| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2009 06:48:29 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ambaker:
Just thought it was a bit out there for you to call them child molesters, knowing nothing about them. |
I was referring to churches in general, and their track record over thousands of years of horrid behavior.
Yet they're always the first to cry foul when things don't go their way.
It isn't out there when it's true. |
There are bad apples in every organization, the church says we aren't perfect, and proven so in the case of the priests...theres good and evil in any company. But don't crumble the blueprint if the workers are not qualified..the church was founded with principles, and fornication shouldn't mix with religious symbols, nothing wrong with that, but to call is a herecy or whatever is just drama. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 06:17:15 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
Taking erotic photos on top of a grave and taking a photo of just the grave are two different things for me (one lacks respect for the beliefs of others)...... |
I agree......but there are also times when what we do is disrespectful of other cutures.....unbeknownst to us. Simple things like shaking hands in greeting are taboo in some cultures. Our women are blasphemous and shameless according to Muslim tradition when we consider them fully dressed.....what is half naked anyway? Depends on where/who you are.
Originally posted by elsapo:
there might be some sacred ground of the indigenous people where I live but I'm not going to take two half naked chicks and have them in erotic poses...... |
Back to......where do you draw the line?
How timely is this?????
This is certainly not a stolen moment of this young lady mourning a loss......it's a cheap usage of the sacred ground of a cemetery for commercial purposes, right?
But no, it's okay, no money changed hands, she's not naked, and certainly a fine upstanding photog from DPC would not have done this without permission, right?
I'm just sayin'......
Originally posted by elsapo:
the photographer in Cornwall made a conscious decision to go in the church without permission and take those photos... |
This fellow certainly didn't consider the consequences of his actions, or worse, didn't care.
Originally posted by elsapo:
I do agree with you that there are many viewpoints, I think the biggest issue here is not that the photos were taken, but that the photographer didn't seem to care about how it might affect those who consider the church a place of worship. I find it sad that churches have to place a "No Erotic Photography" sign in the entrance just to avoid unexpected photo sessions. I have no idea what is considered blasphemous now days, but it’s for sure disrespectful. |
I agree that the sign shouldn't be necessary, but it's become a funny world......there was a time when this type of thing would not even have been considered......but then, women weren't allowed to vote either, and look what happened to that. Don't forget, there must be a certain amount of righteous indignation directed towards those heathen women, too. After all, they were a major contributing factor to the inappropriateness.....without them, there would have just been pictures of a church & graveyard.
It can just spiral off into the realm of the ridiculous at any instant.
I would like to know if the involved parties tried to work it out or if it went right to the sensational right out of the gate.
Originally posted by elsapo:
The other issue, as stated before) is where to draw the line- and I have no answer to that, it's pretty blurry now days :/ |
True that.......8>)
Originally posted by elsapo:
So to rephrase, I don't see myself ever taking photos like that anywhere (not my kind of thing, as you can probably tell from my portfolio :P) ..but really what do I know i'm only 21, I'm sure 10 years from now i'll have a completely different view on this. |
Dude, you are already wise beyond your years......it scares me a little......8>)
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 05:52:07 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Just thought it was a bit out there for you to call them child molesters, knowing nothing about them. |
I was referring to churches in general, and their track record over thousands of years of horrid behavior.
Yet they're always the first to cry foul when things don't go their way.
It isn't out there when it's true.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:43:37 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Hmmm... one of the shots I saw in a news article on this, either stating or implying that it was one of the current crop, was posted here in April of '07. |
Really, which one? |
"Preaching to the Unconverted"
4th from the bottom, with the nude guy (NSFW, btw) |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 01:13:09 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Hmmm... one of the shots I saw in a news article on this, either stating or implying that it was one of the current crop, was posted here in April of '07. |
Really, which one? |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 12:08:39 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by elsapo:
I would never ever take photos like that in a church or any place that could be considered sacred to anyone. |
Really?????
Where you live was very likely sacred ground to the indigenous people, who were of course, driven out, and their lands stolen.
Not trying to bust your chops, but there are *SO* many viewpoints.
I love shooting in graveyards, but not because it's hallowed ground.....I like cool old decrepit gravestones, and to be honest, I like the ones that have settled, are tilted, and maybe have centuries old decay, and/or lichen, moss, and whatnot that give them character.
Does that make me blasphemous? |
Taking erotic photos on top of a grave and taking a photo of just the grave are two different things for me (one lacks respect for the beliefs of others)... there might be some sacred ground of the indigenous people where I live but I'm not going to take two half naked chicks and have them in erotic poses...the photographer in Cornwall made a conscious decision to go in the church without permission and take those photos...
I do agree with you that there are many viewpoints, I think the biggest issue here is not that the photos were taken, but that the photographer didn't seem to care about how it might affect those who consider the church a place of worship. I find it sad that churches have to place a "No Erotic Photography" sign in the entrance just to avoid unexpected photo sessions. I have no idea what is considered blasphemous now days, but it’s for sure disrespectful. The other issue, as stated before) is where to draw the line- and I have no answer to that, it's pretty blurry now days :/
So to rephrase, I don't see myself ever taking photos like that anywhere (not my kind of thing, as you can probably tell from my portfolio :P) ..but really what do I know i'm only 21, I'm sure 10 years from now i'll have a completely different view on this.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:42:48 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So it really boils down to a matter of respect and courtesy......but in the same way that any priest with an open church understands that someone may violate the sanctuary physicvally by robbing or defacing it, he runs the risk of having his sensibilities violated, too. |
Just because he chooses to run that risk in the name of the "greater good" doesn't mean he can't be pissed when it happens. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:02:24 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ambaker:
You tar that congregation with a pretty broad brush, did their priests molest children? While they may seem to strain at an ant and swallow a camel, it is their property, their rules. |
Okay, you want to selectively reply, you're entitled to your opinion.
How about that little bit about the serial killer movie?
That was okay, but the photography shoot wasn't?
Perhaps there was money for the church involved with the movie, and they just didn't get any this time, so they're mad.
Personally, I'd rather see myc church do a mdel shoot than a serial killer movie. |
I do not believe I replied selectively. Unless you did not bother to read all the way down to "While they may seem to strain at an ant and swallow a camel..." Or were you intending to reply selectively? Hypocrisy or not on their part, their property, their rules.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on what your church does. Just thought it was a bit out there for you to call them child molesters, knowing nothing about them.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:29:53 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Dictionary Nazi says: "blasphemy" is denying the existence of or speaking against a god/holy spirit/religious doctrine/whatever, not something that a religious person might simply find distasteful or objectionable. You might be able to classify this as "profane", but not blasphemous. |
8>)
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:29:28 PM · #10 |
| Hmmm... one of the shots I saw in a news article on this, either stating or implying that it was one of the current crop, was posted here in April of '07. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:29:00 PM · #11 |
Dictionary Nazi says: "blasphemy" is denying the existence of or speaking against a god/holy spirit/religious doctrine/whatever, not something that a religious person might simply find distasteful or objectionable. You might be able to classify this as "profane", but not blasphemous.
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:19:12 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Not trying to bust your chops, but there are *SO* many viewpoints. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Isn't this an inherent problem with the tolerance movement? You either respect everybody's position or you draw a line. And if you draw a line, how are you any different than people who are considered intolerant?. |
That's the problem......where does it end.
I think this particular church has a problem because it sure seems to be acting a little bit to the side of hypocrisy.
There was a satirical, dark comedy filmed there with their blessing, but this photo/model shoot, edgy, but not horrible, is getting thoroughly drubbed to the point where legal action has been threatened.
If I were sitting on the bench in this trial, I'd want to hear why the church thinks that irreverence is okay in some areas but not others. I'd turn to the photog and tell him he ought to know better than to nt ask permission, but I throw any request for damages out the window.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find it problematic that the takehome message here is that you only have so much time/desire to tolerate other views and so they aren't all going to get equal treatment. Arlington National Cemetery? No way. Those photos would be an abomination. 13th century Christian church? Meh. Who's got the time to bother about that?. |
Each of us has his/her tolerance threshold, too, and it's never going to jibe with everyone else's.
The issue I would have is less with potential blasphemy, than trespassing......and that one is a hard one to support if, like most churches, it offers sanctuary and its doors are unlocked.
So it really boils down to a matter of respect and courtesy......but in the same way that any priest with an open church understands that someone may violate the sanctuary physicvally by robbing or defacing it, he runs the risk of having his sensibilities violated, too.
If he doesn't want any chance of that happening, he then either needs someone on duty to turn the "wrong kind" of people away, or lock the doors. And a man of God isn't supposed to turn anyone away, is he?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(I know you are a good guy Jeb so this isn't directly at you personally. I'm just pointing out a natural dilemma inherent with the PC movement. |
I am always ready to argue with you, Jason......It doesn't have to be personal for me to go down a rabbit hole, just open for interpretation......8>)
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:07:20 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Kronus:
I think the issue is in fact he missed the offering basket. |
That's a rude comment, and it's partially because it's a consideration that it is.....8>)
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:06:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I love shooting in graveyards, but not because it's hallowed ground.....I like cool old decrepit gravestones, and to be honest, I like the ones that have settled, are tilted, and maybe have centuries old decay, and/or lichen, moss, and whatnot that give them character.
Does that make me blasphemous? |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
If you were shooting girl-on-girl action on the graves, maybe it would... *shrug* |
Yeah......but that's not my thing at all.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:32:32 PM · #15 |
| I think the issue is in fact he missed the offering basket. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:10:32 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by elsapo:
I would never ever take photos like that in a church or any place that could be considered sacred to anyone. |
Really?????
Where you live was very likely sacred ground to the indigenous people, who were of course, driven out, and their lands stolen.
Not trying to bust your chops, but there are *SO* many viewpoints.
I love shooting in graveyards, but not because it's hallowed ground.....I like cool old decrepit gravestones, and to be honest, I like the ones that have settled, are tilted, and maybe have centuries old decay, and/or lichen, moss, and whatnot that give them character.
Does that make me blasphemous? |
If you were shooting girl-on-girl action on the graves, maybe it would... *shrug* |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:04:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Not trying to bust your chops, but there are *SO* many viewpoints. |
Isn't this an inherent problem with the tolerance movement? You either respect everybody's position or you draw a line. And if you draw a line, how are you any different than people who are considered intolerant?
I find it problematic that the takehome message here is that you only have so much time/desire to tolerate other views and so they aren't all going to get equal treatment. Arlington National Cemetery? No way. Those photos would be an abomination. 13th century Christian church? Meh. Who's got the time to bother about that?
(I know you are a good guy Jeb so this isn't directly at you personally. I'm just pointing out a natural dilemma inherent with the PC movement. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 08:45:28 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
I would never ever take photos like that in a church or any place that could be considered sacred to anyone. |
Really?????
Where you live was very likely sacred ground to the indigenous people, who were of course, driven out, and their lands stolen.
Not trying to bust your chops, but there are *SO* many viewpoints.
I love shooting in graveyards, but not because it's hallowed ground.....I like cool old decrepit gravestones, and to be honest, I like the ones that have settled, are tilted, and maybe have centuries old decay, and/or lichen, moss, and whatnot that give them character.
Does that make me blasphemous?
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 07:53:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Ummm surely you mean this Octopussy? 
|
No, his original "Octopussy" image is up on that site. Browse around on his site, you'll find it. |
True, but mine was the only Octopussy in the Bond, James Bond challenge. Sad to say it got DQ'd. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 04:22:46 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Ummm surely you mean this Octopussy?
|
No, his original "Octopussy" image is up on that site. Browse around on his site, you'll find it.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 04:01:37 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
What that the "Octopussy" image for the "Bond, James Bond" challenge?? I remember that! |
Ummm surely you mean this Octopussy?
...most infamously a photo of a dead octopus laying between the legs of naked model. Ewwwww! Now that is just so wrong! Poor model!
Sounds like someone needs a good whippin'...
Message edited by author 2009-08-04 16:09:28. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:48:54 PM · #22 |
| Thassit: not a big deal. Matter of questionable taste and tight ass overreaction. Parrots were not in the news. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 02:46:06 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by shanksware:
There are far more photos of the church and nekkid people in the church and graveyard on his deviantart portfolio. It most certainly IS a big deal. |
ohh i didn't see the ones on deviantart...some of those really do go too far
BTW i'm completely against what he did, and I would never ever take photos like that in a church or any place that could be considered sacred to anyone. But at the same time if that's the way he wants to express himself what can you do (legally)? are those photos going to affect my life in a big way? no, will I remember them after a few days? probably not... so what I'm saying is that for me it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 01:46:50 PM · #24 |
| There are far more photos of the church and nekkid people in the church and graveyard on his deviantart portfolio. It most certainly IS a big deal. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 01:30:16 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yeah, I knew it was a comedy......did Rowan Atkinson EVER do anything serious?.....8>)
I guess it seems like a whole lot of fuss over something that was more a lack of communication than anything, and the church is exacerbating it by threatening legal action.
It seems to be somewhat hypocritical to allow the filming of a movie at your church and then get bent out of shape over this. I can undertstand them being upset about not asking permission, that definitely wasn't cool, but the righteous indignation is a load of crap, IMNSHO. |
I agree, they are making it a bigger deal than it needs to be (at least the models still had some clothes on :P lol). If they wouldn't have said anything I wouldn't have been able to recognize the church in those photos, so really it seems the church also wants attention.
|
|
