that basis alone. He has allowed me to remain an active member of this forum despite many pleadings of the participants and has nobly ingnored the example of other forums by not giving me the boot. It is his decision ultimately as to what is allowed. Kinda knowing what is and isn't allowed, let me dig a hole for myself and imbibe in a little hatred. Those photos you post with your responses is nudity at best and not art. I'd rather you shoot shit wrapped in gauze and call that art. Fuck peace...Tribby
|
|
|
|
Jim Sidinger
(K=105) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
I just finished the "Arts for Arts sake" thread in which this whole thing seems to have started. I guess I have to side with Alan in that the image posted apparantly did not contribute to the discussion.
Doug, I mostly say that since your response was not on how it was meant to illistrate any point; but, rather, to diatribe about how you need to make money with your stuff and how important it was to make sure noone stole it. While I totally agree that you have a right not to be ripped off by those who would take your stuff, I fail to see how that, in any way, contributed to the thread's topic.
As far as the nudity goes, I guess I also have some problems with Alan's answer that some might take offense to the image and so it had to be removed. I would rather he had stayed with the "off the topic" answer. Whenever you get on the "don't want to offend anyone" track, you really start to get on dangerous ground.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
I mean Doug has had HIS images used to illustrate PORNOGRAPHY, damn it! Doesn't this illustrate that if you DON'T establish the context in the image itself, that you'll have to live with somebody else doing it for you!
told ya so...t
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
It seems plain to me that this is a forum of words, not images. I don't think that if I went to a nude photography forum and tried to post landscapes or natural abstracts that I should get in a huff and leave because someone told me that my material was not suitable. What about the idea of having one string or posting dedicated to images? What do you think Alan, maybe images on a seperate posting would illuminate ones position as much as the introduction post? (yeah, I know I haven't posted an introduction yet, yeeeeesh)
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
This forum does not ignore the "female form" but we do require a philosophical context for discussion. And your photograph was not found "offensive" just inappropriate.
Instead of ranting, lets hear the philosophy underlying your "Art". If you're willing to compare yourself to Michelangelo and your work to the Sistene Chapel, then your philosophy should be as much fun to discuss as the Bible.
And Trib will you PLEASE get an e-mail address that works!!!... wrapped in gauze!...I LOVE it!...t
|
|
|
|
Gary Watson
(K=1665) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
In my work, I've always operated by the old maxim: "Always be willing to present yourself for rejection." Surely, someone, somewhere, sometime has been less than enthralled by your art. It happens. That said, I find your complaints self-indulgent and rather inconsistent with the self-assurance(not arrogance, mind)most pros, regardless of field, display. Anyone who resorts as quickly as you did to self-recommendations and c.v. polishing does little to help their case.I'm sorry you find it necessary to protest so vehemently about something as inconsequential as this. If you have this uncontrollable need to exhibit your images, visit OPIC or Photo Critique.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
The photographs themselves are certainly innocuous in the context of the time in which we live. They were certainly enjoyable to look at, but I don't see how they advanced the topic under discussion. No offence, Doug, but they did kinda come off as a little bit of a vanity thing.
You do have worthwhile thoughts to contribute to this forum, so don't go off in a huff.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
Having now visited your webs site,Doug, I feel confident saying you deserve all the flack you're getting. You've got a link to porn sites on your front page. Who do you think you're fooling?
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/10/1999
|
Ouch!
Ellis bites to the bone!!
remind me to stay on your good side...
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 2/10/1999
|
Sorry Mark, linhof6@hotmail.com is correct. I was frothing to get at Doug and can't be held responsible for typos. I wished I had written something like Ellis' response though, a real stinger. I'd add though that even posting "copies" of the styles of Bunny Yeager or something as classy as Newton wouldn't have garnered such responses. Yes everyone flame-on, Tribby has relinquished, linhof6 is real. And Mark if you will give us a profile I'll come clean with a more legit profile. Maybe I'll clean up nicely.
|
|
|
|
Joseph Paul Blecha
(K=62) - Comment Date 2/10/1999
|
Gentlemen (so far, and in both takes on the term),
You are a pretty class act. Each culture (and attendant institutions, i.e., e-forums) defines its relevant moral representation by just such open discussion I think. While pretty much agreeing with Mr. Verner's take on this discussion, I do hope Doug of Distinctive Images will let that part of him that has been a pretty regular and constructive part of this forum continue to participate. I didn't see the ecletic (and kinda goofy) Tribby go away. He/she/it hung in there and has become a contributor with a point of view that has some value.
I believe I'd cull the images that don't make a specific point but allow for a connection to the eliminated material. [Not being too computer literate, the proper nomenclature eludes me here.] I just don't believe censorship has a proper venue in the world as I understand it today--but an intelligent presentation certainly makes for a better possibility that we can get better at life and photography. Joseph
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/10/1999
|
Yes, Yes... Let all links stand, allowing us to see if we wish or pass. A caveat on the part of the poster (at the point of the link) would go a long way toward assuaging the concerns of the Technologist, Allen, and any delicate attendees...t
|
|
|
|
Russell Edwards
(K=329) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
Hmmmm, I think I can sympathise with Doug. Don't be hard on him for coming off as ego-ish, put yourself in his position. You would feel a little put out if one of your images was rejected partially for its content. He posts quite a bit on another Black and White forum where accompanying your posts with a large image (often unrelated) is quite normal. Not only that, probably more than 90% of the posts there are nudes.
Basically, I think it is okay to remove content in this forum if it does not contribute (preferably positively) to the discussion. However, Doug's image was fairly small as I recall and it could be argued that it illustrated a point about art as a release. Alan also argued that he should remove posts that may offend people. In my opinion, there should be no censorship whatsoever of content that is on-topic but "may offend".
We are big boys and girls, we can look away if we are offended. Believe me, I find looking at meat or more explicit forms of mutilated animal to be highly offensive, sometimes to the point of nausea if I'm walking past a butcher or something. But you can all go ahead and post as many offal pictures as you like. It's my problem that I get offended, and what's so bad about being offended anyway??
So, Alan, there's my vote: no censorship based on potential to offend. You could put a parental advisory somewhere to shut up all those who think that children learn better when sheltered from reality.
I am tempted to include an offensive image to illustrate my point. But I will refrain for now :-)
By the way, Trib will probably puke at this, but does anyone else sense a nice community thing happening in this forum? :-)
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
Having a link is in no way censorship, it simply gives people the choice of looking or not (something hard to do when scrolling, unlike when you see the butcher shop sign and get plenty of warning) On the forum that Russell mentions things are set up differently and people have a "nude warning" in their title.
I have posted images to many forums but have not had any problems understanding that this forum is about something else. I have seen forums ruined by being overrun with images, turning into nothing but,"look at this", "nice pic" ad nauseum. I have no problem with nudity in images (or in person!), but let the forum be what it is supposed to be, and links would be fine for a diversion.
As for the "reality" comment. Russell I don't think most people are trying to conceal reality from their children, its just that I don't recall Doug or anyone else here being designated as the teacher of reality to my kids or anyone elses, but then again, thats why my daughter (or the one that is on the way) won't be cruising loose on the net without my supervision (at least until she can afford to purchase her own computer)
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
Doug, we know you're watching so please come back, you've started a marvelous debate, I'll take your lumps, I'm used to it. I won't quit offering my opinion but respect for you will grow exponentially if you continue to contribute. Look at me, Tribby the shit-head clown, some of em' actually want me to stay. It's a fact that you have more supporters here than me. So please give our insults their proper weight and effect, even though I don't care for your nudes, you do and your clients do, and that is what counts.
|
|
|
|
Russell Edwards
(K=329) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
I don't know, I think a small inline picture to illustrate a point should be acceptable. It may be interesting or challenging to discuss visual concepts without examples that can be readily referred to, but I don't see that it particularly facilitates the aim of philosphizing about photography. I agree though, at times the B&W forum is a bit like that ("nice pic"). I like that, although I agree that this forum should not become like that. I will understand, though if Alan chooses to exclude images because they are too big or not relevant. But if some pictures are allowed and some are not, it should never be based on potential to offend or to corrupt children.
The butcher is free to be a butcher and whilst I entirely disagree with what they do and find their shops utterly repulsive, it is their right to open up shop without having to hide themselves. Yes the option is there for me to avoid it, but only if I cross the road or go around the block or something... hardly as easy as just not clicking a link, which places the difficulty on the side of those who are not offended rather than those who are. Besides which, I think exposure to the offensive can only lead to growth of character...
Mark I agree with you, but now you are talking about controlled reality, rather than restricted reality. There is a big difference.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/12/1999
|
Argh! Tribby you weenie. You gave in. Argh! The one person I never would have suspected has given in. Argh! Now who can I get nicknames from. Damn. Maybe I can put a big "C" over the nickname Tribby so thoughtfully gave me. Argh! Now what do I herd? Tribby you stay put! Argh! And for you Doug you little prima donna. You get you *ss back here. Sulking isn't nice. Censorship isn't either though I don't like fantasy violence. I don't have to look and neither do the rest of us. Alan, for my part I think as long as it has something to say, I don't mind images. As long as they're not too blatantly sinful. If some mother from the heartland sees it and gets mad, too dang bad. E-me and I'll tell you what I'd really say to her. I'm a college graduate and I can spell those woids. As long as this forum doesn't become a gallery of every bodys' ego or temper I think images could show a philosophical idea. A picture is worth a thousand words. Well in my case at least a few hundred. Let's keep censorship in the home where it belongs. And Tribby says "don't look at the man behind the curtain". Lumberjack
|
|
|
|
|
