| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2011 11:18:55 PM · #26 |
World English Dictionary
pornography (pɔːˈnɒɡrəfɪ)
ΓΆ€” n
1. writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement
2. the production of such material
[C19: from Greek pornographos writing of harlots, from pornē a harlot + graphein to write]
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 11:31:25 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Qiki:
Originally posted by skewsme:
her smile was so wonderfully enigmatic before i clicked |
Her smile was still there after you clicked wasn't it? |
Was it ever. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 11:39:51 PM · #28 |
| sorry but that's one nasty snatch... |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 11:43:17 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Qiki:
Originally posted by skewsme:
her smile was so wonderfully enigmatic before i clicked |
Her smile was still there after you clicked wasn't it? |
After you click she's smiling both horizontally and vertically... it's kind of confusing.
How I feel about it:
If it were hung in an art gallery, I'd probably spend more time looking at it than I would if I stumbled across it on a porn site. It definitely doesn't do anything to rouse me...
Photographically, I do find a few things about it interesting, one being how the photographer, using only ambient light was able to draw so much attention to the labia as it protrudes into the light. Otherwise, I'm pretty much apathetic about the image either way.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:01:25 AM · #30 |
Funny how people always 'stumble' across porn sites, ain't it Leroy?
This picture is not porn. In fact it's categorically not porn. It's not designed to stimulate sexual excitement; it's designed to stimulate this conversation. The fact that it's a comparatively 'artless' photograph to most viewers is unquestionably part of the photographer's intent.
Contrast with the images of Sally Mann or Bill Henson, which are recognisable as 'artful' (especially to 'arty' people), and yet which are, by definition, pornography. There is no question that Mann and Henson intend their images to be sexually stimulating, rather than simply sexually explicit.
It could be argued that while Mann and Henson disguise pornography as art, and do it very well, this guy is disguising art as pornography. But not very well.
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 00:03:11. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:37:46 AM · #31 |
art or porn?
Dang, I thought this was a choice offering - like "would you like the chicken or the fish?"
Carry on.
-Art (disguised as pornography) |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:44:16 AM · #32 |
art or porn?
Neither but that is one worn out snatch(earlier name used that made me giggle)
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 08:27:29 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Qiki:
Originally posted by skewsme:
her smile was so wonderfully enigmatic before i clicked |
Her smile was still there after you clicked wasn't it? |
yes but it was no longer wonderfully enigmatic |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 09:20:05 AM · #34 |
The way this photograph is displayed in the flicker review is the controversy. The shock of the unexpected. A second look revels the photographer's moment. he profoundly meets this challenge.
This blog from flicker is a perfect critic of this fine photograph.
mjback
17 September 2010 7:27PM
I don't agree at all that the meaning lies beyond the frame. This is a stonking portrait and a wonderful photograph. It's all there: superb composition (the angle of her left arm!), that lovely dappled light, the relationship between the subject and the photographer (the way she's looking at the camera, so utterly relaxed and yet so utterly in control), the mystery of a person we will never know but who sits there so powerfully. And those are the least porny labia you could ever hope to encounter: they're all part of the power of the image. It all comes together like a painting that took months - and yet this was captured in an instant. It's what photography is all about.
Think anyone could have taken it? Try it. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 09:41:18 AM · #35 |
Neither. A snapshit. Not special enough to be art, and quite useless as porn. At best: it was properly exposed.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 09:42:24 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
art or porn?
Dang, I thought this was a choice offering - like "would you like the chicken or the fish?"
Carry on.
-Art (disguised as pornography) |
pornography of Art?! Argh!! (runs away screaming)
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:07:09 PM · #37 |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:35:40 PM · #38 |
| well if it stonks, she should bathe more often |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:38:52 PM · #39 |
| Art? Porn? Maybe an ad for vaginal rejuvenation??? |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:44:58 PM · #40 |
It is certainly not porn (not meant to excite) and it is certainly not a snapshot. In fact, it is very carefully composed if you take the time to look at it. Most people don't, and that's where the 'art' part comes in. This picture makes you want to look at it and look away at the same time. There is a strong friction between the upper and lower half of the picture. Many people are bound to dislike it. And if you dislike a picture and consider yourself a photographer, the word to use is 'snapshot'. Look closer again, it's not. You don't have to like it, but anyone calling this is snapshot has not paid attention.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:06:38 PM · #41 |
Spot on,  Camabs, thank you.
I will go further: Many 'snapshots' are unquestionably art.
Just as many (a great many) technically perfect photographs are not.
I'm not sure about the 'snapshits' referred to by  david_c. Perhaps they are merely crappy art. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:11:01 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Camabs:
It is certainly not porn (not meant to excite) and it is certainly not a snapshot. In fact, it is very carefully composed if you take the time to look at it. Most people don't, and that's where the 'art' part comes in. This picture makes you want to look at it and look away at the same time. There is a strong friction between the upper and lower half of the picture. Many people are bound to dislike it. And if you dislike a picture and consider yourself a photographer, the word to use is 'snapshot'. Look closer again, it's not. You don't have to like it, but anyone calling this is snapshot has not paid attention. |
Meh. That's one opinion. It looks like nothing more than a quick snap to me, considering the angle of attack. The description of its origin supports the view. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:27:11 PM · #43 |
I think it is more serious than we want to believe - not necessarily the photo, but the public reaction to these women parts (male and female misogyny, fear of women), which are technically the vulva, not the vagina. For elucidation, or even desensitization, google the great wall of vagina, misnamed as it is. It might be pertinent to know that many women, many YOUNG women, are electing plastic surgery to change these parts....
Woman parts are no more nor less ridiculous than men parts.
Be warned: since yesterday there is a warning about clicking on at least one of the sites/
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 14:43:54. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:32:13 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by tnun:
...google the great wall of vagina... |
I wouldn't. The first two hit may contain malware. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:41:46 PM · #45 |
| Yikes, you're right. That warning wasn't there yesterday. So I will emend my post. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 04:59:17 PM · #46 |
| I don't find this photo interesting or unsettling because there's a genre of porn called "amateur" into which this image neatly fits. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 01:02:25 PM · #47 |
Art invites us to look past the initial impression, to consider more than just the shock. It's a challenge...can we see past her woman parts?
It's like one of Leroy's that I liked...the woman reading the bible with a breast exposed. Can we see past the boob?
Is bare skin really such a barrier?
Definitely not porn. No sexual intrigue at all. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 01:33:18 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Art invites us to look past the initial impression, to consider more than just the shock. It's a challenge...can we see past her woman parts?
It's like one of Leroy's that I liked...the woman reading the bible with a breast exposed. Can we see past the boob?
Is bare skin really such a barrier?
Definitely not porn. No sexual intrigue at all. |
Lets look at it another way. Why the sneak peak at the boob or the nether region at all? Without it does it get a second look? Or are we now discussing it on page 2 or 3 whatever it is now? I don't think so....so that rules it out as art. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 01:39:16 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Definitely not porn. No sexual intrigue at all. |
Porn is not known for its intrigue...
-Posthumous, Doctor of Pornology |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 02:05:29 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Art invites us to look past the initial impression, to consider more than just the shock. It's a challenge...can we see past her woman parts?
It's like one of Leroy's that I liked...the woman reading the bible with a breast exposed. Can we see past the boob?
Is bare skin really such a barrier?
Definitely not porn. No sexual intrigue at all. |
Lets look at it another way. Why the sneak peak at the boob or the nether region at all? Without it does it get a second look? Or are we now discussing it on page 2 or 3 whatever it is now? I don't think so....so that rules it out as art. |
It's the out-of-the-ordinary that makes it challenging. A fair woman sitting at the lunch table in a less provocative pose is only that, and indeed more likely a "snapshot". Throw in the extraordinary that invites the viewer to consider his/her own reaction and you have "art". IMO, that is. Maybe that's why I'm not so much of an artist. |
|
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: 06/18/2025 05:23:13 PM EDT.
