Is my title going to be offensive to museum curators?

[shaylou]

If you "do not give a damn" about so much why do you care about offending anyone? You obviously "don't give a damn" about mislabeling a person. Are you a doctor and this is your subject or are you just a closed minded judgmental person. (That's rhetorical)...

 

[deeky]

Neither am I a curator, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... and I wouldn't hang it in a gallery. But then I walk past a lot of the crap I see there too.

I think offensiveness would particularly be the case for those that have actually suffered the disease. I think getting it into a gallery as the basis for evaluation is somewhat offensive. Shoot/process well and respect your subjects and the gallery will come.

 

[sleist]

Neither am I a curator, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... and I wouldn't hang it in a gallery. But then I walk past a lot of the crap I see there too.

I think offensiveness would particularly be the case for those that have actually suffered the disease. I think getting it into a gallery as the basis for evaluation is somewhat offensive. Shoot/process well and respect your subjects and the gallery will come.

I'm having problem with the whole "send my photos to museums" concept the OP keeps bringing up.
A gallery will hang what it thinks it can sell (or what an artist pays to have hung in some cases).
I would think a museum curator would be operating under a different set of criteria than mail-in exhibit entries.
I imagine these all end up in the "circular file exhibit".

 

[weepete]

Do we really need to cover this stuff again? I'm pretty sure that by now the OP has a good enough idea of what is thought by the regulars in this forum and however you personally feel or think of his work or what he is trying to do and whither it is achievable is really neither here nor there.

To the OP - I don't think that's a yes or no question. Some may find it offensive others not, but I do think you definatley run the risk of offending with this photo and this title.

 

[Braineack]

Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
The title is irrelevant.

quoted for truth.

 

[12sndsgood]

Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
The title is irrelevant.

I rather find myself agreeing with this. What I see is an image which IMO is poorly composed and grossly over-processed photographed and titled specifically with the intent of producing a controversial subject, rather in the same way that some people photograph the homeless for the "shock value". I'm not a museum curator, nor do I play one on television, but I can't imagine seeing this image displayed in a public gallery.

Don't the majority of his posts always wind up about how his work is in musuems etc. etc. etc. post discusses being offensive. something to well, create controversy. then says he doesnt care wether you like it or not just answer wether a museum creater would find the name offensive. i'd say this is to generate traffic to the photo more then anything. But since ive had absolutly no experience with how musuem curaters act or feel. I will say no. that is my expert opinion.

 

[cgipson1]

I am offended by your title.... primarily because is it not true! You call this art? What museum would possibly be interested in something like this?

I am sure the lady in the image would be very offended by your title... she is not anorexic. I can see why they asked you to leave also... shooting an image of a lady in that body position, from the rear?

I agree with Amolitor... this is more troll than anything....

 

[Ilovemycam]

I don't think that lady is anorexic. Looks like just the victim of old age where muscles and skin tension fade away.

Maybe, she looked skinnier in the front. I did see a great anorexic at the market. Would have loved to shoot her. But it is hard picking people up on the street to shoot like that at their house.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I think in this case, I would be much more concerned with the accuracy of the statement. Why do you think she is anorexic? If you don't know for a fact that she is, then I'd be worried about labeling her something that she isn't. Being labelled an anorexic could have serious effects for the woman in the photograph, and if she is not actually anorexic, I'd be concerned about being held accountable for the damage I caused.

In the front she looked very skinny. She may be thin for some other health reason? I don't know? When street shooting you don't have time to think much, you think later. In this case the anorexic looking body look made me want to shoot her as well as her bright dress. So that was the founding father of the photo as well as my description.

 

[Ilovemycam]

what museum curator would ever see this title?

I don't know even if I will send it out as part of a portfolio. Just feeling it out. It is not a great shot, but it is not trash either. I was just wondering how the title would go over if the pix was at my Tumblr and a curator sqw it. Tumblr is where I keep more of my portfolio. I send my stuff out all over the world. The museums will never knock on my door, so I knock on theirs.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Catholic street fair I was shooting at was going to call the police because they didn‘t want me shooting pix of kids there

Talk about black pots and kettles. sheesh.

Anyhow, the problem isn't that anorexic is offensive, it's that mislabeling something in this way, which to me is not really artistically supportable, is just cheezy bad art.

What museum is in the market for HDR "making something from nothing" cheesily mislabeled art?

So you think she is not a good enough anorexic for the label?

 

[runnah]

In the front she looked very skinny. She may be thin for some other health reason? I don't know? When street shooting you don't have time to think much, you think later. In this case the anorexic looking body look made me want to shoot her as well as her bright dress. So that was the founding father of the photo as well as my description.

Sounds like a very exploitative style of shooting.

Judging from the short hair I would have to say that there is a very good chance she had cancer and had chemo treatment.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I am not sure this applies to art, but as a marketing director, I was unable to use photographs of people if I were using words like anorexic (or any health condition for that matter) if they were in fact not anorexic. Labeling someone is an opening for a slander lawsuit. Just my 2 cents.

Now, is the word anorexic offensive.... not if its used correctly.

Her face is not visible, do you think there is a problem?

 

[cgipson1]

I think in this case, I would be much more concerned with the accuracy of the statement. Why do you think she is anorexic? If you don't know for a fact that she is, then I'd be worried about labeling her something that she isn't. Being labelled an anorexic could have serious effects for the woman in the photograph, and if she is not actually anorexic, I'd be concerned about being held accountable for the damage I caused.

In the front she looked very skinny. She may be thin for some other health reason? I don't know? When street shooting you don't have time to think much, you think later. In this case the anorexic looking body look made me want to shoot her as well as her bright dress. So that was the founding father of the photo as well as my description.

So you assume she is anorexic just because she is not part of the obesity problem? Or maybe you aren't aware of what advanced aging does to the human body, especially when there are not massive amounts of lipid tissue to hide the muscular atrophy and skin stretching that occurs?

"Founding father of the photo"? .. jeez.. what a goofy metaphor.... lol.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Im curious as to the thought process for deciding on the title.
Why use the word "anorexic" at all?
Why not "woman under a storm"
or just "under a storm"
"Colorful dress in a storm"?

Did you use that word to produce some sort of visceral response from people?
Anorexia is a medical condition. Are you certain she has it?

I don't personally find anything offensive.
I think people that are "offended" by something are too often using the word "offensive" to mask their own issues or inadequacies.

I also think the exact same thing about people that purposely use known "offensive" language and imagery to evoke an emotionally negative response from other people. (not saying that is or is not the case here, i have no idea what your intent was obviously)

Anyway, the picture isn't really my cup of tea, and having no experience whatsoever with museum art, i cannot say whether a curator would or would not have issues with either the title or the picture itself.

As I said. I decided to shoot her because she looked like a anorexic and anorexics have always interested me in shooting.