| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2007 02:34:50 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I wonder if photopro81 is Jack? :-)
Could be a big fan I suppose, but wow, if so, he knows his stuff. |
Looks like there's some connection to Sturges, judging by the name in his profile. Article. |
well like i said its kinda bizarre it the only post he made, like he googled the internet for anything related to Jock and jumped into the fray |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 03:08:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
well like i said its kinda bizarre it the only post he made, like he googled the internet for anything related to Jock and jumped into the fray |
Why is this bizarre? It's not at all uncommon for people to keep track of what's being said about them, especially if their work is controversial. If this IS Jock responding, I think it's generous of him to share his technique so openly, and i think it's wise of him to completely ignore the peripheral discussion of "pornography vs art" that cropped up.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 03:31:58 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
... Not only are there few artists on this site, there are few that even recognize art. |
Are you saying that you are the sole arbiter of taste around here?
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 03:42:57 PM · #29 |
| Sorry if Im missing the plot here but I do not see this guys photos as 'Art' so stick me in a box with the rest of the non believers to be frank, I find his 'art' quite disturbing. |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 04:00:25 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
A controversial photographer to be sure, I am wondering your thoughts on him but I also wonder how he got such gorgeous tones on those black and white shots? |
Looks like we can discuss the man and his work, not just his technique. SO since this wont be taking the thread off topic.
Why does he only seem to shoot little girls? I don't care if it is close family and friends, if a photog buddy of mine wanted to take a nude picture of my 13 year old sister, he would get punched in the mouth.
Putting little girls into a contrapposto pose to amplify their sexuality is not art to me rather more exploitation. The fact his stuff hangs in museums does not make it art. The quality of his images and technique may but I just can't get my head around photographing prepubescent girls naked.
Flame on! |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:07:13 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by smardaz:
well like i said its kinda bizarre it the only post he made, like he googled the internet for anything related to Jock and jumped into the fray |
Why is this bizarre? It's not at all uncommon for people to keep track of what's being said about them, especially if their work is controversial. If this IS Jock responding, I think it's generous of him to share his technique so openly, and i think it's wise of him to completely ignore the peripheral discussion of "pornography vs art" that cropped up.
R. |
no one said it was jock himself, but someone associated with him |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:08:28 PM · #32 |
| Google the guy's name, he is just another photog and participates in a variety of sites. |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:09:51 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by smardaz:
A controversial photographer to be sure, I am wondering your thoughts on him but I also wonder how he got such gorgeous tones on those black and white shots? |
Looks like we can discuss the man and his work, not just his technique. SO since this wont be taking the thread off topic.
Why does he only seem to shoot little girls? I don't care if it is close family and friends, if a photog buddy of mine wanted to take a nude picture of my 13 year old sister, he would get punched in the mouth.
Putting little girls into a contrapposto pose to amplify their sexuality is not art to me rather more exploitation. The fact his stuff hangs in museums does not make it art. The quality of his images and technique may but I just can't get my head around photographing prepubescent girls naked.
Flame on! |
I'll play devils advocate here. People love to take pictures of their children naked so when is the cutoff? Is there a point when it suddenly becomes not cool? People in other cultures have much more relaxed views on nudity than we do, and a family nude together at the beach is seen as no big deal. |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:25:03 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Come off it. Anyone who's ever heard of Jock Sturges knows that bringing up his name here is like stirring a hornets nest. |
A search only shows three threads in the DPC forums over the last five years that mention him. However, I agree that, OP's intention or not, it should have been easy to guess where the focus of this conversation would end up.
By the way, the website that contains those photos is beautifully done! Try checking out some of the other photographers:
//www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:45:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
I'll play devils advocate here. People love to take pictures of their children naked so when is the cutoff? Is there a point when it suddenly becomes not cool? |
"Putting little girls into a contrapposto pose to amplify their sexuality..."
That is the point it becomes not cool.
Originally posted by smardaz:
People in other cultures have much more relaxed views on nudity than we do, and a family nude together at the beach is seen as no big deal. |
True. I understand that I may be a prude according to other cultures but in today's day and age, for me (I can only speak for me), this is not acceptable. |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:53:11 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Google the guy's name, he is just another photog and participates in a variety of sites. |
Exactly.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/05/2025 11:38:49 PM EDT.
