Just reading about Lewis C K. I am not a fan. However, it seems he is now cast into a cauldron for non-contact, non-printed visual demonstrations that could have been avoided by leaving.
Are his victims complicit in their former silence by wanting to further their career?
Last edited by Tin Can; 9-Nov-2017 at 14:34. Reason: Inserted 'former'
We've gone from objectification to offense
Other than that objectifying may be---and as raised by the OP is offensive I'm not sure where this is going.
Do you mean to say that you're the one being objectified?
The intent to make porn. The intent to objectify girls as things, or even things that must conform to an arbitrary anatomical "type" is offensive if women are offended by it, and by association also offensive to the males who love them, the parents who raised them as well as the children they bore. Of course this cannot be painted with broad brush strokes as anyone can take choose to take offense to anything. What needs to be vetted is the scrupulous from the manipulative.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Who's intent is to make pornography? That hasn't been my intent whenever I've photographed a nude. And there's no reason to think that was the intent of the photographer who's photograph ...inspired?...this thread.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
It would be interesting to know exactly what the photographer's intent was in creating the image because I am certainly not sure what he was trying to accomplish or say, if anything. But that's true of most of the contemporary photography I see.Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
A pornographer intends to make pornography, just as a bank robber intends to rob banks.
Bottecelli, I think it is safe to assume, didn't intend to make pornography and I can't recollect anyone robbing a bank without intending to.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
No kidding, but the subject of this thread is the type of photographs in the "nude" section of this site. It was questioned whether or not they were immoral in some vague "objectifying" manner. (The question was directed at one photograph, but it doesn't seem significantly different than the rest of the photographs in the thread.) I suggest that the burden of proof rests on those who want to limit others's freedom. If no one can give a reasonable argument as to why they are immoral, or "objectifying" or "exploitative" in an immoral manner, then the answer to the question should be: "No."
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I thought the subject was about how women are treated and how porn contributes to their marginalization as humans?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
My OP was not asking whether the photographs in the "nude" thread were immoral or obscene; it was meant to ask, to use John Kasaian's better and succinct wording, "how do nude photographs effect women and how men treat women?" There is a lot of sociology literature that says that the sheer number of nude women on the web does impact the way men treat women, although one can agree or disagree. And the two photographs I referred to, while not significantly different from many others, were full frontal nudes of an attractive young woman, exactly the kind of images most of us men do enjoy looking at, while many other posts that I did not reference are nude studies of portions of bodies, or make greater use of light and shadow. Now from the viewpoint of photographic history, lots of full frontal nudity is famous artwork, be it Mortensen's or Paul Outerbridge's somewhat fetishistic nudes, or many of Weston's photographs of the same women he slept with, to name the first that come to mind. But society changes, and I would suggest that our society is becoming more aware of the impact that the very ordinariness of thousands of photographs of young attractive nude women have on the way that women in general are viewed and treated.
but what if the person asked to do whatever it is they are asked to do (pose in whatever way he or she was asked )
was OK with that .. and it didn't matter one bit.
i was once told by someone that people born in my generation
( i was born in the 60s' )
are all prudes and people born later have no problem with porn
and i am a puritan because i thought something might have crossed
a line ( my own line i suppose ) ...
in the nude thread there is a photograph of some lady on her back under a table ..
i won't say anything else about how she was positioned
but it got me thinking that i would never photograph someone doing that,
and disseminate it world-wide. but if it doesn't bother the photographer or the model ..
who am i to be offended
maybe someone somewhere ( besides the photographer and the model ? ) think it is art ..
and some sort of statement about judeo-christian american society+greed and the vulnerability of humanity ...
as the justice said he'd know it, but who knows if it is really .. it ?
and even if it was immoral or obscene, for him/her,
would it be obscene for somene from another culture?
people from other cultures kiss, males-male. female-female. female-male
there is nothing obscene or immoral about it
(its as obscene or immoral as shaking someone's hand)
... but if a male from italy or iraq or iran or ?
walked up to a new friend
from arkansas or england or maine and kissed him ( or her ) upon greeting them ...
someone might think it is something immoral or obscene ...
( added later )
another example
80s band bow wow wow ( i love candy fame )
got into a lot of hot water because of the cover of their
first album
http://downunderground.blogspot.com/...-pet-ep-w.html
the lead singer was 16 or somethng and malcom mclaren found her in a laundromat
and made a reproduction of manet's picnic ...
http://www.abcgallery.com/m/manet/manet6.html
i wasn't offended, but a lot of people claimed exploitation when the woman involved
was OK with it ..
was she duped ? was it really OK ? or was it offensive ?
and was manet's painting offensive too, or because it was paint on canvas was it OK / "art" ?
AND if manet's painting was OK and the photograph of anabella wasn't,
why ?
Last edited by jnantz; 10-Nov-2017 at 04:37.
My definition of abuse is the individual being photographed is either too young, or is tricked, or is unaware of the images taken or is somehow coerced into being photographed. There are other bad situations but those are the highlights.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks