| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2006 06:38:33 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Leroy -- He had clothes on when he came home. :( I, however, had just gotten out of the shower. Who was happy then? |
I do find it interesting that you seem to have far fewer qualms about sharing verbal descriptions ... better make sure you don't get up over 1000 words though ... : ) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 06:41:37 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Leroy -- He had clothes on when he came home. :( I, however, had just gotten out of the shower. Who was happy then? |
I'd guess he was the happy one in such a circumstance :-)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 06:48:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
.... or the Eurosnobbish attitudes that because many people in America in general hold certain beliefs or attitudes that differ from theirs that we are prudish, medeival, whatever. This issue really sticks in my craw. |
By saying "Eurosnobberish attitudes" you are generalizing just as badly as those Eurosnobs.
It is probably mostly a cultural difference and misunderstanding caused by selective information availability.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 06:48:04 PM · #54 |
| This is the second thread pretaining to nudity. Perhaps a simple solution that would solve all problems. If anybody uploads a photo they MUST click nudity or non nudity and a violation of this will be a suspension. Shouldn't be hard to follow and make things a little more comfortable around here for kid or people that don't like to view it. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 06:52:13 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by CalliopeKel:
We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and I want to see the many ways in which we can capture its splendor. I hope I am not violating the purpose of this thread by posting a few pics, but my first nude shoot yielded something I am very proud of, and never tire of looking at. |
You're showing us how it's done, imho. Good work.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 07:00:26 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by notonline:
This is the second thread pretaining to nudity. Perhaps a simple solution that would solve all problems. If anybody uploads a photo they MUST click nudity or non nudity and a violation of this will be a suspension. Shouldn't be hard to follow and make things a little more comfortable around here for kid or people that don't like to view it. |
You better give good rules and examples of what filterable nudity is.
A naked woman's torso?
A naked man's torso?
Where is the line of a naked back (male/female) and where do you draw the line with where the bums start if a naked back is not considered nude?
How high up the legs is nudity?
How low down the neck?
What about from the side?
What if parts in shadow?
What about clothes that shine trough?
What if all nude but the problem causing bits hid by hands/arms?
When does suggestion of nudity become nudity?
When does something become suggesting sexual stuff?
What about a beach shot related to all the things above?
What about a model wearing lingerie?
What about swimsuits/bikini's?
Where do you draw the line?
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 07:05:33 PM · #57 |
I like these types of threads... the psychology of what people find offensive amuses me greatly.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 09:15:03 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by manniagni:
However artful a nude maybe, its almost impossible to separate erotocism from it... |
Perhaps on intentionally erotic photographs, but not on every nude photograph. Not everyone equates nudity with eroticism and sexuality.
Originally posted by manniagni:
With a nude image a lot of finer photographic aethetics tend to evaporate and thats a fact. |
You should probably support statements like this with actual facts, instead of declarative facts. Credibility tends to evaporate otherwise. |
I wrongly phrased it i guess. My point was with nudity around in a frame some flaws may get overlooked which will not be the case if you are shooting an interior or a pruduct and thats what i meant. Nudity overpowers the viewer. To take my point further if you look at the galleries at DPC , the nude gallery has been viewed atleast 12 - 40 times more than any other gallery. If its just a case of watching art and art form in nude photography this ratio would not have been skewed. People love to watch nudes and not purely as an art. people differ but yet we all are same. Arnt we? |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 09:19:26 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I like these types of threads... the psychology of what people find offensive amuses me greatly. |
I guess that's why I don't watch much commercial TV -- the psychology of what people find amusing offends me greatly ... : ) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 09:23:23 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I guess that's why I don't watch much commercial TV -- the psychology of what people find amusing offends me greatly ... : ) |
Who needs Reality TV when we have DPC? ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 09:29:22 PM · #61 |
If an artistic nude on a photgraphic website overpowers the viewer.... Maybe that viewer shouldn't be viewing the website.
But hey, everyone is differnt and everyone is right in their own special way. But in my opinion, the ignorance of making a general statement saying everyone is effected because the model is naked is serious fighting words.
The OP had a very nicely written post about her belief. What I don't care for is for the people wanting to start a huge major war about it.
You take religion, you take world history. You take anything from our past our present our future and there is nudety in it. Some choose to acknowldge it, some choose not to.
I was going to post something that seriously irritates me.. in my previous post but I decied not to. I will now.
There is a Warning on my website. If you click the gallery you come to a full page text warning saying you might find offencive material behind the link. blah blah blah stuff.
Now, that Means After seeing the WARNING, and Clicking the link you Removed ALL RIGHT you had to pissing and moaning about seeing naked flesh. However, there are some seriously mentaliy handicaped people in my opinion that Have to freak out and make a HUGE deal about it and in turn giving me negative plublisity and that hurts me, because some JERK Who clearly had to 'WANT' to see what was behind the warning was Offended.
I see the same thing going on here.... People are curious, they peek, and they piss and moan about something they were warned about.
The OP posted her peace. Why couldn't we all just say, Nicely Spoken, I aggree, I dissagree, whatever and move on. Because we are not like that. We are all 'Meaners'
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 09:45:48 PM · #62 |
My question is why should something one believes to be sacred not be photographed or otherwise represented in art?
The same creator (or whatever force in the universe one chooses to believe) that made those sacred things, also gave us the artistic ability/talents to celebrate them through our art. I agree that some represent the sacred in a crass way that denigrates the subject into an object of tittillation, but most serious nudes (at least here on DPC) are a reflection of the joy and glory of the sacred.
If you feel that showing the sacred in art is wrong, then how do you feel about the portrayals of the Madonna or the Nativity that have been done since the early days of art? After all, what could be more sacred than the Son of God and the Holy Mother?
I'm not attacking the OP, or her choice to not look at nudes, but I do question the reasoning that it is somehow inappropriate to have subject matter in art that is sacred.
Message edited by author 2006-12-28 21:50:32. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 09:51:50 PM · #63 |
Well karmat, you stated your position very well and opened up discussion which remained very civil for quite a few posts. Then someone who likes to take nude photos of their under-age daughter and post them for all to see came along and posted nudes on your very fine thread. Some people have no respect.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:02:00 PM · #64 |
Littlegett is making an interesting point. To enter his website and then complain about what is on it is ridiculous. Whoever is doing the complaining is basically announcing: "I don't believe that this should be available on the web, and I will do my best to punish you for posting it." The disclaimer, they are saying, in no way validates the contents. They are setting standards for all of us, and attempting to impose them on us.
The parallel with what is happening in this thread, on this site, is obvious. We are just seeing a more benign manifestation of it. A certain number of people (NOT Karmat, the OP) Are basically posting up "justifications" for imposing site-wide censorship. We already HAVE site-wide censorship, of course ΓΆ€” it's in the TOC. But some people think the line should be drawn quite a few degrees further North.
The primary (but not the only) justification being expressed for this view is that children are inadvertently being exposed to images some find distasteful. Of course, it goes without saying that children in our modern world are, for the most part, inadvertently exposed to distasteful material on a daily basis. Regardless, the supporters of this point of view believe they are within their reasonable rights when they argue for a "child-safe" site. Essentially, they are saying that the body "DPC" would not suffer unduly from a ban on dildo images, or whatever else falls south of the new line. And in a sense, they are right.
On the other side of the fence, many people believe that such attempts to rid the site of sexually suggestive images (beyond what is already forbidden by the TOS) constitute an abridgment of their right to create and post whatever they wish, and do not react well to the attempts of others to impose their tastes on the group as a whole. That's hard to argue with too, because where does it all stop?
And of course all of this is just a microcosm of what goes on, on a daily basis, out there in the real world, where some are dedicated to preserving civil liberties, others fighting to gain them in the first place, and still others to redefine, or further define, what is "protected" and what is "not".
We're not going to solve this problem on this website, it just can't happen. The current TOS are a reasonable compromise between "family values" and "artistic freedom". I have no problem with them.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-12-28 22:08:11.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:03:00 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- The second thing that bothers me is what I mentioned above - that people are ridiculed for taking offense to it, or the Eurosnobbish attitudes that because many people in America in general hold certain beliefs or attitudes that differ from theirs that we are prudish, medeival, whatever. This issue really sticks in my craw.
|
Whereas I understand the sentiment, and certainly don't condone people with a superiority complex, or smooshing other peoples' faces in their strongly held opinions, the simple fact seems to be that (North) American attitudes to nudity don't just direct people to make their feelings known in net forums, they direct people to all kinds of weirdness that doesn't really exist in continental Europe. The denigrating comment against CalliopeKel is a prime example. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:04:30 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not attacking the OP, or her choice to not look at nudes, but I do question the reasoning that it is somehow inappropriate to have subject matter in art that is sacred. |
The Muslim religion, for one, does not allow the representation in art of the human form. And their women go covered in public. I have no idea if Karmat is a Muslim; it doesn't matter anyway. This is just one example, a major religion that holds beliefs like the one she has expressed.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:05:37 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well karmat, you stated your position very well and opened up discussion which remained very civil for quite a few posts. Then someone who likes to take nude photos of their under-age daughter and post them for all to see came along and posted nudes on your very fine thread. Some people have no respect. |
Hah! That had not even occurred to me. Excellent point!
Robt.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:09:32 PM · #68 |
Well put Louis. The poster WAS right. This thread was very civil and in fact refreshing... until of course said poster aimed at CalliopeKel. Pat with one hand and swat with the other. Interesting approach.
Anyway. Karmat I applaud your choices and the fact that you live by your own code. What I particularily like is the way you choose not to push your values on anyone else and find a way to tolerate others even though you don't necesarily agree. Well put.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:09:32 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The Muslim religion, for one, does not allow the representation in art of the human form. |
That's not entirely true, as far as I understand it. :) Even tasteful representations of Muhammed are allowed in paintings, for example. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:12:01 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The Muslim religion, for one, does not allow the representation in art of the human form. |
That's not entirely true, as far as I understand it. :) Even tasteful representations of Muhammed are allowed in paintings, for example. |
I'm not an expert in this, that's for sure. I'm happy to be corrected by those with more knowledge. But what I said is generally true, isn't it? I mean that's the explanation for how their carpets look, the sort of elaborate scrollwork they use as decorative motifs, and so forth, or so I was taught eons ago...
R
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:13:29 PM · #71 |
Karmat,
Your original post was most beautifully said and it's hard to disagree with anything you said. I'm far from agreeing with your stance, but I respect yours.
Now....almost everything afterwards has become a "I'm offended by this or I'm not offended by this" rant. I'm going to say that I like having the nudity filter, even though I don't use it often, but it helps at work. And like everything, it's not perfect, but it works.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:16:04 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Hah! That had not even occurred to me. Excellent point! |
I read it as an insult not just to a talented and thoughtful photographer, but to said photographer's daughter. :( If Kelly was thoughtless in posting nudity in a thread by an OP that is essentially "against" nudity, it doesn't serve to offer thinly veiled insults. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:18:20 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The Muslim religion, for one, does not allow the representation in art of the human form. |
That's not entirely true, as far as I understand it. :) Even tasteful representations of Muhammed are allowed in paintings, for example. |
I'm not an expert in this, that's for sure. I'm happy to be corrected by those with more knowledge. But what I said is generally true, isn't it? I mean that's the explanation for how their carpets look, the sort of elaborate scrollwork they use as decorative motifs, and so forth, or so I was taught eons ago...
R |
It's true, but I think the "truth" lies somewhere in between. There are dozens of examples of medieval depictions of Muhammed in illuminated manuscripts, for example. And there are modern street painters in the Islamic world that sell paintings of Muhammed. Though I am only speaking out of general knowledge, and can hardly be called "expert" either. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:30:21 PM · #74 |
If karmat feels offended or violated at my post I will be happy to apologize and edit my post without hesitation.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 10:32:16 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Hah! That had not even occurred to me. Excellent point! |
I read it as an insult not just to a talented and thoughtful photographer, but to said photographer's daughter. :( If Kelly was thoughtless in posting nudity in a thread by an OP that is essentially "against" nudity, it doesn't serve to offer thinly veiled insults. |
Ditto.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 09:35:27 AM EDT.
