"Artistic Pornography"

[Christopher Nisperos]

BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other???

Dear Flying,

I'm not sure that Bruce Weber's use of Littman (and Rolleiflex TLR) would necessarily qualify his work as art instead of pornography (but in any case, for me, I see it as more homo-erotic than pornographic).

Anyway, if one had to judge by a photographer's equipment whether
the resulting work were pornographic or not, a lot of Playboy's earlier stuff —photographed with an 8x10 Deardorff— would be in a museum! As well,
Bob Miser's AMC images —originally made with a Speed Graphic— would be at the Getty (hey, there's an idea!).

Having said that, it's heartwarming to know that Weber —among many other top professionals— are still using film cameras (a term which, just ten years ago, would have been weird!).

Best,

Christopher
.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Cher Nisp,

Of course I'm right, dear boy. I make a habit of it, whenever possible. ...

I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, ever, . . .

Shouldn't it be, "I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, however, ..." , dear boy?

Now we're really into the realm of 'Is It Art'? A friend of mine used to paint what he called 'wallpaper' for a leading London furniture stores: as I recall, 3 paintings for a thousand quid, thirty years ago. What's that today? Five thousand ($9500)? Ten thousand (£19,000)? It funded his serious work.

Next question: has anyone seen Hamilton's serious work?

Cheers,

R.

Bien vu!


Le Nisp


.

[Ole]

Interesting statistics: "43% of sexual predators were exposed to pornography." What do we compare that to ... there is no mention of the incidence of "exposure to pornography" among the general public, or among those who are NOT sexual predators... and without that comparison, coherent conclusions are difficult, at best.

Very interesting - that would imply that 57% of "sexual predators" (what does that mean, by the way? The phrase doesn't make sense in any consistent way) were not exposed to pornography. 57% would be considered a majority in most other types of study...


I've been reading through this thread with great interest and a little trepidation. This d*mn thing tends to lose the conncetion everytime I try to post, so I don't really put much effort into posting this week. But I'll keep on following this thread!

[BrianShaw]

BTW... It has been proven, conclusively, that 99% of ALL serial killers, rapists, sexual predators, child molesters ... ate MASHED POTATOES at one time or another in their lives. Do you think that banning mashed potatoes would be a "good thing"?

Oh dear, I ate mashed potatos last night... lots of them. what's going to become of me?

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Oh dear, I ate mashed potatos last night... lots of them. what's going to become of me?

Maybe a very big poo, and a smelly one on top of that.

[George Papantoniou]

I ate lobster last night and kept running to the toilet since.

I think that 99% of all men were exposed to pornography (at least a few times in their lives). And 70% are periodically exposed during their whole life. Then this would mean that the sexual predators (the male ones) get LESS exposure to pornography than the guys who don't get around raping and harassing people.

[Bromo33333]

I ate lobster last night and kept running to the toilet since.

I think that 99% of all men were exposed to pornography (at least a few times in their lives). And 70% are periodically exposed during their whole life. Then this would mean that the sexual predators (the male ones) get LESS exposure to pornography than the guys who don't get around raping and harassing people.

On the net, without a good SPAM filter, you rapidly vector back to 99% from 70%. At least in exposure to V1.ag.RRAH.

[WarEaglemtn]

In the US pornograpy, unless it depicts minors, is legal. Obscenity is what is illegal. Many do not see a distinction and it causes problems. Show an image in one city or town and you are fine. Show it in another and you are arrested and charged with whatever they can come up with. In Provo, Utah you might be charged with crimes against 'community standards' for showing your photo while the local Marriott Hotel pushes in-room 'adult' movies.(and J.Willard Marriott who started them is a Mormon). But, you get caught because the local DA sees you are an easy target while Marriott corp has money and lawyers.

As long as it doesn't legally qualify as obscene, print or publish it. I dont' have to look if I don't want to.

[Aggie]

In the US pornograpy, unless it depicts minors, is legal. Obscenity is what is illegal. Many do not see a distinction and it causes problems. Show an image in one city or town and you are fine. Show it in another and you are arrested and charged with whatever they can come up with. In Provo, Utah you might be charged with crimes against 'community standards' for showing your photo while the local Marriott Hotel pushes in-room 'adult' movies.(and J.Willard Marriott who started them is a Mormon). But, you get caught because the local DA sees you are an easy target while Marriott corp has money and lawyers.

As long as it doesn't legally qualify as obscene, print or publish it. I dont' have to look if I don't want to.

Yep and the example is again about Mormons. Why is there a need to under lie this whole thread with bashing Mormons? Other religions do the same thing. Especially in the South. Try Franklin Tennessee. You might be surprised what the Southern Baptists do there. I know it well having worked at the Barnes and Noble's at Coolsprings. Yet not one of you in this thread want to bash any other religion than Mormons. Yeah I will believe your crap when you speak from a view point of including all who do not like PORNography. I as a woman not as a mormon do not like it. Too many of those images say they are depicitng women artistically when it is only for one purpose they were taken. Now before you all get your g strings in a twist, I have nothing against nudes. In fact issue #2 of Emulsion has a nude on the cover. If I was against nudity I would not have it in my magazine, espeically not on the cover.

Now for another thought in this whole debate, what about people who think that the only real photography is of people? What about landscape photographers who think that taking people pictures is not artistic. You have individuals here that like different things, and abhor others. It is the same with nudity in all it's forms. Some will like it, and other abhor it. As a community we have varied ethnoticities from around the world. Many of those other ethnic groups do not like nudity in any form. Yet some of us here think we should push it in their faces to make them conform to a small group because we are better than they are? What you forget is it is a community of varied backgrounds, religions/or not, and cultural taboos. All that was ever asked is that the nudes not pop up in thunbnails on the home page, and that like the critique gallery, there be a seperate gallery for nudes in all their forms. It is not censorship it is being mindful of other peoples culture/taboos/relgion/likes-dislikes what ever it be. I'll still look at the nudes no matter if they are in a seperate gallery. Yeah shocking the mormon looks at nudes.

[Peter De Smidt]

So Aggie are you suggesting that any type of picture that might be offensive to a large enough cultural group be relegated to it's own gallery, such that these pictures won't pop up to a casual visitor of this site? That seems to be the principle underlying your last post. But then should your avatar be shown? It clearly is offensive to millions of Muslims.