4 years ago you posted images in the gallery with the sole purpose to piss people off
i find it laughable that you suggest these two ( or more ) situations are the same.
I'd say there are many parallels in the two incidents.
I like Scott's photography, I also like Emil's work, neither deserve the porn label.
John- I've repeatedly told you that was not my sole intent - yes, I was being provocative, but were I trying to piss people off I would have posted something that was far more risque, without actually being explicit. I posted that image in direct response to a discussion that was being had at the time about male vs female nudes. And it was in fact a single image, not a series of images. I had posted other male nudes prior to that discussion that had elicited unwarranted comments (one solo male nude, unrelated to the controversial one, garnered a response of "get that sodomitic shit out of here" - it was a solo male nude, and the model's hands were nowhere near his genitals, so where sodomy came in to it I fail to see). I feel my response was entirely justified - I responded with art, instead of engaging in a verbal slug-fest. And the response to the image that was controversial was entirely out of proportion to the image. Again, nothing going on, nothing scandal-worthy except for the fact it was a portrait of a penis. Is it my fault that some folks are shocked by seeing something half of us have? Posting for the sake of pissing people off was that individual who posted the still-life of Nazi regalia.
John- your response is really just another way of saying "Emil's work is art, yours is porn". And I call bullshit on that response. If you don't like it, you don't like it, and that's fine. And if you're one of those who was upset by the image, I'm sorry. I think you're over-reacting, however.
What really IS the problem here?
An image can be produced as nude, porn, educational, medical, scientific, commercial or just a picture.
An image can be seen as nude, porn, educational, etc, etc, etc.
In the end, it's a photograph of a human body engaged in normal human behavior.
Intent doesn't always equal reception and perception. The image that started this thread was not graphic. "Critical" body parts weren't shown although we all know they were there.
In the end, it's an image of a human body. Parts may be seen or implied. It's been known that some people have "fun" with Sears catalog of just an ordinary under-wears. (when sears still sent catalogs) In the end, majority of people alive have "fun" from time to time.
So... what's the REAL problem?
i wasn't offended or upset by your photograph at all.
i am remembering the conversation in the chatroom when posted it.
you said you were posting an image that you knew would cause controversy in the apug community
now, a few years later, most of the people who were outraged are gone, including the people who were in the chatroom with us
on that night. you also suggested another time that someone purposefully post "controversial" ( i put it in quotes because it was a male nude
like yours, and not really that controversial ) images in the gallery so he would gain a following and be held in esteem.
i am not saying your work is anything different than a male nude, i don't think it is pornographic.
you told us in the chatroom just before you posted it, you wanted to cause controversy within the community, and it did, just as you predicted ... as i said, different intent.
Not to get off on a tangent but I get really turned on by naked mountains standing erect with a little snow at the top.
But hey that's just me.