| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2005 01:05:45 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
There are several posts attacking the voters..... I resent that. Just because YOU call it art means nobody is allowed an opinion that differs?
I call it a cheap way of "selling".
I have NO problem with nudes whatsoever, I'm not the least bit prudish. I'll happily look at either gender, too, but only if they make sense to be there.
For example if you were to take a photo of a beach that includes some nudes, then that is fine, it makes sense for them to be there. For all I know, perhaps the photo wasn't even staged, but a lucky candid. Great!
However if you photograph a naked woman changing a car tire in the snow on the highway (and you're not trying to be funny), then that is just ridiculous.
Nobody in their right mind would work on machinery stark naked, it makes NO sense.
I didn't vote on that challenge. Had I voted, your pic would have started with an 8 for the photo, then lost 2 or 3 points for the nude.
I don't care that she looks lovely and that the photo is nice, I disagree with using sex to sell stuff that has nothing to do with sex. |
Oh, come on now, art and nudity go together, as far back as art itself. What was that smut monger Michaelangelo "selling" when he created David. Michaelanglo showed a dinky on a very public statue, what a pornographer he is!
What is it exactly you think fotoman is selling here? Grinders? Perm Solution? His photo? Well then send every last one of us here on this site to jail then! Hell he didn't even show a winky or a dinky, and barely showed anything much beyond abs.
Oh, and how about Helmut Newton, one of the most famous photographers, what was he using sex to sell?
If art has to make sense, then why don't we just go ahead and destroy all art, because somewhere it's just not making sense to someone. Art doen't always have to make sense, that's the beauty of art.
Message edited by author 2005-12-07 13:18:45. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:07:04 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
I wasn't aware of the fact he was trying to sell anything. |
Well there you go - so much for YOUR impression.
My impression goes more like this:
"I need something industrial.... hmmm..... I wonder what would work well.
I bet there'll be a lot of shots of factories from the outside... hmmm....
Oh, I know!!! Lets find a nude - sex sells!!!! Yeah, that's it - lets find a very pretty girl, strip her off and bingo - THAT will sell!"
Since we can't read the photographer's mind, and we don't even get to read their comments until AFTER the challenge, we are left to our own interpretations. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:12:17 PM · #78 |
As far I'm concerned this thread has risen above what is or isnt right about fotomanns score. For me it underscores the lack of appreciation for creativity and artistic merit as it pertains to this site as a whole.
At the risk of redundancy, I reposting my thoughts from last night.
----
Originally posted by hokie:
I am not usually somebody that says one thing or another about how someone else votes however...
Anybody who voted less than a 5 on this photo should not be allowed to vote any longer at this site. If photos like this are rated "below average" I just don't see the incentive to even participate here for people trying to do anything of extra-ordinary work. |
Yup.
Taste and preference are one thing, but I completely agree that such votes and voters need to be accounted for... round 'em up, brand 'em as idiots, and deny them the right to vote. Yeah, thats the ticket!
Seriously, the voting system of this site is deeply flawed. It's not really anyones fault, either, its just the way it is. I'm sure D and L have done what they can to account for "troll" voting, but nothing in place so far does anything to prevent stupid voting.
Call me harsh, but I think people should have to earn the right to vote around here. It should be a privilege, not a right. And I would rather have 50 thoughtful votes than 300 mindless ones. I think such a move could go a long way towards making this a more constructive place to learn as well.
Allow any idiot to comment, but only let the ones that have exhibited some degree of photographic and artistic competence carry the right to vote.
And things seem much worse in the Open challenges for these kinds of images. I honestly feel it would have scored far better in a members challenge. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:15:56 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
No its not art, In fact I doubt its anyways industrial, I'm supprised my comment to you is missing. Shes grinding on a backing plate of a rear brake, off a chevy maybe, with the brake shoe hanging off. To be honest several things REALLY ticks me off about this photo:
1st she is grinding naked? no safty glasses naked body? HUH? hows that industrial?
2nd Industrial means making something, not grinding a backing plate off a c-1500 pickup, with the brake shoe hanging off.
Not trying to be mean but thats my thoughts. Im really surprised my comment didn't get sent to you. Its not art its push naked look at this, doesn't meat the challange. Sorry being honest... |
Not industrial, why don't you be a little more closed minded. The challenge was to create something industrial feelings. This is art not scientific documentation, what he's showing doesn't have to be accurate and precise. It just has to have an industrial feeling. You're like a lot of the lemmings here that voted on this challenge. If it didn't have a smokestack with smoke coming out of it, it wasn't industrial.
Nudity and art have gone together as long as art has been around. If you have a problem with nudity that's fine, move on and don't vote on it. But don't rip on it just because it don't fit your narrow and closed minded definition of the challenge.
Message edited by author 2005-12-07 13:17:49. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:17:23 PM · #80 |
pekesty, don't bother trying to sell me sex.
You're preaching to the converted, as I said before, I'm all for it!!!
However, there is a place and a time for everything. At times we can even stretch the point a bit and get away with it.
However, you are using art as an excuse.
In THIS photo, as many others, the nude is there because it SELLS.
If you think it is so terribly artistic to include a nude (what's wrong with the dressed version, anyway?), then why not use a middle aged hairy man with a big belly and pimples, instead?
You could take the very same photograph, every bit as competent as far as technique goes (composition lighting etc).
If it is so artistic, it still would be artistic even with THAT model, right?
Yeah sure...... that is NOT going to happen, because it won't SELL !
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:23:29 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
then why not use a middle aged hairy man with a big belly and pimples, instead? |
It was his photo, he used whichever model he wanted. You can do the same thing, go ahead and use a middle aged hairy man with a big belly and pimples in one of your photos. I'm not going to judge your photo based on that.
Message edited by author 2005-12-07 13:24:19. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:24:47 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
If you think it is so terribly artistic to include a nude (what's wrong with the dressed version, anyway?), then why not use a middle aged hairy man with a big belly and pimples, instead?
You could take the very same photograph, every bit as competent as far as technique goes (composition lighting etc).
If it is so artistic, it still would be artistic even with THAT model, right?
|
No, actually it wouldn't be, solely because the point of the photo would be missed. You would not have a contrast of the soft flesh and cold steel with ME as the model.. nor would it fit the historical norm of the genre I was trying to reproducee.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:27:31 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by pekesty:
It was his photo, he used whichever model he wanted. You can do the same thing, go ahead and use a middle aged hairy man with a big belly and pimples in one of your photos. I'm not going to judge your photo based on that. |
I know it was "his" photo - the "you" was used in a general sense *sigh*.
So you (that means YOU, personally) are trying to tell me that you would have rated the photo with the male model as highly as the original?
Edited to add a "the" that I left out
Come on...... LOL
Message edited by author 2005-12-07 13:28:45. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:28:42 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
the nude is there because it SELLS. |
You're making the assumption that he put it there for that reason. Maybe he just put there because he like the contrast and contradiction between the two. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:32:05 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
pekesty, don't bother trying to sell me sex.
You're preaching to the converted, as I said before, I'm all for it!!!
However, there is a place and a time for everything. At times we can even stretch the point a bit and get away with it.
However, you are using art as an excuse.
In THIS photo, as many others, the nude is there because it SELLS.
If you think it is so terribly artistic to include a nude (what's wrong with the dressed version, anyway?), then why not use a middle aged hairy man with a big belly and pimples, instead?
You could take the very same photograph, every bit as competent as far as technique goes (composition lighting etc).
If it is so artistic, it still would be artistic even with THAT model, right?
Yeah sure...... that is NOT going to happen, because it won't SELL ! |
With all due respect, your analysis reveals a pretty cynical attitude, in that you're only looking at it from the "sex sells" perspecttive. There are other aspects to the female (or male) form that do not relate to sex per se, but to the inherent beauty of those forms. Do you believe that classical nudes in sculpture, painting, etc. were done only because "sex sells?" I hope not.
IMO, the photo in question does not employ nudity in a blatantly sexual manner, but uses the female form as a contrast to the industrial imagery. I'll stop short of trying to interpret the "statement" the photog intended to make, but only say that I personally see plenty of artistic merit in the shot and the concept.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:33:59 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by pekesty:
You're making the assumption that he put it there for that reason. Maybe he just put there because he like the contrast and contradiction between the two. |
As I said earlier, since we can't read the photographer's mind, YES, I am making assumptions.
However, that very assumption is a highly logical one, based on countless concrete examples and common knowledge.
We all find ways to justify things we do that aren't quite right, and at times we get away with it.
That does NOT mean that everybody under the sun has to accept our justifications.
Technically speaking, it is a fine photo, but I have stated often enough what/why it is that I don't like about it.
Obviously we are not going to change each other's opinions.
I will have to live with the fact that sex sells and will therefore be continued to be abused and misused.
YOU (general, whoever this applies to) will have to live with the fact that not everybody likes that idea. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:34:54 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
So you (that means YOU, personally) are trying to tell me that you would have rated the photo with the male model as highly as the original? |
All things being the same, except the model...Yes, I would of voted it the same. Wouldn't of you? I try very hard to vote solely on photographic quality and originality.
Wait a minute, were you trying to say that I'm a chauvanistic pig;) Pig, maybe. Chauvinistic, No:)
Sorry, I have no idea how "chauvanistic" is spelled |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:35:58 PM · #88 |
One of the big lies.
"Nudes----The Study of Human Form"
BS, it is because you want to see naked people. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:37:30 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by pekesty:
You're making the assumption that he put it there for that reason. Maybe he just put there because he like the contrast and contradiction between the two. |
As I said earlier, since we can't read the photographer's mind, YES, I am making assumptions.
However, that very assumption is a highly logical one, based on countless concrete examples and common knowledge.
We all find ways to justify things we do that aren't quite right, and at times we get away with it.
That does NOT mean that everybody under the sun has to accept our justifications.
Technically speaking, it is a fine photo, but I have stated often enough what/why it is that I don't like about it.
Obviously we are not going to change each other's opinions.
I will have to live with the fact that sex sells and will therefore be continued to be abused and misused.
YOU (general, whoever this applies to) will have to live with the fact that not everybody likes that idea. |
Yeah, sex sells...but that's a whole other debate. Let's not get into that one:) |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:38:09 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by pekesty:
Originally posted by MQuinn:
No its not art, In fact I doubt its anyways industrial, I'm supprised my comment to you is missing. Shes grinding on a backing plate of a rear brake, off a chevy maybe, with the brake shoe hanging off. To be honest several things REALLY ticks me off about this photo:
1st she is grinding naked? no safty glasses naked body? HUH? hows that industrial?
2nd Industrial means making something, not grinding a backing plate off a c-1500 pickup, with the brake shoe hanging off.
Not trying to be mean but thats my thoughts. Im really surprised my comment didn't get sent to you. Its not art its push naked look at this, doesn't meat the challange. Sorry being honest... |
Not industrial, why don't you be a little more closed minded. The challenge was to create something industrial feelings. This is art not scientific documentation, what he's showing doesn't have to be accurate and precise. It just has to have an industrial feeling. You're like a lot of the lemmings here that voted on this challenge. If it didn't have a smokestack with smoke coming out of it, it wasn't industrial.
Nudity and art have gone together as long as art has been around. If you have a problem with nudity that's fine, move on and don't vote on it. But don't rip on it just because it don't fit your narrow and closed minded definition of the challenge. |
Too funny, actually I voted a 5 on it anyways for its technical merit. The only reason I didn't vote it higher is I felt it didn't meet the Challenge "TO ME" You can call me all the names you want I personally don't care, I gave my honest opinion. I stand by it, I was not trying to attack anyone.
Message edited by author 2005-12-07 13:39:30. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:38:55 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Do you believe that classical nudes in sculpture, painting, etc. were done only because "sex sells?" I hope not.
|
As I said several times before: nudes (both live and in various artforms) are appropriate in many different circumstances, but not in ALL of them.
Just because it is ok to have a nude challenge, doesn't mean it is ok to use nudity for anything and everything, in places where it simply doesn't belong and makes no sense.
I thought I had typed enough by now, and hopefully in clear enough English, but perhaps I should just give up.
Perhaps you could all try to re-read my Chinese and attempt to understand it. All my repetitions don't seem to make it any clearer.
Could it be time to agree to disagree? |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:41:49 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Too funny, actually I voted a 5 on it anyways for its technical merit. The only reason I didn't vote it higher is I felt it didn't meet the Challenge "TO ME" You can call me all the names you want I personally don't care, I gave my honest opinion. I stand by it, I was not trying to attack anyone. |
I'm not considering any comments an attack. I'm reading every post and taking all opinions into account. I personally think it is a healthy debate.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:41:56 PM · #93 |
Nudes bore me.
Dr. Jones's stuff annoys me because it's juvenile and some of the other 'artsy' stuff with apples here and there just seems pretentious and overdone.
But this one is good, it really is. It really does have an 'Americana' feel to it. Albeit, it's the part of Americana that has been trashed and pornographied (I made that one up) but the photo itself is interesting...and the composition is awesome.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:42:00 PM · #94 |
If you want the recognition you deserve on the shot, then you shouldn't of posted it here. Post it over at photosig and the praises will flood in. It's important to remember who your audience is.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:42:26 PM · #95 |
This was fotomann's vision. It wasnt a partially clad woman, it was a soft skinned woman on a harsh background to show the difference and merge of steel and flesh (my take anyway) His vision was well executed. I think alot of voters need to see more of what the photographer sees when he takes the picture and determine how well they get it across and the technical aspects. Not so much on the personal (though a preference for certain types of photos is a factor) preferences. In this case his message came across well I think and those that voted with thought, though there might be certain things they didnt like, they took the picture for what the photographer was trying to get across. Thats the way to vote.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:43:57 PM · #96 |
It sure seems like people are making a lot of statements in this thread without really reading and thinking about what has been posted.
Everyone agrees the meaning of the picture would change with a fat hairy man just as it would change if she were holding an electric toothbrush.
Is there anyone who does NOT agree that this photo fits very well into the "pin up girl" genre? If not, what part of this photo does not fit into that genre?
Does anyone NOT agree that "pin up girls" are a part of America's culture during the height of great industrial period?
If a person took a photo in the style of a Norman Rockwell painting would you rate their photo poorly because it is an image from a past style and not modern enough?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:49:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Do you believe that classical nudes in sculpture, painting, etc. were done only because "sex sells?" I hope not.
|
As I said several times before: nudes (both live and in various artforms) are appropriate in many different circumstances, but not in ALL of them.
Just because it is ok to have a nude challenge, doesn't mean it is ok to use nudity for anything and everything, in places where it simply doesn't belong and makes no sense.
I thought I had typed enough by now, and hopefully in clear enough English, but perhaps I should just give up.
Perhaps you could all try to re-read my Chinese and attempt to understand it. All my repetitions don't seem to make it any clearer.
Could it be time to agree to disagree? |
OMG, chill!
Sorry I asked that perhaps you might consider a broader viewpoint. I did not deserve the condescending attitude, and no, repeating a point does not make it any more clear, or valid.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:50:30 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
You can call me all the names you want |
No, I didn't call you any names. I apologize if there is any implied name calling. I was simply trying to debate with you, I would never intentionally make this discussion personal or lower the integrity of the coversation.
Again I'm sorry, but it sure sounded like you were raking him over the coals for his choice of how to show industrial feel. |
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:54:04 PM · #99 |
Beetle: If I were to take your theory and apply it to some of my own images, would I be safe in assuming that this image is trying to "sell" something?
This is an example of something that is not "normal" by your classification of what a nude should be (ie: people doing normal things). Am I trying to sell a white sheer fabric? Am I trying to garner attention by displaying a nude form? Personally I think not (but I could be wrong). If you feel this is an acceptable nude, then what differentiates this from fotomann's image?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2005 01:55:54 PM · #100 |
| I must say that I LOVE this shot and rated it very highly in the challenge ... it's too bad to hear that there are so many close minded conservative folks voting on this site ... GREAT WORK |
|
