| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2002 12:27:23 PM · #51 |
the personal attacks referred to were in reference to a post by me that was deleted. don't worry, i am not easily offended, so bombs away if you want. i'm just trying to get people to see what is going on here...i believe setzler understands what i'm talking about, although i'm sure anyone who agrees with me will distance themselves due to my brazen commentary
and whoever thinks that that would be art needs to stop eating those mushrooms in their backyard
Message edited by author 2002-12-23 12:28:32.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 12:31:51 PM · #52 |
About the photo in question:
#1 if you consider it art, it would only be the kind of art you would find in a 24 hour news stand
#2 if you happen to be looking through photos at work or at a friends house, it can be a bad situation for you when this photo pops up on your screen and other people are looking over your shoulder.
I personally like tasteful photography, and I would prefer that this website stays that way. Thank You
Message edited by author 2002-12-23 12:33:36. |
|
|
|
12/23/2002 12:38:28 PM · #53 |
I guess I'm the one being mocked here for saying it was "artistic"... which I really didn't. The context of my comment was just distinguishing nudity from pornography, in which case I would call any nude photography with an aim that wasn't pornographic to be "artistic" in a very loose sense of the word.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 12:46:35 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by achiral:
and whoever thinks that that would be art needs to stop eating those mushrooms in their backyard |
No. Please. Don't take my mushrooms away! ;-)
Well, I don't think I'm entitled to philosophise about what art is. But my point was not that I think it is art but that I think you shouldn't ask for disqualification because you personally dislike the content.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 12:52:17 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The photo in question here has accomplished its goal of creating a controversy. Whoever submitted this photo is laughing at everyone here and making a mockery of the site.
Our rules on this issue do not disallow this photograph so i think it should stand as is and let the voter decide what to do with it.
I think it's unfair to diqualify a photograph, regardless of what it is, based on an unwritten rule. This photo could be used to design a new rule that would become effective next week. |
Here here! |
I believe the rules do disallow this photograph:
From this site's terms of use:
Prohibited Media. You are responsible for ensuring that the Media you post on the website complies with all applicable Laws. In particular, and without limiting the foregoing, DPChallenge.com does not authorize the posting of any items that may be in any of the following categories (“Prohibited Items”):
Obscene, inflammatory, libelous, harassing or offensive information
The image in question is OBSCENE and therefore should be Prohibited.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 12:57:44 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by goodtempo:
The image in question is OBSCENE and therefore should be Prohibited. |
Herein lies the problem - how do you define "obscene"?
Is it:
"Designed to incite to indecency or lust" ?
"Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty" ?
"Suggestive of or tending to moral looseness" ?
"Offensive to the mind" ?
or something else again?
There are as many definitions of what obscenity and "acceptable" nudity are as there are people that use this site...
Message edited by author 2002-12-23 12:58:35.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:02:32 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by goodtempo:
The image in question is OBSCENE and therefore should be Prohibited. |
I have already stated my personal distaste for this photograph, but I cannot allow such a statement to stand without comment.
It is "oscene" according to what rules? Yours, goodtempo? Mine? The administrators?
Consider why you think it obscene: Is it because it shows a penis? Does that make all Greek and Roman statuary osbscene? How about Michaelangelo's David?
[Note: I am not comparing art with art here, merely one displayed penis with another]
I'll state again, I think this image in question is distasteful and I personally wish it hadn't been posted here. However, its "faults" are like a speck of dust in the face of the storm of censorship that could break out.
Message edited by author 2002-12-23 13:03:11.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:04:13 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by stephan:
No. Please. Don't take my mushrooms away! ;-)
Well, I don't think I'm entitled to philosophise about what art is. But my point was not that I think it is art but that I think you shouldn't ask for disqualification because you personally dislike the content. |
Hehe, I get it now, the references were to your post :). Well, from the reactions to this photo I think I'll cross Gilbert and George off my list for future Art Appreciation threads. They combine things like full frontal nudity, bodily waste, homosexuality and humour into their photo collage works, and they've been exhibiting in art galleries for 30 odd years. Art just can't be defined. I don't think joke photos generally are "art", but there has always been a place for humour. Look at the Dadaists, Surrealists, Pop Artists like Andy Warhol, etc.
I don't think the photographer was trying to make any bold statements about the state of the world or the human condition, and without the intent to create art, it's harder to argue that a work is artistic. But hey. It's a subject for drunken dinner party debates, not something you can really quantify in the rules of a photography contest.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:10:06 PM · #59 |
Is it possible for the "turn off the nudes" setting to function during voting? That way everyone could enjoy the site and not be driven away.
On a personal note, I plan to switch my homepage over to digitalphotocontest.com for this week, since I have a small child and we have family in town for the holidays. Nudity is not a problem in my house, but I don't tolerate immature, adolescent vulgarity very well. I'll be back next week to see how this plays itself out.
Of course this didn't come as a surprise to me... The minute I saw the challenge, I said to myself, "What the &*^% are they thinking? They do this for Christmas week?" As much as I admire the job Drew and Langdon have done here, they showed extremely poor judgment in the timing of this challenge, and they share the responsibility for this 'art'.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:21:30 PM · #60 |
Ib be real curious to see what the reaction would have been if it was just a macro of a penis, sans holiday outfit.
I personally dont find it obscene, rude, etc. Humourous, juvenile maybe, but nothing for me personally to get upset over.
If people want to decide what is or isnt appropriate when nudity is involved, then there is no real answer. Tatses and opinions differ and there is no cut or dry answer. Supreme Courts have been debating this for years. My own opinion is if you want no controversy, then you should make a "NO Nudity Clause". Then there is no debating the issue. I hate to see it have to come to that, but I dont think you can ever reach any middle ground with what "is or isnt" offensive. There are plenty of other sites were people can, if they choose , submit nudes without worring about other peoples definitions of morality. DP Challenge has to figure out where it wants to be on this issue.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:22:47 PM · #61 |
I run a couple of my own websites. One with a forum of its own. I allow most anything to be said on my site... full on cussing, posting nudie pics, whatever. However I have removed a thread because "I" didn't like it. My sites are not freedom of speech sites... they are MY sites and I make decisions because I can.
This site is going through a growing pain I've seen several times on different boards. The owners of this site will determine to defend their rules to the letter, or make executive decisions because they can... to me there is no rule without an exception.
It would be nice to see the guys take a liberty they've earned.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:36:44 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by goodtempo:
The image in question is OBSCENE and therefore should be Prohibited. |
It is "oscene" according to what rules? Yours, goodtempo? Mine? The administrators?
|
You could argue that the relation between the subject and the title is somewhat obscene at this time of year. The state the subject is in however, I seriously doubt if it really happened. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 01:46:41 PM · #63 |
everyone here knows what obscene is, because they have an idea of right and wrong, and to make a relativist argument and try to show tolerance is rediculous because you are lying to yourself and everyone else on the site
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 02:00:30 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by achiral:
everyone here knows what obscene is, because they have an idea of right and wrong, and to make a relativist argument and try to show tolerance is rediculous because you are lying to yourself and everyone else on the site |
Whos lying? Its a penis. It is not obscene to all of us. I respect your opinion, how about respecting others?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 02:01:55 PM · #65 |
please dont go there. because you're flat-out wrong :).
it really *is* relative.
That said, I would let it go at this point. No need to keep fanning the flames.
Originally posted by achiral:
everyone here knows what obscene is, because they have an idea of right and wrong, and to make a relativist argument and try to show tolerance is rediculous because you are lying to yourself and everyone else on the site |
Message edited by author 2002-12-23 21:59:05. |
|
|
|
12/23/2002 02:08:59 PM · #66 |
ok i'm done, this is exhausted well beyond my expectations, and i accomplished what i wanted...i'm glad some others who didn't like the idea spoke up, hopefully there will be a rule change. and i am sorry if anyone was personally offended by me, i'm sorry, i'm stubborn.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 02:44:16 PM · #67 |
Boy, what a ride!
I sure hope everyone offers as much energy and passion judging the other images submitted for this challenge.
Mine is not fairing too well and the total vote count is still low. So, get out there and vote, vote, vote. I am already afraid that my image will score a lower grade then the unmentioned image. I am now preparing for the shame. LOL |
|
|
|
12/23/2002 02:50:05 PM · #68 |
The site's terms of use on offensive/obscene material (specifically pornography) is generic because something like 'pornography' is so difficult to define. Much as bamaster suggested, we have to rely on the submissions themselves to define the limits of offensive or obscene.
That said, I think it's necessary for us to try to continually develop a definition of offensive/obscene, so you'll see in the near future an attempt at a definition in the challenge rules. I must stress, however, that this site is one that displays art... and the bounds of art certainly stretch into nudity or even suggestive-erotic photographs.
The shot that this thread is referring to (it's no secret) has been disqualified as a result of a Site Council vote. As an administator of the site, I still have one vote like the rest of the Site Council members, but I will say that my vote was narrowly for disqualification. Even though I don't personally like looking at this photograph (certainly attributable to the fact that I'm a heterosexual male), this type of close-up, full-framed photograph (vagina or penis alike) wouldn't even make the pages of a semi-tasteful magazine like Playboy/Playgirl. I decided that this is a level at which I'm personally comfortable at for drawing the line of 'obscene or offensive' as it pertains to this site.
I very much welcome opinions on how any clause related to obscenity/offensiveness in the challenge rules should be stated.
Drew |
|
|
|
12/23/2002 03:04:15 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by hokie:
The adult body parts are fine by me but I would suggest before you put child body parts on the site you might want to CYA.
There is a shot of what appear to be under age kids that might get some folks here in some serious trouble. I am one of the more hardcore folks here and don't care what I see if its good. But from a legal standpoint I would advise the site owners and moderators to look into this issue asap. :-) |
I already did advise the to check it out legally. We don't know if it is mixed company or not and the one head that was not cropped out completely is obviously looking at the other's privates, as the title suggests. The laws are very tight about child pornography. I thought there were several nudities that were handled artfully, but there is one that is obviously not tasteful at all and is pure smut. And it is now gone from my voting site. So more than one of us recommended it for disqualification. PTL
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 03:27:11 PM · #70 |
NAZI MODERATORS!!! FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DEAD!!!
hehe
Just kidding. I'm glad to hear about the dq. I hope the threshold of what is defined as obscene has been reached. Allowing anything and everything in the name of art is a recipe for destruction. The the cheap porn attempts would flourish... regulars would bail... and the initial goal/vision of the site would have been lost.
Now... can someone start padding my votes... what I thought was my best effort to date is becoming my worse performer.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 03:43:55 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
Originally posted by hokie:
The adult body parts are fine by me but I would suggest before you put child body parts on the site you might want to CYA.
There is a shot of what appear to be under age kids that might get some folks here in some serious trouble. I am one of the more hardcore folks here and don't care what I see if its good. But from a legal standpoint I would advise the site owners and moderators to look into this issue asap. :-) |
I already did advise the to check it out legally. We don't know if it is mixed company or not and the one head that was not cropped out completely is obviously looking at the other's privates, as the title suggests. The laws are very tight about child pornography. I thought there were several nudities that were handled artfully, but there is one that is obviously not tasteful at all and is pure smut. And it is now gone from my voting site. So more than one of us recommended it for disqualification. PTL |
Although as others have mentioned, I've probably seen more 'child nudity' in nappy/diaper adverts on television in the UK and Europe. Much of the 'pornographic' content of an image is in the eye of the beholder...
The penis shot looked like it had had a lot of thought and effort (misguided though it may be) given to it. Quite why I can't fathom but it certainly wasn't 'obscene' it might not be tasteless, but I doubt anyone could seriously find it pornographic, by any sane definition. |
|
|
|
12/23/2002 03:47:51 PM · #72 |
you dont think the pic combined with the title combined to suggest mom doing something to santa that Bill Clinton would like to also be in on???
Originally posted by Gordon:
I doubt anyone could seriously find it pornographic, by any sane definition. |
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 03:51:54 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
you dont think the pic combined with the title combined to suggest mom doing something to santa that Bill Clinton would like to also be in on??? |
hehe.. like this?
MPEG Movie
Note: Don't view if you are a fan of Bill Clinton or are easily offended. If one person says they were offended or thought it was in bad taste... you deserve it!
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 05:25:22 PM · #74 |
i have a question.
why are things held to higher standard if they involve nudity?
i can't tell you how many generally bad photos i've seen on here playing off some stupid gimmick trying to humurous instead of artistic. why is it suddenly different when it comes genitalia?
it's not something about this site. it's something about people in general. ...it's JUST genitalia folks. we all got 'em.
now, i didn't actually get to see the photo you're all talking about. but from what i heard (for those completely lost), it was a penis in a santa hat.
now, it seems like it was a more "adult" attempt to be cute, but its the same general principle i've seen on here in the past. interchanging something smaller (not meant as an insult to said erm... member) for an actual subject, ie: barbie dolls, m+m's action figures, etc, and anthropomorphising it, instead of shooting it as its own object. its almost always an attempt to be cute, or for lack of a real human subject.
and they usually get pretty low votes from me. because i don't find any of them very artistic.
but that's ok. as long as it doesn't involve a penis or a vagina.
not to bash the photo. i didn't actually see it, and so i did not have the chance to judge its artistic content or merit with my own eyes. and i for one am not afraid of a penis.
but if the mods can dq a photo based on artistic content, what's to keep them from dqing stuff they don't like? see my point?
and yeah, kids compete here. wow. if they were looking for porn, theres ten thousand other sites they'd likely be at instead. chances are if they're here, and taking pictures, and voting, they're mature enough to handle it. probably in the same way you all have, or the way i would have: "next"
oh. and props to the person who posted it. that took a lot of guts. you get my respect just for that alone.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 08:14:43 PM · #75 |
I, personally would like to be able to turn off nudes during the voting rather than afterward, so that I could browse on break at work without being fired for looking like something like the penis picture, that "came up" randomly as I voted. I would also not have liked my teens looking at it, esp. a thirteen year old, even though they likely know what a penis looks like. I thought the photo was a little funny, but due to the fact that it was much more obscene rather than artful which was intensified by the title; I agree with the DQ.
Thanks, moderators for taking a stand on this. You all do a good job trying to make this website a great place to be!!
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 09:49:06 AM EDT.
