Wondering....

[Hertz van Rental]

I can never quite get my head around people who like 'Art' but only so long as it is censored. Part of Art's job is to offend - in an attempt to make people confront their own prejudices and attitudes. If you censor Art (or discussions around it) then you emasculate it and it becomes worthless.
Having said that I do appreciate that all of us are different in our own ways: it would be a boring world if we were all the same. But if people feel they have a right to be able to go places in here and not be offended, I think that I have an equal right to a place where the opposite is true.

 

[markc]

Here's my view:

If you post links to nude pictures, it's polite to mention that there is nudity there. Asking someone to warn that a particular artist does nudes is going a bit far in my book. You are placing responsibility for your particular requirements on someone else. It's up to you to do some research before looking at any pictures.

I have zero problem with the human body. I believe it's a beautiful, natural thing. That said, I'm uncomfortable with a lot of the rightious stances being made. They are being just as judgemental of someone being uncomfortable with nudity as they are being accused of being. Art is what people make of it. It's certainly possible to enjoy landscapes, trains, still-art, etc., all without encountering nudity. How does being uncomfortable mean that the person has no right to post, as was suggested in another thread? How can anyone claim what makes art? And worse yet, art for another person. Forcing an acceptance of nudity on somone is just as bad as forcing a rejection of it.

An opinion on nudity was stated, and a request made. There was no mention of censorship, just supplying a warning. While many may feel this request is unwarranted, talk about that, not some knee-jerk reaction to censorship. Straw men are very easy to knock down.

 

[motcon]

How can anyone claim what makes art? And worse yet, art for another person. Forcing an acceptance of nudity on somone is just as bad as forcing a rejection of it.

i haven't seen any post suggesting forced acceptance of nudity. not one.

Asking someone to warn that a particular artist does nudes is going a bit far in my book.

An opinion on nudity was stated, and a request made. There was no mention of censorship, just supplying a warning. While many may feel this request is unwarranted, talk about that, not some knee-jerk reaction to censorship. Straw men are very easy to knock down.

you are correct; straw men are easy to knock down. you just contradicted yourself.

what i fail to fathom are the lofty suggestions to be objective about the subject. does no one have the heels to dig in and state, very clearly:

1. if you are going to do research, you are responsible for what you find. if you don't like it, turn away
2. the very first form of art was the nude
3. the root of being offended by a nude is 'shame'. it's an instilled close minded vision. it threatens the growth and progress of art as a whole


i've seen many images of alcoholic beverages posted. would my request that they not be shown get the same attention? i mean, my uncle died at the age of 57 due to being an alcoholic and i could be sensitive to the subject.

i'm slightly balding at the crown. if i requested that no photos of bald men be posted would the subject get the same attention? afterall, i could harbor some 'shame' of my balding ....

a nude. a bottle of beer. a balding man. all just subject matter. no one is responsible for anyone's feelings but the owner of those feelings. art doesn't walk on eggshells. nor do artists.

as previously mentioned, there weren't even photographs posted. research was done by someone off of this forum.

art is emotive. it is meant to move. it is meant to shock. it is meant to calm. it is meant to, in the end, bind us all by facing the world in which we live and be humbled by it, shocked by it, thrilled by it.

i'm literally shaking my head in amazement at the group think syndrome that is pervasive in this thread.

this is 101 stuff people!

what's next? no photos of gummi bears because they were the pivotal piece in an award winning show/movie about a transexual?

** edit:

But if people feel they have a right to be able to go places in here and not be offended, I think that I have an equal right to a place where the opposite is true.

well said.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I cannot, for the life of me, see any 'knee-jerk' reactions to censorship in this thread - only one or two (including my own) personal opinions about Art and Censorship. That these opinions should be voiced in this discussion is only proper, considering what sparked this thread.
I can't see any righteous stances either - well, I can see one.
But to get back to the original point - I made the request for a new area just so that people with diametrically opposed viewpoints could all have somewhere to go without offending each other (or getting into pointless and unwinable arguments). Considering how many members this forum has, and how big an area Photography covers, I feel that we should do all we can to accomodate as many different viewpoints as possible.
Oh, and Markc please forgive me if I am wrong but isn't your post being a teensie bit judgemental? ;-)

 

[Alison]

Ask and ye shall receive. There is a new forum called Photographer Discussion. Have fun and play nice.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Thanks Alison. I'd ask you to marry me but I don't think I'd get very far.... :mrgreen:

(I feel like a kid with a new toy and I'm desperate to go play with it - but as usual at such times my mind has gone a complete blank... What do you mean, 'no change there then'? )