| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2011 02:47:29 PM · #51 |
I find the overall impression of this image is 21st century Olympia. The straightforward gaze insists we regard her as a person, her vulva as a part of her, not just as 'naughty bits'. I'm not mad on the photo, but it's not porn. She is engaging the viewer as an equal, an adult. She's not trying to be cute, or sexy, or conform herself to what the viewer wants, but is showing herself as a sexual adult.
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 14:49:49. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 03:02:30 PM · #52 |
| I haven't looked at the pic, but I was thinking about the topic and decided that we may have qualms with declaring it art because we consider the term "art" to automatically denote positive virtues. If we take a looser definition to emcompass something that provokes reaction (although I'd think that wouldn't be the only criteria), we can declare things as "art" but still have a negative position on them. I wouldn't even call it "bad art" because to me that's art done badly, but perhaps "unredeemable art" to go along with pieces like Piss Christ or other ridiculous things that artists foist upon us just because they can. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 03:26:58 PM · #53 |
| I feel like an unredeemable artist. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 03:45:29 PM · #54 |
Olympia! What a painting! Do you see the black cat on the far right?
It's a wonderful painting to bring up, because that painting is itself an ironic comment on Ingres' nudes, and in fact is slyly accusing Ingres of pornography. There is a lot of humor in this painting. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 04:30:58 PM · #55 |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 05:02:57 PM · #56 |
| I went, I looked I went EWWWWUuuuuu.... Thats not Porn thats not Art.. it's just NASTY. I have nothing against naked females nor males, done tastefully. but SERIOUSLY that looks like a baboons ass... (not to mention the rest of the scene looks dirty, she looks unkempt, and do I see arm pit hair??) Alls that pops into my mind is I bet it stinks... Ok my 2 cents... |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 05:37:55 PM · #57 |
do I see arm pit hair??) Alls that pops into my mind is I bet it stinks...
armpit hair is not disgusting, nor does it stink. im going hairless right now for other reasons, but i have been one of those hairy pit girls before and i assure you, it is not "gross" in any way - as long as your personal hygeine is good, of course, same as WITHOUT hair...
and im normally not the womens lib/military feminist type, but i do find all this talk about how her vulva is "gross" and "ugly" really inappropriate. not every women is built the same, and i know the so called "meat flaps" look isnt very popular - why do you think that vaginoplasty has become so common? i just feel as uncomfortable about criticising that part of her as if we were criticising her weight or some other quirk of female bodydom. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 05:52:30 PM · #58 |
Yes. The reaction of distaste, especially from women,not the photo, is what is alarming/dispiriting.
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 17:53:40. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 06:51:38 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Yes. The reaction of distaste, especially from women,not the photo, is what is alarming/dispiriting. |
Yes, my thoughts exactly. First they came for the under arm hair, then the pubic hair and then the vaginoplasty merchants were out in force. The rise of the Barbie doll is unstoppable. Horrible.
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 18:52:20. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 07:09:05 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by tnun:
Yes. The reaction of distaste, especially from women,not the photo, is what is alarming/dispiriting. |
Yes, my thoughts exactly. First they came for the under arm hair, then the pubic hair and then the vaginoplasty merchants were out in force. The rise of the Barbie doll is unstoppable. Horrible. |
Absolutely. Vaginoplasty???? There really is such a thing??? Now I'm depressed.
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 19:10:25. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 07:16:49 PM · #61 |
I find it funny that people always comment on appearances or sizes of genitals, or other body parts, that we have no control over. Do you think she had a chance to go shopping for the labia that would look best on her and picked that particular set (like shopping for a pair of shoes)? News flash... these things are predetermined by DNA provided by your parents. Its not her fault it looks like a "Baboon's ass" |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 07:17:02 PM · #62 |
| Man, the whole thread turns out to be a PC police speed trap! ;) |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 07:29:32 PM · #63 |
| Personally, I think it's a fairly uninteresting picture...nothing artistic about it. It seems like the photographer was using shock value to create interest. Didn't work for me. What's the point? |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 09:50:04 PM · #64 |
Well, I wouldn't hang it on my wall. It's a weird photo. Because of the 'flash', I am drawn to the other elements in the photo... the just emptied dish, the peeling paint, the colors, the face, armpit and background; the hand that seems to be holding up the shirt. It is like I am searching for an explanation that isn't there. So, a bit intriguing. Definitely weird. Not something I would return to again and again, I don't think.
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 21:51:51. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 10:01:02 PM · #65 |
FWIW, the size of the labia has absolutely nothing to do with being "worn out". And to be quite frank, it's damn near impossible to wear one out. Such statements are immature and ignorant, and quite tasteless.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2011 10:06:15 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by ubique:
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. |
Sally Mann - porn????? By definition????? Whose? |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 10:50:37 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by LVicari:
News flash... these things are predetermined by DNA provided by your parents. Its not her fault it looks like a "Baboon's ass" |
It's also in our genes to be drawn to the most beautiful and healthy-looking individuals with the most perfect-looking parts. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 11:13:55 PM · #68 |
My computer is down, and I'm trying to use a little dinky laptop - so it took a while to get around to this thread.
The question: art or porn? Well, porn it isn't. Although I suppose someone could get 'turned on' by it. Someone could also get 'turned on' by "Nude Descending a Staircase" by Duchamp.
It's just anatomy, people!
Could it be Art? As someone said in this thread, approximately: "if an image provokes discussion it probably is art". I agree with that premise.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2011 11:17:41 PM · #69 |
I couldn't agree more, Alice. The persistence of this discussion has validated the image in the only context that matters :-)
I seem to remember a urinal on the wall once, speaking of Duchamp :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 11:26:59 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LVicari:
News flash... these things are predetermined by DNA provided by your parents. Its not her fault it looks like a "Baboon's ass" |
It's also in our genes to be drawn to the most beautiful and healthy-looking individuals with the most perfect-looking parts. |
Ah, Ken and Barbie - perfect genes as well. So what is My Funny Valentine? Chopped DNA? |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 11:33:49 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by littlemav:
I went, I looked I went EWWWWUuuuuu.... Thats not Porn thats not Art.. it's just NASTY. I have nothing against naked females nor males, done tastefully. but SERIOUSLY that looks like a baboons ass... (not to mention the rest of the scene looks dirty, she looks unkempt, and do I see arm pit hair??) Alls that pops into my mind is I bet it stinks... Ok my 2 cents... |
You're what? 12 |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 11:39:39 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LVicari:
News flash... these things are predetermined by DNA provided by your parents. Its not her fault it looks like a "Baboon's ass" |
It's also in our genes to be drawn to the most beautiful and healthy-looking individuals with the most perfect-looking parts. |
Really?
How do you the explain the ever-shifting definition of female beauty? The pendulum of ideal beauty has swung from corpulent women during the Renaissance to the gaunt, anorexic look of "heroin chic". Have our genes changed as well? |
|
|
|
02/07/2011 11:46:08 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by tnun:
Yes. The reaction of distaste, especially from women,not the photo, is what is alarming/dispiriting. |
Yes, my thoughts exactly. First they came for the under arm hair, then the pubic hair and then the vaginoplasty merchants were out in force. The rise of the Barbie doll is unstoppable. Horrible. |
Hairy pits or not, this lady is no stranger to a razor - someone has encouraged her to infantilize her outsized parts by shaving. And that likely has a lot to do with the reactions. And before you fellas get all up-in-yer-shorts-feminist on those of us saying 'yuck' - well how long do you want to gaze at an real ugly wiener or a wheelbarrow full of testicles? Would you feel justified in commenting if their owner gave you an exhibition?
Message edited by author 2011-02-07 23:46:49. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 12:06:54 AM · #74 |
| It was my impression that the expressions of distaste were directed at the very particular labia in the photograph, not at the mere fact of their being displayed, nor even at the strange contrast between the smooth pube the generous labia flagrans. I do believe that wheelbarrows full of male genitalia were once rather common - gathered up after certain battles for presentation to the victorious commander in chief. Not always just foreskins. |
|
|
|
02/08/2011 12:20:25 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LVicari:
News flash... these things are predetermined by DNA provided by your parents. Its not her fault it looks like a "Baboon's ass" |
It's also in our genes to be drawn to the most beautiful and healthy-looking individuals with the most perfect-looking parts. |
Really?
How do you the explain the ever-shifting definition of female beauty? The pendulum of ideal beauty has swung from corpulent women during the Renaissance to the gaunt, anorexic look of "heroin chic". Have our genes changed as well? |
That can be explained by feast and famine. In times where food is plentiful, thin people are idealized, but during lean times, Rubenesque figures are a sign of health and wealth.
|
|
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: 06/15/2025 12:45:48 AM EDT.
