| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2005 10:50:56 AM · #51 |
Yes we can be shallow and physically judgmental. We also like to touch everything up until the apple is the reddest it can be, in fact redder than it ever could be. We take out blemishes and smooth away wrinkles.
It's the never ending argument, the unreachable common ground. Personally beauty is beauty, it exists where it is found and the ideal wavers from me to you.
In the end it is up to the individual to recognize what they are looking at - anothers representation of beauty. I love beautiful pictures and if that means a slender line or an exaggerated curve then so be it.
For myself I̢۪d rather snap at nature or crazy shadows that a human model, but I̢۪m sure someone out there doesn̢۪t agree with how I interpret those photos. I do this for me and if another happens to enjoy it along the way than that̢۪s all the better.
If you feel an aspect of beauty has been ignored than I think it is up to you to represent in your own work. Push the boundaries as you see them, you never know you might just drag some others with you along the way.
There are no apologies in my words just the facts. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 10:54:59 AM · #52 |
Did it ever occur to anyone bickering about this that maybe the skill of the photographers had something to do with this?
I mean, look at the talent that took the top 3: nico_blue, heida, and grigrigirl. All three are fabulous photographers, regardless of the models chosen.
Should they have used more "nontraditional" models? Maybe, but it was their choice. Perhaps they chose based on the visual impact they knew they could create. Perhaps they chose based on who was available.
As many of the photogs found out during this challenge, it takes a brave soul to bare all to the world regardless of body shape, perhaps more so if one is used to being put down because of others perceptions of beauty.
Personally, I'm not offended that the top 3 (or however many) used "traditionally beautiful" models. (and no, I don't count myself in that category by any stretch of the imagination) I'm more offended by people whining about how nontraditional models never semm to do as well as traditional ones.
If you are offended that a nontraditional model didn't place, or that a nontraditional model doesn't score as high, I have one suggestion to offer.
Go out and take a well-composed, technically sound, and beautiful shot of a "nontraditional" model and post it here to prove that it can be done.
Personally, I know that it can be, and I also know that arguing about it will not solve anything. Go out and do something about it.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:10:13 AM · #53 |
What I am upset with is the shallow views of people. I received a comment and all it said was "heavy". But no explanation of whether it refered to the tone of my photo or me.
Do you honestly think that if the top 3, who I totally agree are beautiful and wonderful photographers, used a plus size model, would they still win? I'd like to know. Granted my photo wasn't good. It was the first time I tried it and I it got the score I thought it would. I'm not boohooing on not winning I knew I wouldn't come close. But I had to try.
Would you try to change the great artist of the past not to use rubenesque women. Renoir would be turning over in his grave. You do not see stick thin women in their paintings.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:15:34 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
I cannot believe that this thread has been allowed to let slide. |
I think the debate is a little to heavy to slide. Either that or SC is sleeping or FINALLY allowing someone to speak freely. Try the ignore feature and also try requesting this to be moved to the rant as it has gotten off topic?.
EDIT: WITHOUT PREDJUDICE
Perhaps someone can request a fat nude challenge as well just to see HOW some of the more experienced photog's would shoot.
Message edited by author 2005-09-03 11:20:41.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:18:18 AM · #55 |
I am sensitive to the very small minority of people in the world who have physical defects like thyroid problems. I also wanted to iterate that my post by no means was pointing out women over men in their weight control issues. Secondly, I think it is sad and disgusting to see the result of overeating and undereating and what is happening to the world in the process. Thirdly, just because someone does not have control does not make them stupid and worthless. That being said I find a couple of interesting points laying within the posted comments:
1. People's worth seems to be wrapped up in their looks and has always been this way. (yes, even before those Terrible fashion mags and tv shows. Vanity has always been a twisted outworking of pride.
2. Where is the accountability here? Why doesn't everyone simply admit that obesity and malnutrition will kill. And yes, lack of control, is the ultimate issue. Whether you assign blame to physical/mental/social issues, at the end, it is the hand going to the mouth or not going there.
3. No one can deny, that if you put 1200 calories into your body every day (the amount you burn during normal bodily functions), you will lose weight over a period. Conversely, if you put in 5000 calories a day, biologically it is impossible not to gain weight, for people who aren't suffering from a disease. My point is no physical deficiency in this area cannot be overcomed with a strong will and good habits.
4. And mesmaraj, come on, "Had he said "no gay chicks" or "no mentally retarded chicks" or "no black chicks" it would have been gone in a heart beat. How Is "no fat chicks" any different?"............You must be kidding me. Mentally retarded people, black people and many other things here are attributes we are born with and they have no CONTROL over that. That is why discrimination is the lowest attack. "Gay chicks" I will not touch, but will just say, it would be very hard to determine a "gay chick" in a nude pose. That is just silly.
Like I said, we live in a culture of excuses, outs, reasons and lack of accountability. I mean, it is sooo bad to say eating disorders are wrong and need to be righted. It is an epedimic, in so far is it is spreading like wildfire. And the reason some people find it gross and offensive is because deep down they see the unhealthiness of that person. So the bottom line is people should be healthy and.....
The best pictures filtered there way to the top of the Nude III challenge, regardless of weight. Give people credit for taking a good picture.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:19:12 AM · #56 |
| I had the skinnest entry of all ;) |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:24:31 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by gayle43103:
What I am upset with is the shallow views of people. I received a comment and all it said was "heavy". But no explanation of whether it refered to the tone of my photo or me.
Do you honestly think that if the top 3, who I totally agree are beautiful and wonderful photographers, used a plus size model, would they still win? I'd like to know. Granted my photo wasn't good. It was the first time I tried it and I it got the score I thought it would. I'm not boohooing on not winning I knew I wouldn't come close. But I had to try.
Would you try to change the great artist of the past not to use rubenesque women. Renoir would be turning over in his grave. You do not see stick thin women in their paintings. |
And in the past, it was the "Rubenesque" women who were considered beautiful. Now (right or wrong) it is the thinner women who are considered by American society to be beautiful. Do I agree that stick thin women should be celebrated for their beauty simply because they are thin? No. Frankly I've seen a lot of "beautiful" celebrities that look like giant heads stuck on sticks. It's grotesque.
Do I think they would have won had they used plus-size models? I would have still given them a high score, but what others would have given them is not under my control. I think grigrigirls' probably would have, but I think that perhaps nico's and heida's would have suffered because a large part of the appeal of those shots (at least to me) is how the light defines the musculature of the models, and if the intent was to define the musculature, then a layer of body fat would necessarily reduce that definition.
As far as the comment on your shot goes, I agree that it could be taken in many ways and it would have been helpful to know how it was meant. Have you enquired (politely) of the commenter what he/she meant?
As I recall (and I went back and looked), yours was one of the shots that I did like, in part because of the concept, in part because of the model (which I now know was a self-portrait). To me, it's an intriguing shot, and one that I frankly don't think would have worked with a "traditionally" beautiful model.
Sara
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:27:25 AM · #58 |
I guess that I had to put my two cents worth into this . Let's go back to the "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" Or the photographer. I have seen many great photos of people that are over weight and some that are down right deadly skinny.
But for some reason with the right artist and ? or the right setting an image can be breath taking. Maybe not to all I'm sure.
Also, shock value does have aplace too. So guess my point is that is why there is a voting process and multiple images to cast your vote. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:32:27 AM · #59 |
like saracat just said, during Michelangelo's time, all the women were over overweight and plump. And even in these judgemental and cruel times, we all still adore those paintings and don't just throw them into the Tiber River. If we all hated the look of fat models so much, we wouldn't continue to allow these painting to exist and be admired and be considered masterworks. So really, the overweight model complaint is unfounded and speculative. I personally would have voted a wonderful picture with any sized model well, because it was a WONDERFUL picture.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:35:37 AM · #60 |
Thank you Sara for you kind comment.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:42:42 AM · #61 |
There is little doubt that the ribbon photos won because of the model. Other than a nice camera and lens and some dramatic light the photos have no context, no breathe and no life. If we could move away from the superficial image and 'look' closely at the principals that make a photo good, I think the results would have been different. We really need to stop rewarding mediocrity!
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:46:01 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
There is little doubt that the ribbon photos won because of the model. Other than a nice camera and lens and some dramatic light the photos have no context, no breathe and no life. If we could move away from the superficial image and 'look' closely at the principals that make a photo good, I think the results would have been different. We really need to stop rewarding mediocrity! |
I really don't understand your position. In half the posts, you're going on about how we all need to be so nice and encouraging and helpful and never vote anything down or discourage anyone and in your next breath, you're slamming any photo you can think of and calling everyone fake, unoriginal, uninspired, etc. It's hard to keep up with. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:55:42 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by azoychka:
There is little doubt that the ribbon photos won because of the model. Other than a nice camera and lens and some dramatic light the photos have no context, no breathe and no life. If we could move away from the superficial image and 'look' closely at the principals that make a photo good, I think the results would have been different. We really need to stop rewarding mediocrity! |
I really don't understand your position. In half the posts, you're going on about how we all need to be so nice and encouraging and helpful and never vote anything down or discourage anyone and in your next breath, you're slamming any photo you can think of and calling everyone fake, unoriginal, uninspired, etc. It's hard to keep up with. |
I am agreeing with the majority of posters that 'No Fat Chicks' is not appropriate. I am also pointing out that these pictures are for a moment satisfying but on a deeper level they have very liitle to them. This lack of complexity and substance is tied directly to the 'No Fat Chicks' remark. I believe it was a sarcastic remark on what ribbons here. You can place a buff body in the middle of your photo with no background and everyone will fall over backwards with wonder and amazement.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 12:09:16 PM · #64 |
[/quote] I am agreeing with the majority of posters that 'No Fat Chicks' is not appropriate. I am also pointing out that these pictures are for a moment satisfying but on a deeper level they have very liitle to them. This lack of complexity and substance is tied directly to the 'No Fat Chicks' remark. I believe it was a sarcastic remark on what ribbons here. You can place a buff body in the middle of your photo with no background and everyone will fall over backwards with wonder and amazement. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree. The winning photos deserved to win, they are amazing. What we are seeing here, IMHO, are a few photographers who have figured out the artistic aspect as well as the commercial appeal and have managed to balance them both in a single capture.
I have to disagree with a lot of the other scores where the commercial appeal has definitely won over any form of more artistic value. The "no fat chicks" mentality is primarily commercially driven by current mass media's interpretation of what beauty is. For nudes, the commercial appeal is the titilating, erotic aspect. The nude artistic, on the other hand, is the technically well done, lit, composed study of the human body in it's infinite forms. (not to say erotica is not well done, lit and composed well as it certainly is) The majority here has followed commercial appeal. IMHO
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 12:20:16 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by barndog:
|
I have to disagree with a lot of the other scores where the commercial appeal has definitely won over any form of more artistic value. The "no fat chicks" mentality is primarily commercially driven by current mass media's interpretation of what beauty is. For nudes, the commercial appeal is the titilating, erotic aspect. The nude artistic, on the other hand, is the technically well done, lit, composed study of the human body in it's infinite forms. (not to say erotica is not well done, lit and composed well as it certainly is) The majority here has followed commercial appeal. IMHO [/quote]
Yes they are nice magazine style photos. A picture, whether photo, drawing or painting is easily handled when the focus is on one object and all else is vacant. This means the artist did not attempt to place the object within a context. The viewers interest is at best fleeting. I believe that when photos ribbon they are the best choices to discuss. Whether on their merits as a photo or on how they were voted on. It is all a part of discussion. They are as they say fair game. They have earned the right. Congratulations to them because they have the opportunity to be viewed and evaluated by everyone who visits the site when they are on the front page. I hope their placement in the challenge will stimulate a deeper discussion of photography and art then just self-adulation and the stroking of egos.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 12:22:25 PM · #66 |
Are you fat??? When you go jogging do you leave pot holes??? When you go to the zoo do the elephants throw YOU peanuts??? when you go to a restauRANT and look at the menu do you say "OK"???
Rodney Dangerfield - Back To School
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 12:27:56 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Are you fat??? When you go jogging do you leave pot holes??? When you go to the zoo do the elephants throw YOU peanuts??? when you go to a restauRANT and look at the menu do you say "OK"???
Rodney Dangerfield - Back To School |
An example of a form of mass media attempting to determine what is good and what is bad. Don't get me wrong, I find it funny too. Rodney Dangerfield is one of my favorite actor/comedians. Good example in support of the commercial appeal that is most dominant here.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 01:54:13 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by photodude:
I know I'll regret this but
"No Fat Chicks" |
Read the comments on this one and then say something. You're right, you are regretting it already I'm sure.
Deannda |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 01:58:06 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Are you fat??? When you go jogging do you leave pot holes??? When you go to the zoo do the elephants throw YOU peanuts??? when you go to a restauRANT and look at the menu do you say "OK"???
Rodney Dangerfield - Back To School |
This is irrelevant. It trivializes important issues and the possibility of discussion. Typical of some on this site I am afraid. I am not saying the photographers of these ribbon photos are not good but I am saying I want more from the ribbon pictures. That is a fair expectation. I am not criticising the photographers! Not even the photos really. I am the ribbons though! and the lack of open constructive and insightful discussion beyond just the technical.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 02:02:57 PM · #70 |
So show us what you can do (photography wise) to give us a nude with the context you seem to think it needs. Give us an example of someone else's work that fits your idea of a really good and meaningful nude photo. I'm curious as to just exactly what you are meaning.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 02:57:57 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by saracat:
So show us what you can do (photography wise) to give us a nude with the context you seem to think it needs. Give us an example of someone else's work that fits your idea of a really good and meaningful nude photo. I'm curious as to just exactly what you are meaning. |
I'm guessing you are talking to me, if not, sorry.
My point is/was that fat can be seen as tasteful and well done also. His comment of "No Fat Chicks" is neither.
To exclude a large number of the population just because one person doesn't find them attractive or for any reason is just a little too Hitlerish for my taste.
Deannda |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 03:07:28 PM · #72 |
Actually I was referring to all of the comments azoychoka has been making about the nudes being without a context, being simple figures on a blank background, etc.
I know that photos of all nontraditionally beautiful people can be quite beautiful, intriguing, and worthy of being seen.
I'm just tired of peple ranting about how the top three in the nudes 3 challenge are meaningless and lack any subtext which would allow the viewer to appreciate them more. So I say again to azoychoka, show me what you're talking about so that there is no misunderstanding as to what you mean. Show me how the top 3 could have been shot so as to provide that subtext you can't seem to see.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 03:48:29 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by photodude:
I know I'll regret this but
"No Fat Chicks" |
Wow....needed to dig deep for that one huh?
Message edited by author 2005-09-03 16:16:46. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:07:52 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by saracat:
Actually I was referring to all of the comments azoychoka has been making about the nudes being without a context, being simple figures on a blank background, etc.
I know that photos of all nontraditionally beautiful people can be quite beautiful, intriguing, and worthy of being seen.
I'm just tired of peple ranting about how the top three in the nudes 3 challenge are meaningless and lack any subtext which would allow the viewer to appreciate them more. So I say again to azoychoka, show me what you're talking about so that there is no misunderstanding as to what you mean. Show me how the top 3 could have been shot so as to provide that subtext you can't seem to see. |
The context I mean is the space they occupy. These ribbon photo's occupy no space, have no relationship to anything but blackness. These are a 'studies' of an object. This si a very elementary approach that takes less skill to execute.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:09:02 PM · #75 |
Oh yes, they are not meaningless and I do not believe I said or implied that.
|
|
