Parental Advisory: Explicit Content

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/28/2003 09:24:19 PM · #4

Excellent photo!

Yup, I'd like a "How'd they do that shot?" explanation as well please.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

08/29/2003 05:39:19 AM · #5

Great backdrop, I might copy it sometime!

zerocusa

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/29/2003 05:48:15 AM · #6

ouch!
Is that a 'fake' hand?

Ivar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/29/2003 06:25:37 AM · #7

Originally posted by zerocusa:

ouch!
Is that a 'fake' hand?

Looks like a fake hand to me.

jxpfeer

Nikon D70

08/29/2003 08:22:02 PM · #8

cool pic, hand looks pretty fake tho, otherwise nice shot. good shock appeal :)

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/29/2003 09:06:05 PM · #9

I wonder, what condition would motivate a photo like this.

I ask the same questions I ask of any work with questionable merit:

A) Is it exhilerating?
B)Does it stimulate awareness?
C)Does it encourage dissociation from a habitual view or course?
D)Does it kindle resentment against evil?

My answer is 'no' to all of the above. I could, however, imagine that more naiive and impressionable minds than mine could be unnecessarily incited to harm, instead.

In other words, I consider this image aesthetically and ethically unnecessarily offensive.

johnnykillchrist

08/29/2003 11:23:12 PM · #10

Well, I must say, I'm terribly sorry that you took offense. You're absolutely right.
A) This image doesn't inspire happy thoughts for everyone.
B) No one through out history has ever been aware of pain in any form. This planet is euphoria.
C) Yes, it is possible to determine a habitual view from a single image. In fact, it's possible to judge a person entirely by a minute facet of their existence.
D) No... Good and evil couldn't possibly be subjective

Naive and impressionable minds are the by product of lack of experience, and lack of common sense. Anyone who would allow themselves to be influenced to extremes by such a picture, as well as everyone else, would be entirely responsible for their actions alone. I suppose you blame the media for every "problem" in society as well. Come to think of it, I shouldn't even be defending my work. It's just not my fault.

Ethics and aesthetics are individual concepts. If you subject every thing you come in contact with to a rigid moral code, fundamentally, what is there to distinguish one such as yourself from say, bigots: racial supremacists, and religious extremists?

From your words, one might infer that you're a little more naive and impressionable than you think.
Anyway, I can't express how sorry I am that anything I might have done bothered you. From now on I'll make sure to take pictures of "happy" things. Maybe I'll do a shoot with puppies, kitties, and families instead. That would be so great. I'll keep you posted!

Originally posted by zeuszen:

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

08/29/2003 11:40:23 PM · #11

I would say that from the impassioned response you recieved, johnny that your piece was indeed a very succesful endeavour.

One doesn't have to agree or subscribe to an artists world view to be able to recognize the merit of a piece by it's ability to provoke or invoke action/reaction.

Great art?,, probably not
Noteworthy, sure.. it worked.

Frankly I'd rather look at this than a bottle full of urine. But I'll certainly defend any artist that wants to express themselves that way.

What more can an artist outside the bounds of the acceptable ask for?

Whether or not you did indeed intend these things.. congratulations

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/30/2003 12:16:59 AM · #12

There, really, is no need for sarcasm, nor for speculations about my person.

I restricted my comment to an image, not its author. Whatever response anyone would like to make, should take this under consideration, if it is to be taken seriously.

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

08/30/2003 10:02:05 AM · #13

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I would suggest that by labeling the image in questions " ethically unnecessarily offensive" you are indeed engaging in what you decry.

I view my art as an extension of myself...

I am not trying to speak for the photographer... I would not presume to do this.

My view point, though, on this thread is one that has been formed over the years witnessing the hue and cry to repress any art that does not conform to given moral, aesthetic, cultural, political, ethical or societal norm.

I have not posted anything of mine that I feel would not fit w/ this forum. DPC is very mainstream. That does not mean no one else should.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/30/2003 10:13:26 AM · #14

i tend to agree with sslickk and jkc here .. where are the 'ethics' in this picture of which you speak?

any theme park with a haunted house contains cartoon images of violence such as this one . . You may well find those 'ethically offensive', in which case, your viewpoint is an extreme and would be considered in that context, although you are of course more than welcome to express it.

however, when you open the door of personal judgement, you should not be surprised if it swings both ways.

just a thought .. :)

xhoss

Kodak DX6490

08/30/2003 03:26:30 PM · #15

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

however, when you open the door of personal judgement, you should not be surprised if it swings both ways.

great quote magnetic **getting pencil, writing down**

and to johnnys credit...he did label the post, parental advisory...that's a pretty recognizable label that means I shouldn't look if I generally find this type of content offensive.

I personally find the shot to have great value...johnny, I can't wait to try that come halloween! =`)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/30/2003 03:42:12 PM · #16

Originally posted by sslickk:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
There, really, is no need for sarcasm, nor for speculations about my person.

I restricted my comment to an image, not its author. Whatever response anyone would like to make, should take this under consideration, if it is to be taken seriously
.<<<<

Originally posted by sslickk:
In other words, I consider this image aesthetically and ethically unnecessarily offensive.>>>

I would suggest that by labeling the image in questions " ethically unnecessarily offensive" you are indeed engaging in what you decry.

I view my art as an extension of myself...

I am not trying to speak for the photographer... I would not presume to do this.

My view point, though, on this thread is one that has been formed over the years witnessing the hue and cry to repress any art that does not conform to given moral, aesthetic, cultural, political, ethical or societal norm.

I have not posted anything of mine that I feel would not fit w/ this forum. DPC is very mainstream. That does not mean no one else should.

1. I did not merely 'label the image in questions' anything. I included a personal view as an addendum to the substance of my original post, which is common practice even in the critical genre [Krito, Gr. - to choose, to pick out for oneself]. The gist of my original post remains an attempt to examine and extract a merit.

2. I do feel, that when an image is posted for public viewing, that this also implies an invitation to comment, which I did. If my comment fails to draw a response perpendicular to the demonstrated care of its address, there's little more I can do.

3. I acutely recognize the fact, that many 'view their art as an extension of themselves', but I also recognize that there are those who view 'their art' as an extension of that which moves us from a mediocre to a heightened state of awareness and sense. The view, that the ego actually interferes with their art, is not an exotic one anymore, either.

4. I fail to see how criteria I apply to ANY works of art or attempts at such could be construed to be 'repressive'. They merely reflect the initial provocation of the first post in this thread. I even see some use for provocation, but I would like to know, what that use is, in this particular case.

5. I have not asked anyone to 'conform to given moral, aesthetic, cultural, political, ethical or societal norm', neither will I ever attempt to do so. On this point, there is, oddly enough, almost passionate agreement among all who posted so far; whether they know it or not, I can't tell. But I regret, that we have to foreclose on possibilties before we investigate them.

6. I remain in full accord, also, with the closing paragraph. When an attempt at applying criteria to an image is construed to be written by a proponent of 'mainstream', I can only question the profitability of what appears to evolve into a fruitless and irrational exercise.

Message edited by author 2003-08-30 15:44:07.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

08/30/2003 03:48:16 PM · #17

Zeusen you aren't a lawyer by any chance are you?