Offensive Purple picture? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/13/2004 11:19:13 AM · #3

Originally posted by moodville:

Originally posted by Rooster:
painting a white face balck is certainly offensive in the US.

And yet painting a black face white as in the recent US movie 'White chicks' is perfectly fine. I understand that racism still exists even to this day, which is a shame, but people need to stop seeing color as the first thing they notice about someone. I think there are a lot of 'isms' that are projected onto situations, including sexism, ageism, and all the others. I'm not saying that it never exists, but I'm sure it doesnt happen as often as a lot of people would like. My interpretation of the image that he used the black paint to isolate and enhance the purple. I doubt it would have received the same score had it been a 'normal' person with a purple tongue.

(sarcasm on or toungue firmly in cheek)

Well that's because of two things...

One, it's always HILARIOUS to see a man in drag and put him into compromising situations. Usually these lead to the man learning the err of his ways and that woman aren't always treated the best in society just because they are woman.

Two, it's also 'hilarious' to see black people, especially black men, pretend to be white people. Oh the jokes that can be told because of a black man appearing white...

(/sarcasm off or toungue removed from cheek)

Honestly, out of the two, the first isn't really all that bad, if the story is written correctly, as I have seen on numerous occasions. It's hard to comment on why I dislike the second kind, suffice to say it has very little to do with making fun of 'white culture'. (Whatever that is.)

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

07/13/2004 11:10:45 AM · #4

quote from pavementass: This is getting out of hand! Im sorry but if i have to second guess my photo of a kid eating a stake! because some vegin in ohio thinks its crule and then votes a 1 for my photo because of that. I will stop entering pictures.

Hey! I'm from Ohio. Leave me out of it! :D

And besides, a stake would be pretty hard to digest. A well-done steak would be too, I assume.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

07/13/2004 11:10:26 AM · #5

Originally posted by sher9204:

currently in theaters in the states is a movie titled "White Chicks" in which two black actors portray white women; eddie murphy frequently wears white make-up to portray different characters in his movies yet no one decries these as being offensive. many years ago, laurence olivier wore black makeup to play the part of Othello and, as far as i'm aware, it was not considered offensive.

this photo is a far cry from minstrel shows and i think that the content of this image shows nothing that should be considered stereotypical or derogatory. it's a fun and well shot photo with a technique that was obviously used to spotlight only certain features and make the rest blend into the background. i can't think of any other way it could have been achieved.

just my opinion.

It's a far cry in that it isn't a minstrel show. However, the expression on the subject's face is one directly taken from such minstrel shows and could in fact be used as a poster advertising a minstrel show.

That's what I find offensive in this image.

Personally, it would have been better if the face was completely obscured through a liberal application of the Burn tool. Perhaps even made into a matte black silouette, save for the eyes, a thing line for the lips and the tongue.

Perhaps if a title card, "We have come a long way, Baby. Let's not go back..." was added... Then it would be much less offensive as it would be showcasing the severely racist attitudes that existed when Blackface Minstrel shows was the norm and how society has, more or less, moved beyond that.

07/13/2004 10:57:41 AM · #6

Originally posted by coolhar:

Wasn't it part of the old Soviet Union?

No, never whas :))
And we are neighbours with Ukraine, not Russia.

Anyways, maybe ignorant in english doesn't mean the same as "ignorant" I know (eq. someone who knows but ignores and not someone who is uninformed and doesn't know at all). I apologise in that case for jumping so high :))

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 11:01:31.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/13/2004 10:11:41 AM · #7

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

How can you say such words as "ignorant" and "insensitive"? Belive me today here on this forum is the first time in my life I came across this black face story. Never ever heard of it before. Does that make me ignorant? No, I'm just a human being, with limited knowledge, and too far from where that all happened, and I can't know everything. I guess and from what he said I'm sure Bassie is in the same boat with me. Simply the fact that we don't know everything about another culture, doesn't mean we are ignorant. I bet most people here would spend some time trying to find my country on the map not to mention knowing anything about it or it's history, but that doesn't mean they are ignorant. I think this is one of the things you don't understand that we are not all americans here and until today many of us had no ideea about the black face problem. Even so the man whas kind enough to apologise, which to be honest if I where him I wouldn't because I really see no reason for it, but for god's sake stop seeing things only from your own point of view atleast before you call people ignorant and other names. Try to see it from his or my point of view too, he/we had no ideea about the black face, and we are not obligated too, same way as you are not obligated to learn Romanian history before participation in a photography site. Thank you. And again this is a photography site, I belive we should not discuss here how offensive or bad thing a black face is, but how well or how bad the photographer captured it. In other words we should not vote and see pictures emotionally but tehnically artisticaly professionaly and such. IMHO

ig�no�rant

Pronunciation: (ig'nur-unt), [key]
�adj.
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement

in�sen�si�tive

Pronunciation: (in-sen'si-tiv), [key]
�adj.
1. deficient in human sensibility, acuteness of feeling, or consideration; unfeeling; callous: an insensitive person.
2. not physically sensitive: insensitive skin.
3. not affected by physical or chemical agencies or influences: insensitive to light.
4. not readily responsive or aware: insensitive to the needs of the peasants.

Ignorant was an accurate word to use. It is not name calling. Maybe insensitive was a harsh word to use but I felt that his reaction, when he first learned of the offensive nature perceived in his photo, was not in proportion to the offense. I am ignorant of your country, and would guess that Bassie may be also. Wasn't it part of the old Soviet Union? Isn't Russia the big powerful country next door for you as USA is to Canada? I wouldn't expect you to understand the symbolism of blackface but maybe you would know a little about the symbols used in Russia to represent the frictions between various ethnic groups there.

Rasai

Nikon D2Xs

07/13/2004 05:39:21 AM · #8

That was my favorite picture in purple! Keep up the excellent work your are doing.!

07/13/2004 04:32:34 AM · #9

07/13/2004 03:10:02 AM · #10

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

I'm not sure I can put it into words but when I saw the photo of the boy at the fountain with the White's Only sign behind him I immediately thought some people would be alarmed by it. But there was something about it that conveyed that the photog was condemning racism while reminding us of how recently such offensive things were accepted. I didn't get that type of context in Bassie's shot. It came accross as condoning the racism aspect of the image, or ambivalent to it at best. I wish we could just stick to photography but sometimes things cry out to be noticed and to ignore them is like sticking your head in the sand. I know for sure that Rooster is not a racist, and I don't think Bassie is either, but he was, IMHO, ignorant and insensitive.

07/13/2004 02:39:59 AM · #11

Originally posted by coolhar:

With all due respect frum, it may be an American thing that others don't see the same way or with the same intensity. And the picture wasn't like some vague reference to blackface, it was very close with the dark paint and outlined mouth, modernized a bit, and well done.

You didn't answer my questions but can you atleast tell me what you feel about Rooster's image I posted above? Even if the photographer intentionally represented black face there, wich I doubt, does that make the photographer a racist. This means Rooster should be in the same boat?

What I'm trying to say is that this is a photography site, we should discuss photography here. A photo must tell a storry well that story can be good or bad. Assuming this photo represents black face we should only care about how well the photo tells that story. Weather that blackface whas a bad thing in someone's history probably could make the object of other forums. I donno, polytical or any kind of debate forums, but should not be realated to photography. IMHO
As I gave you the example of Rooster's image it is one of the best images that I ever seen representing racism. Ofcourse racism is something bad, but when I look at the photo I can only be amazed of how well story can be told in an image. As I said photographers capture reality and racism is one reality that whas and still is out there.

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 02:52:00.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/13/2004 02:35:48 AM · #12

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/13/2004 02:32:45 AM · #13

Originally posted by ConcreteDonkey:

This is getting out of hand! Im sorry but if i have to second guess my photo of a kid eating a stake! because some vegin in ohio thinks its crule and then votes a 1 for my photo because of that. I will stop entering pictures.

Just a wild guess, but I suspect the proportion of vegans in Ohio is somewhat below the national average ... :)

Besides, you have the right to post your picture, they have the right to say how it makes them feel. If you don't want to know how people feel about your pictures, then don't post them.

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

07/13/2004 02:21:56 AM · #14

Also how do I know that maybe someone in let's say Turkey isn't offended by wheels painted in yellow?

...or someone in let's say Spain may be offended girls painted in the entire color spectrum?

c'mon please... this discussion is really paranoid.

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 02:24:22.

JPR

Sony Alpha a55

07/13/2004 02:18:44 AM · #15

frumoaznicul:
My opinion exactly. Thanks for saying it better :)

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

07/13/2004 02:15:22 AM · #16

You people probably need to realise one thing. The history of "black face" belongs to americans. I am not an american and to me if someone paints his face in black and his A$$ in pink it is just bodypainting and nothing whatsoever more than that. Please belive me that here today whas the first time in my life I heard about the "blackface". We are people from all over the globe here, and you can't expect anyone to read all history that belongs to all countries that are represented here to make sure nobody gets offended by an image. I have my own country's history to care about (which by the way is a much longer story than the american one) and you can't honestly as a mature person that you are whoever you are ask me to check all my pictures, if maybe one of them would offend some american guy, another maybe can offend someone from Iceland, and so on...
And even if it where the "blackface" history you are all talking about
presented in that image, I would take it as an image that represents racism, but not that the photographer is racist. I hope this makes sense, if not here is one example of what I'm talking about, an image that represents racism but I am 100% sure the photographer is not a racist person.

Now someone please explain assuming that in that image you see the "blackface" history, why is it any different that Rooster's image?

If I photograph a person who let's say takes drugs or is being violent, does it necesarily mean I'm a drug addict or I support violence? No as a photographer I capture reality, and reality is like this, sometimes nice with little green macro frogs, beautiful colorful flowers and puppy fields, sometimes it's ugly with poor people, with violent people and all sort of ugly stuff.

So to me, and I really belive for any sane person it should be so, unless the photographer, writes next to the image some racist text, even if it is a representation of "blackface" should not be also offensive.

Message edited by author 2004-07-13 02:16:51.

ConcreteDonkey

Nikon D300

07/13/2004 02:14:22 AM · #17

Originally posted by ConcreteDonkey:

This is crazy. Over 110 posts on this subject ALL because someone painted a face black because it IS the ONLY color that would make sence for this Picture. I guess they need to make some new rules for this site.

1) No pictures showing a white person cooking chinese food.
2) No african people playing cowboys and indians
3) No Pictures of a girl doing dishes

This is getting out of hand! Im sorry but if i have to second guess my photo of a kid eating a stake! because some vegin in ohio thinks its crule and then votes a 1 for my photo because of that. I will stop entering pictures.

Also Why should some one get a low mark because someone feels its racy we are judging on quality and copasition and if it meets the chal. not if were offended or not.

JPR

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Super Wide Angle Zoom

07/13/2004 02:02:40 AM · #18

This is very funny to me. The first thing I thought when I saw the photo was blackface. I couldn't imagine the photographer not having that in mind when they took the photo. When I see this kind of work I generally assume it is a mockery of racism or an attempt to shed light on the subject (which it has) and not an act of racism itself. My views are of course probablly due to the fact that a majority of my friends are black and these are ways that I generally see racism dealt with. A sort of remember what happened attitude.

I actually just added pitsamans doll photo to my favorites. If you're looking for emotive work you need look no further. There is nothing more unnerving than a tortured battered doll. The effect has been used in many horror movies. People who make horror movies don't really murder children. I understand that they aren't to everybody's liking but there is something to be said for images that can produce such a powerful response.

ConcreteDonkey

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

07/13/2004 02:01:00 AM · #19

graphicfunk

07/13/2004 01:45:20 AM · #20

Ah, but that is the way you think. I consider white and black as beautiful and I am not concerned on taking either side of the fence. I am simply convinced we are all equal.

07/13/2004 01:44:26 AM · #21

I gotta speak up with Melissa so she doesn't feel so alone on this one. It is one thing to make a mistake and offend people out of ignorance while holding high intentions. It is an entirely differently thing to defend the offensive action after being enlightened to it's offensiveness, as many here have done, but not so much Bassie. And to use art as an excuse to perpetuate racial stereotypes is not acceptable in a civilized society.

The notion of "blackface" and Al Jolson came into my mind as soon as I examined the photo beyond a first glance. Anyone who doesn't see the connection, or tries to say they don't see it, is ...well, they need to get out more. I voted the picture kind of low. It is offensive. I find it neither original nor especially creative (an echo of an often seen stereotype) but extremely well executed. The colors look highly enhanced, to much so for my likeing.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

07/13/2004 01:37:41 AM · #22

I have no doubt that no ill was intended by this photo. Still, the first thing I associated with the image was "blackface" and not in a good way. Regardless of how innocent the motives behind it, the association with the offensive past is there.

graphicfunk

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/13/2004 12:02:05 AM · #23

Take heart; we do have a few backward people here. They are ready to be offended and will lash out when they find something they do not agree with. They forget that photography is art simply because they do not practice it so.
Your picture is a great shot and you receive the votes to prove it. Forget about these shutter pushers and their supposed twisted beliefs.

Um...we were trying to move on but you just went ahead and stirred it up again. I am one of the backward people you are referring to. I am aware that photography is an art and I practice it as such. Kindness is also an art and it should be practiced as well. I'm not degrading the quality of the photograph (although, honestly , I didn't like it--I gave it a five for technical merit, lighting and such). I'm upset by the lack of kindness and understanding being extended to the minority--the people who were offended. Keven doesn't need any more backpatting. If you have been following this entire thread most people have been saying the same kind of thing you just said. In other words, you are preaching to the choir my friend. I'm pretty much the only dissenting voice on this thread so you may as well have just sent me a PM calling me backward, ignorant, unartistic, whatever.

I did not read the entire thread to comment because frankly, the thread had turned to half baked ideas. I do not see any racism. It is a stirring image and something you might see at a mardi gras or halloween. Unfortunately art trumps the real world. It always has and always will. There are many very uncomfortable works of art. Art is not made with apologies: there are too many people just waiting to be offended. There are also the people who fail to realize their true potential because they remain in the negative side of the equation.
Yes, there are many rude people who have attacked other races. These people are narrow minded. Look carefully about you and you will find that humans to justify their inept existence will hate others. I do not expect to see these people here and if they come, they soon realize that there is not much support here. They come and they go.
Melissa, no, I was not addressing you at all. My understanding was that some people were offended. Should I tell you how many times I have been offended in my trip through life? I do not shape my life on what others say when they insult because they are like rabid dogs.
While there is a problem out there, I believe each side should look at the intention. There are many race baiters to vent the flames. To offer apologies simply because something may be misconstrued is pathetic. This has nothing to do with being insensitive. A thousand apologies will still leave the art there and the offended just as offended. The only way to appease them is to destroy the art. There was a lot of resistance at one time for the artist to have his nudes accepted as art.

Yet I do not think that we should have forced bassie to his knees and to have forced on him an empty feeling for his great victory. The conversation should have never gone the route it did because it did not warrent such treatment. You look at art, you don't like, vote it down and go look at what you like.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/12/2004 10:34:42 PM · #24

Originally posted by melismatica:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by timganier:

Originally posted by micknewton:
I always thought Arnold was a nice guy; until he became a lying thief... uhh... politician.

BTW, I think Kevin's photo is fantastic. It certainly has "wow" factor.

You mean the Govenator! Just praise God he can not run for president!

Yet ... that proposal, along with the contingency plans for suspending the November elections, are "in the works ..."

Is this for real?

Start here. I don't want to hijack this thread by veering that far off topic ... I posted something about it in the thread about "An Inspiration to us all" (I think)

Message edited by author 2004-07-12 22:37:17.

timganier

Canon EOS-7D