Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,909   Posts: 1,556,175   Online: 1023
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73
  1. #41
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne
    Can we post pictures of women fiddling with themselves here? I have no such pictures, I'm only asking this as a public service. I have a feeling the question is going to come up very soon.



    Wayne
    I certainly see nothing wrong with it.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  2. #42
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by timeUnit
    I was also suprised to see that so many borderline pornographic pictures were allowed space at pn. I'm not against it, but it might be nice to lable it, so that I don't see that kind of stuff if I'm not actively looking to.
    Reactions?
    I believe we had this issue some months ago already, when sombebody complained that nudes aren't kept in a special Offense- Gallery here. Because he got caught with that nude on the screen?

    The issue hasn't got less strange since then:

    It was clear that in times of digital imaging all the public galleries in the www would attract those who looked for free place to exhibit their private porn, for what reason or purpose ever. It started very unobtousivly with some femal nudes and has now finally achieved the final state of gynecological details as it was to expect. At pnet there had been a totally nuts chick once who photographed her own vagina and claimed this would be art.

    And it was clear too that the list or gallery owners would let it run as it ran, this kinda primary school sensations sell well and they attract a lot of members, and for the owners of the server it is all about members, about nothing else.
    So far it is all "normal" now , as we all had to expect it to be, nothing to feel surprised about ?? The money makes the rules, as always and your whining sounds in some way naive to me.

    You want to label IT ? What for ? You want to watch genitalia only if you are in the right mood , if I got you right? Or when nobody is around ?
    I don't get it. Why don't you simply stay away there ?

    bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by rfshootist
    It started very unobtousivly with some femal nudes and has now finally achieved the final state of gynecological details as it was to expect. At pnet there had been a totally nuts chick once who photographed her own vagina and claimed this would be art.

    bertram
    As in Steiglitz's photographs of O'Keefe?

    (of course those have generally remained hidden from public view - but no doubt if the internet was around, he would have probably posted them - what with his proclivity for kneaded breasts and all... I always wondered if one of his sessions with O'Keefe, or when he was seducing Strand's wife went something like "now, take you clothes of. Right, now, put your hands on yours breasts. Okay, now, pretend you you're making bread..."

  4. #44
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    Should women be fiddling around in the dark?

  5. #45
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    By the way "Frida" is playing in the "Star Chamber", no pop corn allowed.

    So this fits with the APUG forum; watch the movie and see the Dorf 8x10 and Ilex shutter with a lens I can't make out that Mr. Kahlo uses to photo the family. References to Tina M and others in there too.

  6. #46
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
    Regarding another post telling me to look at some art. Well, you know, I have. I (generally) prefer the nude as done by classical artists, and by those working in that that tradition.
    I assume that was me. I am not trying to COMPEL you to do anything ... only using a "Classical" work as an example of a point I am trying to make.

    Do you regard Gustave Courbet as a "classical" artist? - I certainly do. The work I cited most closely resembles some of the work in question at Pnet.

    I can give more intense examples of "work that would be banned here - and most probably on Pnet as well" ... one in particular comes to mind ... by Rembrandt van Rijn ... done in 1631. "Rembrandt + 1631". Sounds "classic" to me.

    These generally depict people in good health and of pleasing proportions. They were, in fact, idealizations. Not only are these works simply beautiful, but they can serve as ideals to which we can aspire, and doing so would be a good thing for our health. In other words, these works are uplifting. They treat the body as a temple, and they bring out our relation to the divine., which I think of as a transcendent ideal, more of a Platonic ideal than an anthropomorpic individual.
    I will not argue that "generally" - taken as "many" - were of pleasing proportions ... etc. I will take exception to the expansion of "generally" to mean "ALL". Additionally, the question arises ... "Pleasing" - to whom?

    The idea that "To be "art", it must be "uplifting" - or a vessel to "improve" oneself is also interesting, I take no opposition to anyone seeing art in such a light - but as for me ... there is much more. My opinion is that art CAN be beautiful: but also that anything that "changes our emotional state - that displays to us the human condition", is OF VALUE, as well.
    I will apologize for the constant shifting away from photographic examples - I am trying to dodge the question of whether or not ANY photograph could be called "classic" art ... but one more significant work - generally regarded as "Art" ... What is your opinion of Picasso's Guernica? To me, it is not "beautiful", and certainly not "uplifting", but it is, unquestionably a significant work of "Fine Art".
    Moving against certain cultural trends, fat is not healthy, nor is it beautiful. (Really thin is also not healthy, but this has to be really, really thin, as recent studies indicate that there might be health benefits in reduced calorie diets even for people of "normal" weight.)
    Interesting observation... A bit "off topic", though. BTW - I disagree.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #47
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by tim
    As in Steiglitz's photographs of O'Keefe?
    (of course those have generally remained hidden from public view - but no doubt if the internet was around, he would have probably posted them -
    Unfortunately I did not ever see one of those !? I only know some of the "decent " O'Keefe nudes of Stieglitz and and some of them I found to show a kind of obtrousive intimacy.

    I myself still guess btw what sort of man one has to be to feel "offended" in the sense of violated by seeing female genitalia on a photo ? Misplaced, tasteless or whatever, but where is the offense, for heavens sake ??

    If there is anything offending in all these galleries then it is the incredible amount of terrible shitty photos and , even worse, the endless gaga talk of all those boasters, wannabees , smart a**es and image neurotics, who are forced to build up a second personal reality in the virtual spaces of the www,
    because in real life nobody listens to them.

    bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by rfshootist

    You want to label IT ? What for ? You want to watch genitalia only if you are in the right mood , if I got you right? Or when nobody is around ?
    I don't get it. Why don't you simply stay away there ?

    bertram
    Now, I think you interpreted me the wrong way. Also, it's not nice to imply that I lurk pnet for other reasons than my deep interest in photography. ;-)

    I not trying to hide my personal intentions, I'm just surprised, that's all. If I'm in the mood for watching genitalia, pnet is not where I'd go first, nor is it APUG.

    Labeling (sp?) graphic nudity and showing it on a designated page serves the purpose of making it easier for people to choose wether they want to see it or not. It might also serve the purpose of raising the level of nude photography as it is concentrated to one page where discussion about the subject matter etc can take place. The cons of this is that it can become tucked away and a place where only the "shy" lurk. Also, the portrayers of nudity might feel censored. Looking into my crystal ball, I cannot clearly see the outcome...

    On a swedish site I frequent, image content is organised in to "pools". If I put an image in my personal folder, I can also choose to post it in the "Fine Art Nude" pool, to show my work and receive contsructive criticsism. I think this is a good way to keep such a "sensitive" art form thriving and evolving.

    As for the comments about this being a discussion beloning to photo.net, I think that's a bit narrow minded. Pnet was just the place where I encountered this graphic nudity in that way on a serious site. It could just as well have been here on APUG. The discussion is not about pnet, but about how to organise, or not to organise, image content that might be offensive, sensitive or straight out porn, to some.

    That this thread streered away totally from these questions and was more about clever eufemisms for vagina doesn't mean that the original intent was "useless", IMO.

  9. #49
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Most that is being said in this thread has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on APUG. For example here, here and here.
    Last edited by Andy K; 05-29-2006 at 12:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  10. #50
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by timeUnit
    I not trying to hide my personal intentions, I'm just surprised, that's all.
    Well , if it is only your surprise, which makes you post: You should not be surprised, it's just what was to expect, as I said already.

    Your expectation to get it all properly sorted ( and hidden) in categories
    is not realistic : This stuff is intentionally NOT hidden at pnet, it is part of the advertising concept.

    BTW the suggestion to discuss that all at pnet is not narrow minded at all IMO, the answers you will get there will make clear what sorta place that is and what people meet there. Best case some of them will laugh at you I suppose.
    It simply does not make sense to go to the idiots play ground and then complain about all the idiots around you.

    What shall not mean ALL pnet members are of that kind, the real surprise is that still some very few good photogs have not given up their efforts to contribute on a certain artistic level.
    The rest tho is a lunatic asylum, producing an endless stream of visual diarrhoe and weak minded babble. I don't go there any more, since a long time.

    bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin