DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Becoming Disgusted
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 91 of 91, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/04/2004 12:04:27 PM · #76
Suicide and self-mutilation, are facts of life and their depiction should not be denied or censored in any way, but I really feel this thread is not about the issue of censorship but about the quality, purpose and meaning of images that depict it.

My definition of art, maybe I should qualify that and say fine art, is that it expresses something special, in a new way, is humanistic, and has meaning to the greater culture and society. Art, by its very existence and manifestation, attempts to express a person by building up, organizing, ordering, coalescing, relating, synthesizing, etc. In that way, art reflects life, in all its forms, as it too is an ordering and organizing of different forms of matter and energy. Good art, like life, does not aim to tear down, destroy, degrade, nullify, etc, but is life affirming. It celebrates life and the universe, even in its darker moments. This does not mean pretty pictures but it does mean treating a subject sensitively.

Destruction, death and atrophy are easy and all too common. They are a releasing of the bonds of life that are held together by energy. They don’t require any special effort or passion and goes against the principles of organizing and ordering that life has.

For me, the question regarding these photographs of suicide/mutilation has to do with whether their depiction of “the act” is gratuitous, or not. Movieman’s: “The Greatest Conflicts…” is once such portrayal that I find to be in that category.

I don’t see the value in the image, and I’m not saying that to be rude. Its focus is on the blood and gore, and its aim seems to be of shock value. He even admits in a post above that he is doing this out of spite for earlier comments he received. Just because an event/circumstance/fact exists or happens does not automatically mean that its depiction is artistic. Just because it reminds some people of feelings that they have had regarding similar events in their lives does not bestow on it the “good housekeeping seal of art.”

There are so many images in this world of death, destruction and pain. How is this one unique? How does it shed new light on the subject? Is the image special in anyway? Does it seek to build up, or tear down? Is it life-affirming? Does the shot have depth, or is it superficial? It appears to me to be a literal depiction of a despicable behavior that, at its best, makes one morbidly curious? I wouldn’t even say it’s photojournalistic because of its very limited scope. Where does this image even show the pain and despair or anxiety that a person such as this is going through? To me, it seems to be about the act of dying. There is nothing associated to the image to give it meaning.

To me, this kind of photograph is in the same category with pornography and crime scene images. It seems to encourage our basest natures. Life is short, so why dishonor it with bad art?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/189/thumb/62136.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/189/thumb/62136.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/04/2004 12:06:29 PM · #77
Originally posted by peecee:

Suicide and self-harm is abhorrent to any normal person, and so is the portrayal of it.
Who's to say they won't put the idea in someones head who is mentally disturbed?
They are not different they are sick! what pleasure do they get out of it?
anyway, they keep posting and I will keep giving them 1s,
Paul.


Do you smoke? Do you eat foods that are bad for you? That is self-harm.
Do you cross the road in places other than the pedestrian crossing?
Have you had such a perfect life that you can throw stones at those who havent?

Do you watch movies? Horror movies, war movies, thrillers. People die, people murder, people laugh. Have you never enjoyed a movie that portray life? Are the movie makers 'sick' and 'disturbed'?

I have not taken a suicide, self-harm, or other similar image and I have no desire to. You are entitled to your opinion. You can vote any image you want as a 1 or a 10 or anywhere in between. But unless you are the most perfect human being on the planet you have no right to pass judgement on me and call me sick.

03/04/2004 12:39:48 PM · #78
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Suicide and self-mutilation, are facts of life and their depiction should not be denied or censored in any way, but I really feel this thread is not about the issue of censorship but about the quality, purpose and meaning of images that depict it.


There are plenty of images on this site that have poor quality, no purpose, and zero meaning. Are we talking about those images too or just the ones people find the most disturbing?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

My definition of art, maybe I should qualify that and say fine art, is that it expresses something special, in a new way, is humanistic, and has meaning to the greater culture and society.


Yes, I found EddyG's rubberband shot to be very special and humanistic. Not forgetting the wonderful quality, purpose, and meaning of Jacko's Angry Kitty. (References used because they are the easiest to remember.)

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Good art, like life, does not aim to tear down, destroy, degrade, nullify, etc, but is life affirming. It celebrates life and the universe, even in its darker moments. This does not mean pretty pictures but it does mean treating a subject sensitively.


WARNING: The following link depicts a real dead body that some people may find disturbing.

I'm sure the family of the father, son, brother, uncle depicted here
World Press Winning Photograph
is really glad for the sensitivity shown by displaying his dead body complete with gunshot wounds for all the world to see. Very life affirming.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Just because an event/circumstance/fact exists or happens does not automatically mean that its depiction is artistic. Just because it reminds some people of feelings that they have had regarding similar events in their lives does not bestow on it the “good housekeeping seal of art.”


Babies happen, sunsets happen, nature happens. Therefore every single photograph that is capturing an event/circumstance/fact that exists in any moment of time is not automatically artistic. Well that's true. So because someone has had a baby and sees a baby picture, or has witnessed a sunset and someone takes a picture of a sunset then that means they dont get the 'good housekeeping seal of art' (whatever that means. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It appears to me to be a literal depiction of a despicable behavior that, at its best, makes one morbidly curious? I wouldn’t even say it’s photojournalistic because of its very limited scope. Where does this image even show the pain and despair or anxiety that a person such as this is going through? To me, it seems to be about the act of dying. There is nothing associated to the image to give it meaning.


WARNING: The following link depicts a real dead body that some people may find disturbing.

Another World Press Winning Photograph

The above image is a literal depiction of a dead body. It has limited scope but it is photojournalistic. Where does it show pain and despair or anxiety? It just shows the act of being dead.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

To me, this kind of photograph is in the same category with pornography and crime scene images. It seems to encourage our basest natures. Life is short, so why dishonor it with bad art?


Life is short, so let's continue seeing more babies and sunsets to show that we are getting old and shall soon die of natural causes like the flowers people pick in order to take 'pretty' pictures?

03/04/2004 01:09:26 PM · #79
Originally posted by peecee:

Originally posted by kinks:



and you will die thinking that you was always right to underestimate other people cause they were different.


Suicide and self-harm is abhorrent to any normal person, and so is the portrayal of it.


Vote as you will, but keep your ideas of "any normal person". Normal in your little corner of the world is very likely far from normal in mine. Living in NYC I am surrounded by a vast array of "normal people" who quite possibly would be looked upon as a freak by others. My neighborhood in Brooklyn is loaded with small art galleries and studios. The "art" of today is different than yesterday. Photos of a woman masterbating while standing against an aluminum sided wall were selling for thousands of dollars. Not your idea of art? Maybe not mine either, but it is art to someone. Hence the idea that Art is subjective. Personally, I go to the museum and walk by some of the modern art exhibits just shaking my head. Blue Field? I don't get it, I don't like it. When I stop at the surrealist art wing tho, others walk by and do the same. When I see a photo on DPC I look at it with as open a mind as I can... The wrist slashing photo was graphic, but not nearly as gruesome as some of the others I have seen. I looked at the photo for what it was, someone else's interpretation of the conflict theme. Technically it had some flaws, but the conflict was clear to me. Maybe,peecee, I'm not normal, but then again, in someone else's eyes, maybe you are not.
03/04/2004 01:54:47 PM · #80
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

He even admits in a post above that he is doing this out of spite for earlier comments he received. [/url]


No, I actually said I should in the future, post more pictures like that. But I also said that I won't.

I took this image because it was the first thing that popped into my head when I thought of conflict.

I don't really care how anyone else feels about, whether they think I took it for shock value, or I took it for expression. I've gone past caring at this point.

Message edited by author 2004-03-04 13:55:35.
03/05/2004 12:55:03 PM · #81
I am talking here of images that portray suicide and self-mutilation. That's what the thread has been about.

Eddy G's ribbon winning photo is special in that it was executed well, ingenious in it's design and had meaning to the DPC community. It may not have humanistic value and it may not be a great work of photographic art, but I can still enjoy it to some extent. Same can be said for Jacko's Cat.

The two award winning press pics were both taken, and I assume, displayed/published within the journalistic contexts of the conflicts that were going on in those areas of the world. They have great meaning to the people of the region of those parts of the world, and to others outside of those regions. They both tell a story and also show the remarkable conditions that those pics were taken in.

I am not criticizing or minimizing the act of suicide or self-mutilation or the people doing it. I realize there are reasons people do these things. I was critisizing one particular photograph that, in my opinion, is gratuitous and did not do the subject justice. I may be wrong on that matter, but then please inform me of what I'm not seeing that makes this an extraordinary picture of an extraordinary event.

Originally posted by moodville:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Suicide and self-mutilation, are facts of life and their depiction should not be denied or censored in any way, but I really feel this thread is not about the issue of censorship but about the quality, purpose and meaning of images that depict it.


There are plenty of images on this site that have poor quality, no purpose, and zero meaning. Are we talking about those images too or just the ones people find the most disturbing?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

My definition of art, maybe I should qualify that and say fine art, is that it expresses something special, in a new way, is humanistic, and has meaning to the greater culture and society.


Yes, I found EddyG's rubberband shot to be very special and humanistic. Not forgetting the wonderful quality, purpose, and meaning of Jacko's Angry Kitty. (References used because they are the easiest to remember.)

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Good art, like life, does not aim to tear down, destroy, degrade, nullify, etc, but is life affirming. It celebrates life and the universe, even in its darker moments. This does not mean pretty pictures but it does mean treating a subject sensitively.


WARNING: The following link depicts a real dead body that some people may find disturbing.

I'm sure the family of the father, son, brother, uncle depicted here
World Press Winning Photograph
is really glad for the sensitivity shown by displaying his dead body complete with gunshot wounds for all the world to see. Very life affirming.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Just because an event/circumstance/fact exists or happens does not automatically mean that its depiction is artistic. Just because it reminds some people of feelings that they have had regarding similar events in their lives does not bestow on it the “good housekeeping seal of art.”


Babies happen, sunsets happen, nature happens. Therefore every single photograph that is capturing an event/circumstance/fact that exists in any moment of time is not automatically artistic. Well that's true. So because someone has had a baby and sees a baby picture, or has witnessed a sunset and someone takes a picture of a sunset then that means they dont get the 'good housekeeping seal of art' (whatever that means. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It appears to me to be a literal depiction of a despicable behavior that, at its best, makes one morbidly curious? I wouldn’t even say it’s photojournalistic because of its very limited scope. Where does this image even show the pain and despair or anxiety that a person such as this is going through? To me, it seems to be about the act of dying. There is nothing associated to the image to give it meaning.


WARNING: The following link depicts a real dead body that some people may find disturbing.

Another World Press Winning Photograph

The above image is a literal depiction of a dead body. It has limited scope but it is photojournalistic. Where does it show pain and despair or anxiety? It just shows the act of being dead.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

To me, this kind of photograph is in the same category with pornography and crime scene images. It seems to encourage our basest natures. Life is short, so why dishonor it with bad art?


Life is short, so let's continue seeing more babies and sunsets to show that we are getting old and shall soon die of natural causes like the flowers people pick in order to take 'pretty' pictures?
03/05/2004 01:05:04 PM · #82
I think here is an interesting idea of portrayal of suicide for dramatic reasons. I would not score this low if executed well. It's the intent or purpose that is at question here and if the execution satisfies the intent.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

I think that very sane people have created suicide shots. (Well, some people will argue that I am sane lol) But I have done some shots like that. I don't think about killing myself.... I did a picture just last night for a challenge, and I depicted suicide.... more like the Romeo and Juliet type of thing. I don't think if tastefully done, there is a problem.
03/05/2004 04:58:40 PM · #83
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I think here is an interesting idea of portrayal of suicide for dramatic reasons. I would not score this low if executed well. It's the intent or purpose that is at question here and if the execution satisfies the intent.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

I think that very sane people have created suicide shots. (Well, some people will argue that I am sane lol) But I have done some shots like that. I don't think about killing myself.... I did a picture just last night for a challenge, and I depicted suicide.... more like the Romeo and Juliet type of thing. I don't think if tastefully done, there is a problem.


Here are the pictures that I did.... and I think they are very tastefully done, yet they depict suicide. (They are not the best... but it was for another challenge I had and only had a few minutes!)

Juliet's Last Stand
Juliet's Last Stand II
03/05/2004 05:31:15 PM · #84
Originally posted by nsoroma79:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I think here is an interesting idea of portrayal of suicide for dramatic reasons. I would not score this low if executed well. It's the intent or purpose that is at question here and if the execution satisfies the intent.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

I think that very sane people have created suicide shots. (Well, some people will argue that I am sane lol) But I have done some shots like that. I don't think about killing myself.... I did a picture just last night for a challenge, and I depicted suicide.... more like the Romeo and Juliet type of thing. I don't think if tastefully done, there is a problem.


Here are the pictures that I did.... and I think they are very tastefully done, yet they depict suicide. (They are not the best... but it was for another challenge I had and only had a few minutes!)

Juliet's Last Stand
Juliet's Last Stand II

Being an eternal optimist, I don`t understand any of it! You can be happy all your life if you choose to be! Or maybe I just missed something or had too good of a childhood? This kind of think really turns me off and I will always give it my lowest marks,maybe this acounts for me being a Low marking Nazi! LOL I will try to change my ways!
Neil
03/05/2004 05:50:15 PM · #85
ALRIGHT!!! I'VE HAD ENOUGH! ALL THIS TALK OF SUICIDE HAS DEPRESSED ME TO NO END!!! TO MY DARLING WIFE - I LEAVE ALL MY MONEY. TO MY TWO SONS - GET A JOB!!

GOODBYE CRUEL WORLD!!!!

P.S. please bury my 10d camera with me
03/05/2004 05:58:04 PM · #86
Originally posted by lenkphotos:

ALRIGHT!!! I'VE HAD ENOUGH! ALL THIS TALK OF SUICIDE HAS DEPRESSED ME TO NO END!!! TO MY DARLING WIFE - I LEAVE ALL MY MONEY. TO MY TWO SONS - GET A JOB!!

GOODBYE CRUEL WORLD!!!!

P.S. please bury my 10d camera with me

Your gonna need a good L f/2.8 lens to get good shots down there,LOL
Really nice pics Len!
;-)
Neil

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 18:01:40.
03/05/2004 06:06:44 PM · #87
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I retitled this thread to fix what I "assumed" was a typo ....


Thanks, not the best of typers. ;)
03/05/2004 06:22:34 PM · #88
By the way, this is the shot that put me over the edge. Some people have really shed some new light on the issue. I'm not trying to offend the person who did this shot, and if it does, I'm sorry. For me it felt like a little much.

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=58923

I'm glad someone brought up the fact that this is NOT about censorship, because I am against that idea at this point. People should be able to post what the feel is art. This is how I feel about the whole thing (voting-wise): People have the right to post what they feel is art, and the voters have the right to place them as they please. That's just the way it works.

I was just trying to say that I personally am slightly disturbed.

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 18:24:27.
03/05/2004 07:40:19 PM · #89
Originally posted by goinskiing:

By the way, this is the shot that put me over the edge. Some people have really shed some new light on the issue. I'm not trying to offend the person who did this shot, and if it does, I'm sorry. For me it felt like a little much.

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=58923

I'm glad someone brought up the fact that this is NOT about censorship, because I am against that idea at this point. People should be able to post what the feel is art. This is how I feel about the whole thing (voting-wise): People have the right to post what they feel is art, and the voters have the right to place them as they please. That's just the way it works.

I was just trying to say that I personally am slightly disturbed.


That's the very same photo that got to me, goinskiing. I was very disturbed by it. It was one of the first photos that I saw when I came to this site. Not the most welcome of greetings, I have to say.
03/05/2004 07:47:01 PM · #90
Originally posted by lindsay:

Originally posted by goinskiing:

By the way, this is the shot that put me over the edge. Some people have really shed some new light on the issue. I'm not trying to offend the person who did this shot, and if it does, I'm sorry. For me it felt like a little much.

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=58923

I'm glad someone brought up the fact that this is NOT about censorship, because I am against that idea at this point. People should be able to post what the feel is art. This is how I feel about the whole thing (voting-wise): People have the right to post what they feel is art, and the voters have the right to place them as they please. That's just the way it works.

I was just trying to say that I personally am slightly disturbed.


That's the very same photo that got to me, goinskiing. I was very disturbed by it. It was one of the first photos that I saw when I came to this site. Not the most welcome of greetings, I have to say.


I think the most disturbing was the shot of a cat that was ran over by a car.
03/05/2004 08:01:29 PM · #91
The dead baby bird really got me going. But each to his/her own, I'd never vote to keep those shots off the site.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/27/2021 12:22:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/27/2021 12:22:15 PM EDT.