Octopussy - DPChallenge Forums

10/26/2006 05:57:03 PM · #1

There is an image by this title that has a debate going on in the comments section. I think for the sake of the site and the photog who took the image we could debate it here in rant.

I for one understand all the positions taken on the image. The thing that tic's me off is people insulting each other over their opinions.

I don't particularly like the image idea and I don't find it to be in the realm of "Fine Art". I think it is a poor technical image. But that is my opinion and have a right to it.

Should images like that be allowed on DPC?

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

10/26/2006 05:59:29 PM · #2

If they were a true and serious attempt at artistic expression... yes. If they're to prove an inane point with very lttle in the way of serious contribution... no.

Rd

fotomann_forever

10/26/2006 06:08:38 PM · #3

** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

10/26/2006 06:31:19 PM · #4

WoW there are 53 comments on the image but no one wants to state their case here. It must be porn.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

10/26/2006 06:35:27 PM · #5

It looks like a snapshot. I don't feel it has much if any artistic value.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/26/2006 06:37:19 PM · #6

I think the true colors come out with the user's responding to "good" comments and not to "bad" ones. He asks for intelligent criticism, but seems to decide that the only "intelligent" critics are the ones that agree with him.

I can't not call it 'art' because that is, naturally, in the eye of the beholder. It's not as offensive to me as Piss Christ or that one with the elephant dung and the Virgin Mary, but still, I don't see much redeeming value in it. Too much shock to be fine art, too weird to be erotic.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/26/2006 06:41:35 PM · #7

Personally, I find the image to be mildly offensive. I'm not sure why. Lord knows I'm not a prude... It's as if he's shoving something in my face and taunting me, sort of. But I'll be generous and say this may be the "artistic purpose" of the image. I don't care for it at all.

R.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

10/26/2006 06:42:15 PM · #8

I think it's just pretty much gross. That's simply a reaction, not a professional critique, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night either.

Lighting is harsh, colors washed out, and subject matter simply does not appeal to me at all.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/26/2006 06:43:24 PM · #9

I find this one actually much more suggestive...

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

10/26/2006 06:48:00 PM · #10

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I find this one actually much more suggestive...

Very and it is a really creative image. I know it is a copy but very well done and a great concept. Much more thought went into that.

Message edited by author 2006-10-26 18:51:53.

shamrock

Nikon D300

10/26/2006 06:51:02 PM · #11

um... that's... interesting. And more than slightly creepy. I much prefer the one DrA posted from an artistic standpoint. The thumbnail is outstanding. :)

fotomann_forever

10/26/2006 06:52:51 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I find this one actually much more suggestive...

Yes, but unlike Octopussy it's left as a suggestion. :-)

Edit to add: Octopussy, as I stated in the comments, came off to me as trite and poorly executed.

Message edited by author 2006-10-26 18:58:10.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/26/2006 07:02:11 PM · #13

It's actually the shaving that bothers me. All I can think about is how painful that must be.

fotomann_forever

10/26/2006 07:13:03 PM · #14

Originally posted by posthumous:

It's actually the shaving that bothers me. All I can think about is how painful that must be.

LMFAO, for real :-)

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

10/26/2006 07:16:29 PM · #15

The belly button is not centered, there is something definitely wrong here with the alignment!

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

10/26/2006 07:26:26 PM · #16

I pretty much have stated my thoughts in the comments.
I don't particularly like it, thought it mildly humorus, but see absolutely no need for this site to allow this kind of shock value here.

Sorry - guess I am somewhat protective of the moral values here.

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/26/2006 08:39:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I find this one actually much more suggestive...

Good call Doc.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/26/2006 09:02:40 PM · #18

What I don't get is why hasn't this been brought to the attention of those in charge or has it? If it's not in breach of the TOS then the real issue here is with the admins and not the photographer or that photograph.

I personally don't find it offensive. It's not in my tastes but I don't make up the rules here so who am I to blast this person for posting a photo that apparently meets the TOS? As I mentioned in that photo thread, the people who hate it the most are the people directly responsible for giving this photo the exposure it keeps getting. Just ignore it.

Message edited by author 2006-10-26 21:03:43.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/26/2006 09:06:38 PM · #19

I just clicked every menu I could - where the hell are the Terms listed anyway? I remember seeing them once, somewhere.

Message edited by author 2006-10-26 21:10:21.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/26/2006 09:16:20 PM · #20

Yanko I dig man. But it was not going away it continued to get attention and some of it attacks on opinions. That is why I thought it deserved to be public and those who had such strong opinions could debate them in public. If they can't defend it in public in my mind it must be porn.

Just my .02

Spork99

OM System OM-1

10/26/2006 09:23:05 PM · #21

left comment

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/26/2006 09:49:38 PM · #22

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Ok, I won't be so subtle... Ignore that and look at my photos instead! :P

10/26/2006 09:56:04 PM · #23

Originally posted by yanko:

Ok, I won't be so subtle... Ignore that and look at my photos instead! :P

On my way to your portfolio! :-P

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/26/2006 10:09:47 PM · #24

Originally posted by yanko:

I agree here. My Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy from med school days certainly considers the mons pubis and labium majus as part of the female genitalia. If all we are avoiding are the labium minora, then I think the TOS rule about this has very little bite to it...

Qart

Canon EOS-30D