I think there's a difference between stating emotions or opinions which is what we're doing here and harassment which is what JBrunner is referring to.
We should not forget that Emil spontaneously removed his pictures from the gallery. If the "complaint" is polite I don't think anybody should feel offended. The picture or pictures should remain where they were, but I think everybody should be free to express his point of view without being purged for having expressed it. A free society is free because it does not repress thought, while not being repressed by other's thought.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
To "compensate" for the self-censorship I would like to posts two images
(warning: human behaviour)
The so-called Ermafrodito stante, a statue of an hermaphrodite raising his vest to show his penis in erection, Galleria Borghese, Casino nobile di Villa Borghese, Rome:
And a modern sculpture just sold for an awful sum (€ 2 millions), I found it on the site "cose belle antiche e moderne" (beautiful modern and ancient things)
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
I think your photo is pornographic.
I think your photo is pornographic and you are a bad photographer who will never amount to anything, why do you even try.
See the difference? I doubt someone actually did the later, although I'm late to the conversation and anything is possible.
The typical "harassment" (especially in the US or Northern Europe) would actually play the victim tune:
The sensitive religious whose soul is wound:
"As a mother of two children and as an observing [Christian | Muslim | Jeovah witness] I feel offended, say hurt, by your pornographic description of the gift of reproduction that God bestowed upon us. I think you should show more respect for people who don't want to see God offended this way"
The angry feminist who sees everything as a power struggle:
"As a woman I feel deeply disturbed by your depiction of sex as a demonstration of the power relation and exploitation between male and female and I think you should remove your picture to show more respect for the weak part of society"
It's utter bullshit, but it's current and I say it's legitimate as an expression of a thought.
I came in contact with this kind of fingerpointing and moralizing attitudes, I have to say, only in international fora.
In my country we run pretty free of religious maniacs and angry feminists as compared, I have to say, to Northern Europe. Must be the sun
I saw the images and can't see what all the fuss was about, the complainers didn't need to look at them. You can't please everyone but equally those of a narrow minder prudish nature shouldn't be trying to censor or stifle this forum.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Damn, I am feeling like I missed some masterpieces here... With such controversy that must be really something.
You can disable the left sidebar by clicking the little arrow to the upper right of the image, and it's a good idea if, for example, you check in on APUG at the office or some such. We know that there are pictures uploaded to the site that are considered NSFW (not safe for work) and perhaps not always appropriate for children. So it's up to each user to view the gallery on their own terms. I'm not the biggest fan of the female nude in photography because it's just so overdone, though I must say, Emil's work is quite lovely, and it's a shame he felt the need to remove it, and it's best if we feel make everyone feel welcome to post their pictures without generating threads like this. (Been awhile since we had one, it seems to me, but we have, a lot of them... )
Originally Posted by kuparikettu
We've gone around and around how to present images that are considered NSFW, but in the end it's impractical, and with thousands of images here, it'd be impossible to change the galleries or add "NSFW" to every nude or violent picture in the gallery. Don't click on images that don't interest or disturb you.
Last edited by SuzanneR; 11-19-2012 at 02:57 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sad. I only saw a thumbnail of one photo and it was far from obscene. The American Puritan Ethic refuses to die.
I think many of Edward Weston's nudes are transparently sexual, but not pornographic. It's even harder to see them in a purely aesthetic light when you know he was a sexual fiend who shared his girlfriends with his sons. To me, Weston's beach nudes represent the writhing obscenity of nature - the idea that nature is simply a slut, putting itself on display. With somebody like Wynn Bullock, there are no ecstatic symbols of sex in his nudes, and there's plenty of context in which, you could say, sex becomes only a part of nature, rather than the whole. I tend to think in most cases an attractive nude alone, against a black background, has the biggest effect when it arouses - all that is aesthetically pleasing about the image then pales in significance. The more conventionally attractive the model, perhaps the more context is needed to balance the 'arouse-effect' scale. The biggest factor then might be the qualities the photographer looks for in a model. From most of the amateur nude work I've seen, I'd say he simply picks his ideal mate nine times out of ten. For his own purposes in that case, he is a pornographer. But... unless all his models look like Kim Kardashian (where his intent becomes obvious) people are unlikely to label it porn. With the nude, it pays to have strange taste in women, if you have no objectivity as an artist.
We have gone 7 pages already... wow...
I am thinking we will never reach a consensus on this one. The most important decision right now is, were the images appropriate for this site. I think the moderators have already spoken on this subject. Secondary, was the opposition/opinion thread appropriate in the way they were worded/posted. I think the moderators have spoken on this subject as well.
I think it's time we move on and create more images or talk about which developers are best.
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?