| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2003 05:20:51 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by dc broughton:
I find it interesting the adverse response to marijuana. It is purely a legal issue. Various pharmaceutical drugs, which are physically addicting, are prescribed in the billions of dollars every year, destroying lives while not really curing anything. As someone said before, alchohol kills thousands per year and I have a bottle of 20 year old Scotch on my shelf and I've seen the pics on DPC. Most laws made, excluding those against violence, are inacted in order to protect the very wealthy from losing revenues.
The machine that drives this country is one of excess. A bag of chips is four servings, not one, but most of us eat an entire bag of chips while watching a movie. We are fed images everyday, enticing us to over-endulge in everything from food to merchandise. This underlying idea is a factor in drug abuse. I admit, there are those out there that abuse drugs of all kinds(legal and not-ie. Rush Limbaugh) and they need help. If this photo causes someone to go out and buy drugs then that person has a problem with drugs or with fear. That is the case of most drug abusers, regardless of prescribed nature or not. I am not a drug abuser and don't condone abuse of anything, well maybe sugar...but that's my flirting with type 2 diabetes.
|
im just quoting 2 parts of dc broughton post.
dc broughton RIGHT ON.
and congrats for knowing about sugar. the #1 most abused drug in the world. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 05:33:29 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Manikz:
Originally posted by dc broughton:
A bag of chips is four servings, not one, but most of us eat an entire bag of chips while watching a movie. |
Hmmm...could this have something to do with the Marijuana? |
"People who drink alcohol get violent. People who smoke pot get the munchies."
-- Ellen Goodman
But, it should be noted, that for people undergoing cancer chemotherapy and like drastic treatments, this appetite enhancement is the DESIRED THERAPEUTIC EFFECT, which is often literally lifesaving for people who would otherwise be hospitalized on TPN (Total Parenteral Nutrition -- you get "fed" through an IV).
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 17:36:15. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 05:43:18 PM · #78 |
| As one who has worked in the field of Addictions for a good length of time I would agree with DC Broughton that Alcohol is the most dangerous and most abused drug there is. That is not to say that Pot can't become a problem but not to the graphic and more visible extent that Alcohol, Cocaine, and Heroin (and other Opiates) destroy lives. I took the image to be evocative of a distinctive smell and not promotion at all. I am surprised at the response, frankly, when images of sexualized and starved women or of guns (both roots of violence) are accepted. Just adding my two cents to the controversy. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 05:56:42 PM · #79 |
I've been going throught he opions posted by dcchallenge members. I can see merit in most. But there is one poster, who seems to have a penchant for garden dwarves. I believe he/she is just a lonely person who wants to fight. He/she has obviously has spent a lot of time going over a picture that was done spontaneously. I'm surprised that the gnome lover didn't blow a fuse at the picture of the skull and cigarette butts. I hate the stink of cigarettes but you didn't see me whining that a minor might see his picture and glorify it into a t-shirt. Art is art. Many of the pics that do well on DPC don't move me at all. To me, a picture is great if it causes something to move within the soul, not the brain. A brain can tell you why you dislike something, the soul can't tell why you love something. I'm through talking about this picture, but I can say one more thing, this photo is not technically amazing, the sun flare was purposeful though but it was a bit out of focus. I didn't want to take it out of the container because it wasn't mine. BUT the picture wasn't ever taken just to cause a debate, although in hindsight, it seems that once again, mediocre art seems to get the most exposure. dcb
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 18:15:47. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 06:19:30 PM · #80 |
| Enough already... Jesus, can't this group accept that photography is a form of free expression. If you ban all things that might be controversial and offensive to some we'll be stuck with flowers (not poppy), snapshots of your kids (not nude or half nude), and pets. This would be extremely boring. I've said it before and I'll say it again PHOTOGRAPHY IS ART, AND AS ART IT IS SUPPOSED TO ENVOKE AN EMOTION, GOOD OR BAD. If you don't like it either don't vote on it or vote it down but censorship is not the answer to anything. How do you ever expect to improve your images (not just technically) if you don't explore the same path as accomplished well known photographers. If you find pot, or many of the other things that you continuously bitch about, so offensive get another hobby because good photography will always touch on controversial subjects. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:10:20 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by seanc:
.....snapshots of your kids (not nude or half nude) |
Many people find both breeders and their spawn offensive. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 10:55:29 PM · #82 |
Look...
Most of the time, the point of photography is to evoke a feeling or a mood. Thats what DC did.. I find nothing offensive about the photo, and I don't even smoke or drink. Why should it offend anybody....? The whole theme was to make you think of the smell. Nothing more...
If it bothered you so much, you should have taken it up personally with DC. (I am referring to Setzler) To single him out, and make it look like there was something sinister behind it, is actually childish in itself. The photo implies nothing bad, or nothing illegal. There is no bad taste about it. I don't think he was trying to stir up a bad response. He was only trying to stir up some "creativity".
Grow up.. move on...
Drink a glass a milk and have some cookies with mom for crying out loud.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2003 12:24:13 AM · #83 |
| If you are going to defend dc's right to post the pic, and not get attacked for it; then you must also defend setzler's right to find it in bad taste and say so without getting attacked for it. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. We should be able to disagree on matters of taste without disrespecting each other. |
|
|
|
12/06/2003 12:30:21 AM · #84 |
|
|
|
12/06/2003 08:31:13 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by soup:
thats a shot in the dark
too each his own as far as point of view/opinion goes
but knocking on someone/something with no explanation seems childish to me. |
In that case, I think that this photo is childish for several reasons. First of all, marijuana is an illegal substance here in the US. The photographer, in my opinion, chose to photograph this subject for shock value moreso than for the art of photography. The way the photographer titled the photo with the :) indicates to me that it's a tongue-in-cheek title. The aroma of marijuana in this state is not very strong, so I wonder why else the photographer may have made this subject choice. I could not think of anything reasonable since the photo was not particularly well done in my opinion. Hey.. it's all about perception, right? This is my perception. |
First of all... he "ACCUSED" someone of making a photo for "shock value moreso than for the art of photography" That my friend... I don't defend. If he felt the photo was in bad taste... then that is his right. But when you start making up your own reason as to why you "THINK" the person did that, then you are wrong. He should have asked DC what he meant by it, and told him his opinion... instead.. he took it further.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2003 10:11:46 AM · #86 |
| vince, are you saying that "making a photo for "shock value moreso than for the art of photography" is indefensible; or are you saying it is indefensible to accuse someone of doing so? Taking photos that are more shock than art is commonplace, especially among those of us who haven't developed our skills to the high-art level yet. As far as speculating about another's motives, I perceived that jmsetzler tried to keep his speculation to himself until he was challenged, repeatedly, about his statements on tastes. Marajuana, and it's acceptablility in society, are not obscure topics. Was setzler's objection so difficult to understand that it needed explanation? I don't think so. Why couldn't it just be shrugged off as someone you don't agree with, and leave it at that, respecting his right to disagree? Or, if people felt they needed to make it known that they don't agree with his objection, do so in a manner that shows you respect his rights as you would want him to respect yours. Many did. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:27:52 AM EDT.
