| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2004 09:12:23 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by basia03:
i feel the same way and i do vote them low - art or no art
|
Originally posted by peecee:
I totally agree, many have great ability, seems a pity they are obsessed with the sad side of life, pills, blood, bullets etc.
I mark em low every time.
|
LOL - art is a live and well on DPC... Disgusted by reality? I bet Roberts laughing in his box right now...
I submit... In a lot of lives out there a suicide image (as an expression of a feeling not a actuality), is a lot more apropos than a perdie sunset, flower or puppy.
A lot of people look at an image like that and see disgust instead of trying to see what the image means. It usually isn't as much about the actual act as it is about the feeling of isolation, fear or loneliness. IMO that is the greatest part of art. Conveying an emotion. Conveying 'happy' is easy. Any tool with a camera can do it. There are tons of holiday snapshots to prove that. Convey anything else with a picture and you have my respect. That is art.
One last point... For an image to bring a feeling of disgust and an automatic low rating is really achieving the goal. They have generated an emotion in you other than WOW. They have made you feel. Don't they deserve more than a 3 for that? Actually, they have won...
M2C.. Dave
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 09:23:46 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Davenit:
Convey anything else with a picture and you have my respect. That is art.
M2C.. Dave |
How about a "mock" rape scene, do you respect that? Is that art? |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:02:57 AM · #28 |
Dave has some quite valid points, but as Kris's comment about the rape scene infers, we have to have some limits as to the type of posts, come on, we have children looking at images on this site !
Do we have to show these type of shots. I don't remember painting or drawing people slashing their wrists or anything like that in art classes at school.Imagine the prospective pupil's parents walking down the main hall of the local grammar school and seeing a gallery of this sort of stuff, no, not suitable.There is a difference between art and shock graphics.
There...I've had my say
Paul. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:11:01 AM · #29 |
| As someone who has experienced two people close to me who have attempted suicide, I really don't want to experience that emotion again! I mark em as a 1, if there were a 0, that's what they would get from me. When I see photos like this, I think that these people must feel in some way suicidal. And that is really sad! If I mark them as low as I can, maybe they will attempt a photo that will get a better score. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:27:14 AM · #30 |
Everyone is entitled to take pictures of what they want, (as long as it is legal in their state/country), and everyone is entitled to dislike or like the pictures that other people take.
I personally have more problems with images of dead animals because they are 'real' than fake blood and set up scenes of suicide et al. That said, if I find an image that truly disgusts me then I will simply not vote on it. If it not fair to the subject or the photographer for me to claim their work as bad as a 1 simply because I find their image distasteful. Thankfully there have not been too many images that have fallen into that category.
Concerning the increase in 'these' type of images, I think we can blame the topic choices for most of them. Silence and conflict are certainly topics where suicide 'fits' the challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:30:32 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I think that a lot of the newer or younger photographers want to shock the rest of us. Definitely a way to get comments. |
I totally agree, many have great ability, seems a pity they are obsessed with the sad side of life, pills, blood, bullets etc.
I mark em low every time.
Perhaps when they have more experience of life they will understand our points of view too.
Paul. |
Or perhaps when they get older they will actually come in direct contact with victims left after suicide and with people who will commit suicide themselves - like I have, and many others. Death, like living, is apart of life. This whole thread seems to me that you're deciding what's 'art' or not, there are a dozen other threads on the same topic. Art is different to anyone and suggesting to council that something isn't 'art' shows ignorance, and I know a lot will argue that pictures of death and gore show ignorance, but they actually show a grasp on reality. Go to a gallery exhibit, I saw one mostly about death, imagine if I asked the currator to take it all down because it was gross? lol
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 10:32:40. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:51:28 AM · #32 |
sex is a part of life but we don't see sex pictures here !
I don't ask the council to remove these images, just vote em low and they will turn to something more aesthetic and creative, why waste their great talents on subjects that are so morbid, it shows a lack of creativity in my mind.Its the same with guns, the thoughts have to be there to produce the many photographs containing guns.
Imagine the challenge is "wildlife", I wouldn't think ah I'll photograph a pheasant with it's head blown off with a shotgun!! would this be art?
I don't wander around all day thinking of such things...there are much more pleasant things to occupy our thoughts, |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:51:54 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I think that a lot of the newer or younger photographers want to shock the rest of us. Definitely a way to get comments. |
I don't think that is very fair to say. I am 24 (a young'in) and I don't take pictures for "shock " value. There are alot of young people on this site who do photograph the "traditional" things. But there are some that do shoot that way. I think it depends on the person and how they see the world around them.
Another thing to consider, is the fact that we young people are growing up in a VERY different society than some of the older DPC' ers. Some of you went through sex and drugs in the 70's... but it was different to be artistic about it.
These days.... rape, suicide, death, murder, drugs...etc are more in the open. It's more, "In your face", than it was a decade ago. We see our world alot differently than people did back then. Plus, in this day and age, there is more freedom to express yourself. Heck, look at the websites where you can go and look at crime scene photos, or other warped things.
I am more offended by the pornographic shots.... I would rather my children see the "death like" shots (they already see it on tv) and it's a fact of life. Yes, sex is a fact of life too.... but my children don't need to see sexual shots.
I think once again, it's people worrying about what others are doing that is wrong and not seeing people express themselves as they feel.
Like someone had said.... if you find it disturbing, don't vote. It's just not fair to vote someone down because you don't agree with their views.
Just my $0.02
Lorrie
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:25:28 AM · #34 |
I think we need to be taking each photo individually and see what the photographer was trying to express. Was the purpose of the image shock and gore, or was there genuine intent to express the feelings behind the despair and/or to enlighten us about some aspect of suicide/death?
This photo  shows only the death act and shows a very commonly held view of what it means to commit suicide. Doesn't seem to shed any new light on the matter and it's aim seems to want to make me lose my breakfast. I gave it a 1.
But what the heck does this photo express???
Is there any redeaming value in either of these shots?
Also, can someone find a photo of a suicide where there is some kind of redeaming value?
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 11:27:02. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:36:58 AM · #35 |
By the way, I don't think either of the above two pics met the challenge theme...neither shows the conflict that may have ensued prior to making the decision.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:46:37 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think we need to be taking each photo individually and see what the photographer was trying to express. Was the purpose of the image shock and gore, or was there genuine intent to express the feelings behind the despair and/or to enlighten us about some aspect of suicide/death?
This photo shows only the death act and shows a very commonly held view of what it means to commit suicide. Doesn't seem to shed any new light on the matter and it's aim seems to want to make me lose my breakfast. I gave it a 1. |
You are also seeing it from your point of view and therefore limiting the effect it could have in your realm of perspective. Any image is subject to the personal reference of the viewer when it involves liking or disliking an image.
In a similar way pictures of babies tend to have an 'awwww' reaction from people who like babies or have maternal/paternal instincts. There are some people who see babies only as eating/messing/crying machines and do not see any 'cuteness' in some images. Although those type of people are usually considered heartless.
In the above image it would seem you only see a graphical representation of shock and gore. You apparently see no emotions or feelings of the act because it is just showing the act. This is only my observation from your comments as I do not know you or your history and could be wrong, and I'm only mentioning it here as a means of my analysing the image and your question. I am a recovering cutter, which means that I purposefully used cutting instruments to cut, scar, and make myself bleed. Images of cutting or suicide by means of cutting bring forth emotion and feeling from me because I have a personal reference to which I can relate. You see shock and gore, I see a pictorial expression that captures an essense that I myself have been through (even if the picture is fake or not).
A person standing before a grave of a loved one crying has relevancy to anyone who has experienced such loss and the image will often invoke the feeling that the photographer wanted to express. The joy of a baby smiling will reach out to those who have had children or hope to have children or just like children. The list is quite long.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:06:51 PM · #37 |
I can definitely see your point, but what is the conflict here and how is it portrayed in the picture? Is it portrayed effectively, if at all?
Originally posted by moodville:
You are also seeing it from your point of view and therefore limiting the effect it could have in your realm of perspective. Any image is subject to the personal reference of the viewer when it involves liking or disliking an image.
In a similar way pictures of babies tend to have an 'awwww' reaction from people who like babies or have maternal/paternal instincts. There are some people who see babies only as eating/messing/crying machines and do not see any 'cuteness' in some images. Although those type of people are usually considered heartless.
In the above image it would seem you only see a graphical representation of shock and gore. You apparently see no emotions or feelings of the act because it is just showing the act. This is only my observation from your comments as I do not know you or your history and could be wrong, and I'm only mentioning it here as a means of my analysing the image and your question. I am a recovering cutter, which means that I purposefully used cutting instruments to cut, scar, and make myself bleed. Images of cutting or suicide by means of cutting bring forth emotion and feeling from me because I have a personal reference to which I can relate. You see shock and gore, I see a pictorial expression that captures an essense that I myself have been through (even if the picture is fake or not).
A person standing before a grave of a loved one crying has relevancy to anyone who has experienced such loss and the image will often invoke the feeling that the photographer wanted to express. The joy of a baby smiling will reach out to those who have had children or hope to have children or just like children. The list is quite long. |
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:10:51 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I can definitely see your point, but what is the conflict here and how is it portrayed in the picture? Is it portrayed effectively, if at all?
|
but then it's a problem of the composition, not the subject matter.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 12:11:15. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:30:28 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I can definitely see your point, but what is the conflict here and how is it portrayed in the picture? Is it portrayed effectively, if at all? |
That then falls into the category of 'does it meet the challenge?' which can be said about flowers in an architecture shot or a dog in a cat challenge. There have been countless number of threads about what people score images that do not meet the challenge. Some people take off one point, some people give one point.
Again, meeting the challenge in a topic that is based on emotions will likely only reach out to those who have relevancy to the subject. My initial response was because people had been voting down images because they found them disgusting, not because they had found them off topic. My textures image received a lot of comments about how ugly it was and even some who had their stomach turned by it, and yet that was an animal that a lot of people eat.
As to the image you posted - I think if anyone has experienced cutting or the thought of suicide then they would likely know about the conflict that would bring about such actions. On one hand you have the logical consequences of your actions and on the other you have the strong emotions that are forcing you to do the act in the first place. It is not an easy task. I dont think words, let alone images, can truly express what that feeling is like. I dont think anyone could understand what it is like unless they have gone through it. I think images like that are not done to make people understand. Although I'm sure there are some images that are done solely to shock and disgust too.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 12:30:52.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:41:17 PM · #40 |
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the image leaves me no choice but to think it's about gore because the conflict is not portrayed, ie. showing some of the pleasure that one gets from this kind of activity. And if I see it being about gore, than I don't see it artistically, but for the purpose of shock...a cheap way to arouse my emotions. What am I to understand about this activity from this picture? What's it trying to say and is it effective in doing so?
I"m not for any kind of censorship and even if I disagree with a picture's intent or effectiveness, I do not think it should be banned.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I can definitely see your point, but what is the conflict here and how is it portrayed in the picture? Is it portrayed effectively, if at all?
|
but then it's a problem of the composition, not the subject matter. |
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:46:51 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the image leaves me no choice but to think it's about gore because the conflict is not portrayed, ie. showing some of the pleasure that one gets from this kind of activity. And if I see it being about gore, than I don't see it artistically, but for the purpose of shock...a cheap way to arouse my emotions. What am I to understand about this activity from this picture? What's it trying to say and is it effective in doing so?
I"m not for any kind of censorship and even if I disagree with a picture's intent or effectiveness, I do not think it should be banned.
|
I understand what you're saying, it still sounds to me that it's a matter of weak composition. Like you said, you're not trying to put the kybash on gory matter, just on empty images. Which comes right back to the photographer being weak, not the subject. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:49:23 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the image leaves me no choice but to think it's about gore because the conflict is not portrayed, ie. showing some of the pleasure that one gets from this kind of activity. And if I see it being about gore, than I don't see it artistically, but for the purpose of shock...a cheap way to arouse my emotions. What am I to understand about this activity from this picture? What's it trying to say and is it effective in doing so?
I"m not for any kind of censorship and even if I disagree with a picture's intent or effectiveness, I do not think it should be banned.
|
I understand what you're saying, it still sounds to me that it's a matter of weak composition. Like you said, you're not trying to put the kybash on gory matter, just on empty images. Which comes right back to the photographer being weak, not the subject. |
If rules don't matter, then how could there be such a thing as a bad composition?
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:52:29 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
.
If rules don't matter, then how could there be such a thing as a bad composition? |
If the person looking at it doesn't get a feeling of what the photographer meant, then to the viewer it's a bad composition. That's what Olyuzi and I were talking about, the fact that none of the suicide entries convey any real meaning to him.
Rules don't matter in my opinion in photography. There are things that sometimes work and things that sometimes don't, if you want to call them 'rules' and tell people do it like this-that-and-the-other-thing, then go ahead, I really don't mind, but you make it sound like not conforming is a bad thing.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 12:55:18. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:54:45 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
.
If rules don't matter, then how could there be such a thing as a bad composition? |
If the person looking at it doesn't get a feeling of what the photographer meant, then to the viewer it's a bad composition. That's what Olyuzi and I were talking about, the fact that none of the suicide entries convey any real meaning to him. |
Terminologoy discrepancy then... Composition means somethign different to me.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:00:19 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the image leaves me no choice but to think it's about gore because the conflict is not portrayed, ie. showing some of the pleasure that one gets from this kind of activity. And if I see it being about gore, than I don't see it artistically, but for the purpose of shock...a cheap way to arouse my emotions. What am I to understand about this activity from this picture? What's it trying to say and is it effective in doing so? |
I think the photographer's comments on the photo sums it up fairly well, granted you dont see those while you are voting. Smoking is bad for your health, and apparently bad for those who inhale second hand smoke. It also costs money to feed the habit. If you are a non-smoker can you know how smoking feels good to the smoker? Can you understand how hard it is for some people to quit smoking? The same can be said for cutting. You cannot show the feeling you get from doing it, it's not something that manifests physically that can be captured. It is almost like traveling home from work and needing badly to use the bathroom, then finally getting home and having relief. Other than the 'dumb' expression on your face and the sound of 'aaaaaah' relief there is nothing to photograph.
In the end there are people who will relate to an image and those who will not. I dont think anyone expects everyone to understand every image and subject matter. I just dont believe that because someone only sees gore in an image that everyone else will only see gore, similarly, because I see more than gore in that image I dont expect everyone to see the same thing I do either.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:07:21 PM · #46 |
| Vote how you want on the photo and move on to the next... |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:11:36 PM · #47 |
I think that my photo "Only way out?" //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=61421 is one of those photos. Although I understand that many might find the subject distasteful, nsoroma79 is correct in that it would not be fair to silence the expression. Although I do not condone suicide, it certainly fit well within the challenge, and it is a fact of life. We should not hide our heads in the sand and shy away from a topic simply because of the ideas or emotions it may bring about. I have no problem with the fact that someone may not have liked my image, but requesting that a photo be removed for that reason alone amounts to nothing more than censorship. If the administrators began removing images based on the fact that someone found it distasteful, then this is not a site I would want to be a part of. Just my 2 cents. [/quote]
I found this photo you took not to be disturbing but as a conflict of self. I know of a few people who took the shots of whiskey then shot themselves, in the foot, so they could not be drafted. Gregg Allman did this also. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:14:01 PM · #48 |
I feel with you moodville... I used to cut, and unless you have been in the situation, it's hard to understand. There is no "pleasure" out of it... more like relief...
Anyways... the point is, you don't always need to see the person or how they feel. There will be some pictures that mean something to one and not another. The picture we are now refering to, is not the very eye grabbing, but it still says something.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:22:42 PM · #49 |
Interesting, but possibly disturing to some; an exploration of a real issue for our times, by an ER doctor and old friend of mine.
Photos from A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide by Lonny Shavelson. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:35:59 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by peecee:
we have children looking at images on this site ! |
And those children have parents that should be monitoring what they are viewing. Any contact with art that may not be deemed acceptable to the parent is the parents' responsbility.
Sorry. I'm tired of people screaming "will somebody please think of the children!" about everything that could possibly offend them. It was not my decision to have children, so it should not be my responsibility to watch over them.
This is a site that is supposed to encourage artistic expression, and each person gets to express it in their own way. It's got a conservative enough flair without trying to put limits in place to avoid possibly offending everyone's sensibilities.
Sheesh. |
|
