Board index PBase Show and Tell Voyeur, good taste & poor taste debate

Show and Tell

Voyeur, good taste & poor taste debate

Announce and discuss your photos.
jfhasson
 
Posts: 16

Voyeur, good taste & poor taste debate

Post Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:16 am


Hi

A debate about "good & poor taste" started in my gallery :

http://www.pbase.com/jfhasson/voyeur_below

You are welcome to join.

Thank you.

Jean-François.

rotaford
 
Posts: 402

Voyeur,Good Taste,Bad Taste

Post Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:06 am


In my opinion everything on your sight is in good taste. The natural order is for us to be intrigued by the visual of the opposite sex and to desire to see what is normally hidden. I saw nothing there that approached poor taste in my view......but I may have a broad view! Image http://www.pbase.com/rotaford

geri
 
Posts: 86


Post Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:10 am


I stay with the meaning of rotaford.

And:
Pictures are a short moment of life, sometimes from a different view/angle...

Image Image

Greets
Geri

bolton
 
Posts: 299


Post Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:28 pm


I'm with Rotaford!! Not to mention his wife is very hot. I thought I recognized those legs!! Here's my input.

Image

http://www.pbase.com/bolton

antorug
 
Posts: 4493


Post Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:12 pm



artandrevolution
 
Posts: 236


Post Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:16 pm


i love these debates.
First of all. As a female and artist I find most of the photographs to be just bad snapshots and objectifying women. I dont particularly see any evidence of someone trying to use the camera to study the female figure. Just someone who likes tits and ass.
I suppose if you (the shooter) were going for just that then, well, ok. But as a man (as i suspect you are), and if you are truly inspired in an artistic sense, I suggest you study how in this society, men consistently objectify women and how you are part of the problem, and not the solution.
If you just like shooting tits and ass, I'd suggest you try getting more action from your wife or girlfriend or bringing your camera in the bedroom. It would be more creative either way.
"The role of the revolutionary artist is to make revolution irresistable"

rotaford
 
Posts: 402

Someone Must Say It!

Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:01 am


O.K. I'll say it. The premise of the last post is that if a "male" photographer appreciates an outdoor scene in which a female human really attracts his eye he is "objectifying" women. Then I'm guilty as charged. I will state that I am honoring the God given beauty that I see and sharing it with like minded photographers but in the mind of some people I must be disrespecting womanhood in general......give us a break.http://www.pbase.com/rotaford

homerhomer
 
Posts: 104


Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:52 am


artandrevolution wrote:i love these debates.
First of all. As a female and artist I find most of the photographs to be just bad snapshots and objectifying women. I dont particularly see any evidence of someone trying to use the camera to study the female figure. Just someone who likes tits and ass.
I suppose if you (the shooter) were going for just that then, well, ok. But as a man (as i suspect you are), and if you are truly inspired in an artistic sense, I suggest you study how in this society, men consistently objectify women and how you are part of the problem, and not the solution.
If you just like shooting tits and ass, I'd suggest you try getting more action from your wife or girlfriend or bringing your camera in the bedroom. It would be more creative either way.


100% agree, unfortunately because of loosers like this running with their long lenses to find a tit or a panty, street photography is just less enjoyable since we are all suspects. I always wonder if these peeping tom artist wouldn't have a problem if another "artist" photographed their doughter, mother or sister in such a fashion. Guess not :roll: And I am sure their mothers, doughters or sisters would be thrilled to be part of this type of "art".

You want to show the beauty of human body, hire a model (or at least come out your hiding hole).

rotaford
 
Posts: 402

Reality Please!

Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:21 am


Please note these terms used in the last post: "loosers","suspects","peeping tom","artist",and "hiding hole". From what I discern the images are of subjects in public places,in non-degrading or otherwise non- private situations. Capturing an image of a bird,car,or train in the open environment is "artistic" but a human female is somehow reprehensible???? I'm not broke but I'm just not buying it.[/url]

ehreng
 
Posts: 256


Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:39 am


I'd like to add my two cents to this debate... First of all, yes I'm female and I do think the photos are, overall, inappropriate. However, if the woman in the picture is okay with it, who are we to fuss? I think several of jhaffson's photos, which started this debate, are just fine from an artistic perspective and the others are, indeed, just "tits and ass" snapshots... if you like looking at them, suit yourself but they don't represent art to me. As for other contributers to this particular debate... I think we all know a shot of someone's thong isn't art and is in poor taste... but so is running around in public with your thong hanging out!! No one should expect to sit in public with their legs wide open or their undewear hanging out and then get offended later when they turn up in a photo. Just my very blunt opinion. I don't like the photos but I don't have to look at them and neither does anyone else.

rotaford
 
Posts: 402

REPLY

Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:27 am


"I think we all know a shot of someone's thong isn't art". I may not know what art is but I surely can't define what isn't. Is a shot of an abandoned truck art? Is a shot of a bee on a flower art? Is a shot of a fungi in a cave art? I have seen and taken many photos of various subjects and I find it odd that some people choose to define "art" for others. I can't define it for myself.

ehreng
 
Posts: 256


Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:27 pm


touche, you're right it is everyone's opinion. But for what it's worth, I do not think a photo of a mushroom in a cave is art, to cite your example, which is one of my photographs. I take those pictures not as 'art' but to share something with all interested, that a large portion of the world would never see otherwise. I hope you don't put a picture of someone's thong hanging out of her pants in the same group as my caving images.

janniklindquist
 
Posts: 139


Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:18 pm


artandrevolution wrote:i love these debates.
First of all. As a female and artist I find most of the photographs to be just bad snapshots and objectifying women. I dont particularly see any evidence of someone trying to use the camera to study the female figure. Just someone who likes tits and ass.
I suppose if you (the shooter) were going for just that then, well, ok. But as a man (as i suspect you are), and if you are truly inspired in an artistic sense, I suggest you study how in this society, men consistently objectify women and how you are part of the problem, and not the solution.
If you just like shooting tits and ass, I'd suggest you try getting more action from your wife or girlfriend or bringing your camera in the bedroom. It would be more creative either way.


Why do I "objectify" a woman, if I desire her? Who are you to judge that I do not respect her as a human being, just because I desire her?

Furthermore, let's take the first shot in this thread - the one of a woman bending over a fence. Is she just an innocent victim who solely wears a very short and very thin dress because it's hot outside? Or is she a woman confident in her own attractiveness who enjoys being noticed and, indeed, desired? Quite obviously the latter. Why is the desiring man, then, more guilty than her? And why is the photographer more guilty than any other man - or woman - who desired her that day (or any other day)?

Finally, by what divine powers do you know that a man who desires other women than his wife, does not get - or give - enough at home? By what divine powers do you claim that is wrong to desire other people than ones wife, husband etc?

janniklindquist
 
Posts: 139


Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:50 pm


Image

Is the photographer a voyeur - or is the girl an exhibitionist? Or both?

homerhomer
 
Posts: 104

Re: Reality Please!

Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:53 pm


rotaford wrote:Please note these terms used in the last post: "loosers","suspects","peeping tom","artist",and "hiding hole". From what I discern the images are of subjects in public places,in non-degrading or otherwise non- private situations. Capturing an image of a bird,car,or train in the open environment is "artistic" but a human female is somehow reprehensible???? I'm not broke but I'm just not buying it.[/url]


well poeple have a right to choose the subjects to photograph and how to photograph them, and I have a right to call their actions and the photographers how I see fit. Also the term art isn't all that easy to define, for me the subject doesn't define if it's art or not, but a photographer in the way he or she presents the subject.

BTW, why in most pictures like this we can't see the face, it's either taken from the back or the picture is cropped below the neck? is someone afraid of something? Gotta be a reason for it.

Next

Board index PBase Show and Tell Voyeur, good taste & poor taste debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests