|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2008 04:53:59 PM · #76 |
I've also had the privilege of shooting body suspension and body modification performance art... I personally find it beautiful and compelling, but have witnessed horror and revulsion in others upon viewing the act/performance.
The world would be boring if everyone had the same opinion ;) |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 05:05:35 PM · #77 |
rudeness, sarcasm and mockery have never changed minds, only entrenched beliefs. mutual respect may allow mutual growth of opinions and outlook.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 05:40:50 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by ingridblue:
I've also had the privilege of shooting body suspension and body modification performance art... I personally find it beautiful and compelling, but have witnessed horror and revulsion in others upon viewing the act/performance.
The world would be boring if everyone had the same opinion ;) |
I wanna party with you... O Tattooed Princess from the Blue.
Originally posted by xianart:
rudeness, sarcasm and mockery have never changed minds, only entrenched beliefs. mutual respect may allow mutual growth of opinions and outlook. |
After completely modeling myself after Don Rickles all these years, I know the above words are so true. Kill'em with kindness is my new motto.
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 20:30:39. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 05:52:05 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
DO you think it has gone too far? No
Do you think it is a good thing to feel that way artistically? Feel what way?
Do you think it is art? Who am I to judge?
Is it an amazing thing to have captured? Yes, especially seeing the calm expression on the model's face, both the shots are pretty amazing.
If done technically right does it make it any better? Do you mean the photography or the piercing? Both look pretty professional to me.
Do you think the photographer would be pleased with the result it has on people? Every photograph has a different effect on different people, I don't know why you are picking on this particular artist? If you don't like looking at it, look elsewhere.
I have an example in mind (can not get it out of my mind), it is a very well shot shot. Techincally it is great, But do you think the artist is going for a viceral thing? Who cares if they are or not?
 |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 05:56:55 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by xianart:
rudeness, sarcasm and mockery have never changed minds, only entrenched beliefs. mutual respect may allow mutual growth of opinions and outlook. |
I believe there is some truth in that statement. Nicely said.
I don't know if I believe that all "art is sacrosanct." I suppose that's like saying one can justify any sort of nonsense whatsoever by calling it religion. However, I've seen the infamous crucifix dipped in urine -- it's a photograph, not a painting -- and though intended to provoke, it was nevertheless a beautiful photo. I saw it at a museum in Chicago. It was a huge print. It was on display with a similar photo in red that turned out to be menstrual blood. Without the titles, you'd never know they were offensive! (See debate on the importance of captions in another thread.) ;-)
Btw, OmanOtter, I don't think you attacked anyone here, nor crossed any lines with your comments. I believe if George W. Bush was hit in the face with a cream pie, it would be deserved, but that doesn't mean I'm condoning violence.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2008 01:02:52 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Btw, OmanOtter, I don't think you attacked anyone here, nor crossed any lines with your comments. I believe if George W. Bush was hit in the face with a cream pie, it would be deserved, but that doesn't mean I'm condoning violence. |
Thanks CityMars. I don't think I attacked anyone or crossed any lines either.
It was after Midnight here when I signed off last night to go to bed. There were a few more responses to my comments after that. I really don't want to waste anyone's time (including my own) repeating what I've already said; but, judging from some of them, some of the responders haven't really read what I'm saying (or perhaps haven't understood it). I'll address the ones that concern me the most:
1) I'm not against these pictures. I'm against one of the arguments used to defend them, though - namely, that because they are art, they should be free from criticism and objection. While I certainly do not agree that they are art, that's not my point. My argument is that nothing, even if it IS art, gets a free pass - ESPECIALLY if a or the purpose or intent of the "art" or "artist" is provocation. If a person is a provocateur, then he has no right to cry "foul!" when a portion of the public reacts negatively.
2) Spazmo - No, I don't think all porn is bad. I was just referring to a popular argument (with which I do not entirely agree) among the feminist community that seeks to address issues affecting women. I see their concerns about porn and their argument against it as applicable to this series of pictures. I raise this theory in this context because both feminists and free-expressionists tend to be associated with the same side of the political spectrum (the left) and I thought I saw a point of vulnerability among the free-expressionists by being able to suggest that some could see their position as misogynistic - a label that I think most left-leaning people would abhor.
3) Spasmo - Regarding your concern that I "would have someone physically injured" for "hurting someone's feelings" and whether that contradicts my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America: 1) I didn't say I would have anyone physically injured. I AM saying that sometimes "artists" do extremely offensive works and then defend them as "art" and get self-righteous and indignant when there is an outcry. When a person intentionally does something extremely offensive and provocative (like displaying a photo of a cross dipped in urine, or taping an American flag to a museum floor for people to walk on) he should not be surprised if someone reacts - even physically. And, frankly, in the two cases I just cited, a punch in the face would, in my opinion, be well-deserved. Too often people seek to provoke in the name of art just, apparently, to piss other people off. 2) I think you're elevating punching above the level of seriousness it deserves and simultaneously not taking moral/emotional/spiritural violence seiously-enough. I'm a Marine. A simple physical punch in the face isn't so bad. You're a male. I suspect you've punched a few people in your life and taken a few punches, too. Putting a cross in urine and then DISPLAYING IT IN PUBLIC is a provocation that is a hell of a lot worse than a punch in the face IMO. Look how the Muslim world reacts to cartoons of Mohammed! Now, I'm not actually advocating punching people. I'm just saying that if you take something that is very dear to a lot of people, do something revolting to it, and then display it in public, you shouldn't be surprised when someone reacts negatively -- including by (just an example) punching you. 2) My oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is not contradicted by this position. The fact that the 1st Amendment has a clause that protects freedom of speech does not mean that it protects everything. For one, you cannot advocate the violent overthrow of the government. The Framers of the Constitution, when they adopted the 1st Amendment, were concerned with governmental restrictions on speech - and primarily restrictions of criticism of the government. They probably couldn't even have imagined the implications of applying that protection to the wide variety of things that people try to call "expression" today. For instance, while I am not against porn, I think it is ridiculous to use the 1st Amendment as the means to defend it because I don't think porn has anything at all to do with freedom of speech.
Message edited by author 2008-05-07 05:40:15. |
|
|
|
05/10/2008 12:25:53 PM · #82 |
Well, if the point of art is to provoke emotions and thoughts, then this photograph is entirely successful, regardless of subject matter. ^^
I think comparing this to something that a serial killer would hang on their wall is awfully unfair. Is it graphic? Perhaps. But the thing is, its not offensive subject matter. Its not like someone killed this girl and hung her up to call it art. Its not full of blood and guts, like I was expecting from the post title. This is a person that is doing something that is obviously an integral part of who she is, and, above all, is HAPPY. I think its a beautiful photo. And really, if you're upset don't look at it right? I don't like zombies, so I don't watch zombie movies, you don't like people hanging in the air by hooks, don't look at it. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/21/2025 03:04:10 PM  |
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: 08/21/2025 03:04:10 PM EDT.
|
