Filthy Rotten Porn - Warning explicit sexual content

[vonnagy]

I had alot of trouble deciding whether I should post this or not, but with the suggestions of our mods I decided to go ahead.

Do not click on the link below:

1. If you are offended by the depiction of sexual acts
2. If its against the laws of your city, state or country or community
3. If you are MDowdy (just kidding mate, I know you've already seen this )


Please keep in mind that I want a critique of the photos most of all, secondly please state you views whether you think this is pornography or not (please keep it civil and mature)

cheers!

If you are not offended by any of the above tenets, See Filthy Rotten Porn

(btw Chase titled this for me )

 

[MDowdey]

i for one thought the pictures were gritty, well taken, and poignant.


i find the contrast between the act and the grass around it to be very interesting....great work mark!!



md

 

[graigdavis]

as soon as the site is working Ill let you know what I think. :?

 

[Big Mike]

First, I like the color versions better. The green color gives nature a more of a prominent feel. I think that your photos work with the conflict of nature vs. man/garbage/litter...or nature vs Man's worst...or even Man at his most natural.

With that in mind, I don't like the third in the series...too close. I'd like to see a wider shot that showed more of the forest. The shot is not made by the object...but by it's being in the forest.

Is it porn?...well I don't think that your portrayal is pornographic. The object is in of itself pornographic but you are not merely reproducing it with your photos.

 

[Digital Matt]

as soon as the site is working Ill let you know what I think. :?

Ditto, not working.

 

[vonnagy]

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information.

Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later.
http://www.geocities.com/vonnagy/bw-smut.htm

:?
i will try and see whats up with during my lunch break. I didn't want to post them here and i don't have enough space on my site.

Thanks Mike & MDowdy for your input.

 

[terri]

Apparently the site is getting a lot of hits.... It remains unavailable, Kiwi.

 

[vonnagy]

try this:
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/vonnagy/bw-smut.htm

 

[terri]

Oh, definitely prefer the B&W....it adds to the grittiness that I assume is what led you to capture the image in the first place. I dig it; and since it is merely an image of a pornographic image that has been trashed (for whatever reason) it's almost one of those "story" kind of pics (who trashed it? how long has it been lying there in the garbage? I wouldn't call pornographic at all. It's more journalistic in presentation, imo.

Gee...here I thought you'd been out there with a couple of Lucky Dog's car models, or something! :?

 

[graigdavis]

Interesting idea. Its not porn. I couldnt really tell there was a guy there untill I saw the color pictures.

I guess the pictures dont really strike any cords with me. I almost wish there was something else beside it that put a contrast to it. I guess Im trying to find the purpose of the picture. Or Im just reading into it too much.

All together nice work though.

 

[markc]

I like the third one in B&W. There are a lot of different ways to read it, but one of the first things that came to mind was the deterioration of the pron print industry with the spread of the Internet. I'm guessing that none of the magazines are in any financial trouble; I'm sure they all have pay web sites; but I would think that the mags don't sell like they used too.

I think it would have been even more appropriate if it had been a Playboy, depending on your point of view. From a few shots I've seen recently, it seems like they are a lot more explicit than they used to be, which could be seen as a deterioration into the general crotch-shot that is it's competition. In my mind, Playboy has had a distorted view of what beauty is for a while now, but it seems it's getting more and more about the naughty bits.

 

[photogoddess]

I am thinking art, not porn. Interesting how hetero porn was discarded near a nude, male gay beach. :shock:

 

[malachite]

Well I'm totally offended! Appauled that someone would treat a fine magazine that way and then leave it as trash The nerve............

Seriously though, I dig the B&W versions. Strikes me as abstract because you have 2 different subjects going on at the same time coming together. The images on the mag being one and then the magazine itself in it's environment. One of those images that make you think a lot and come up with different senarios in your head.

Would be an awsome Theme now that I think of it. Images of images in different places. Tons of ideas are now flooding through my head for a new project. Thanks for the motivation vonnagy.....................

 

[vonnagy]

First, I like the color versions better. The green color gives nature a more of a prominent feel. I think that your photos work with the conflict of nature vs. man/garbage/litter...or nature vs Man's worst...or even Man at his most natural.

Its interestting you should that, I was having a chat with Chase about the pics and we felt the colour pics also made the 'porn' bits stand out more making the shots look more gaudy and trashy. But the green, as you say also make the natural environment stand out more.

I myself prefer the b&w, but thats just my personal preference. I am a bit partial to the first b&w because the way it blends with the enviroment, especially if you look like upper right hand corner - its a blending of nature and enviroment. I could have tweak the contrast more to get the mag to stand out more but I kinda like the effect.

Anyways, I really appreciate your comments here. I don't really consider this groundbreaking stuff, but i did think it was interesting subject cheers!

 

[manda]

Yeah my thoughts still stand too matey.
BW is definitely better...