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.
artandrevolution
 
Posts: 236


Post Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:29 pm


Honestly the only thing i can say to the people who dont like my answere and "critique" is "who cares".
the only reason i even gave my opinion is because the poster asked for people to join the critique. You may not like my opinion and i may not like yours and I may have a different idea as to what "objectifying women" means then a man, but it is MY opinion. So before you get all of your panties in a twist because i think crotch shots and tit shots are boring and overrated and show nothing of desire but more perversion of desire, maybe everyone here who "likes" the photos should go back to art school or pick up a book on composition and lighting. again. thats just my opinion and i DO have the right to make one. even if you dont like it.
or simply just dont ask for it.
"The role of the revolutionary artist is to make revolution irresistable"

rotaford
 
Posts: 402

Back To The Original Post.

Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:27 am


We do appreciate the opinions here,I think. What is noted by others is the obvious anger by those who vote "poor taste". Some of us voted "good taste" and moved on. After all,he asked opinions of whether it was "good taste or poor taste". The denigrating of those who would vote in the affirmative is where we swerved off the question. I stated that in my opinion the images were not "in poor taste". I surely don't refer to those who vote "poor taste" in some negative terms. We just disagree. It's the displaced anger that stands out with the name calling based on our "opinion".

janniklindquist
 
Posts: 139

Re: Back To The Original Post.

Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:41 am


rotaford wrote:We do appreciate the opinions here,I think. What is noted by others is the obvious anger by those who vote "poor taste". Some of us voted "good taste" and moved on. After all,he asked opinions of whether it was "good taste or poor taste". The denigrating of those who would vote in the affirmative is where we swerved off the question. I stated that in my opinion the images were not "in poor taste". I surely don't refer to those who vote "poor taste" in some negative terms. We just disagree. It's the displaced anger that stands out with the name calling based on our "opinion".


Very well put, Ford. It would be really cool with a simple answer to what we are saying, artandrevolution.

ethicalheretic
 
Posts: 203


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:21 pm


First of all, I am a woman. But unlike two other women who have posted on here, I don't have a problem with men photographing women outside of a studio of professional models. As long as women have bodies men will find them attractive and desirable and visually appealing and will be painting, photographing and sculpting their likenesses. Some more, some less, "artistically" than others. But isn't art, like beauty, rather in the eye of the beholder, and isn't that why it is so hard to define? And even if it isn't "art" does that mean one should not photograph, paint, or sculpt it? Does everything we create have to be "art"? I certainly hope not!

ehreng
 
Posts: 256


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:53 pm


I suppose my difficulty in agreeing is that for several of the images posted in this thread, I'm personally not seeing the consideration that went into the shot... And maybe that's just me. I happen to like several of the images in the gallery jfhasson was asking about in the first place. And the first image posted directly into this thread as well (rotaford's), I don't think should even be in question. To me that's just someone excitedly leaning over a fence to see something on the other side, and what she's wearing has nothing whatever to do with my interpretation of it.
The other examples provided are the ones I have personal issue with. As was pointed out, why are faces cropped out? Frankly I'd just be interested in the decision making process there, if the reason isn't personal privacy. But I'd like to ask Geri (because these are the images that relate to my question) what is the process for deciding to take a picture of someone's rear? I guess I just don't understand the point of the image but I'd be glad to be enlightened. (and I swear, I am making no attempt to be rude, I'm really curious!)
Thanks!
Last edited by ehreng on Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

bolton
 
Posts: 299


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:51 pm


Glad no one's bringing me into this!

newtothescenery
 
Posts: 97


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:16 pm


LOL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Good taste vs. Bad taste" turned into a voyeur gallery! hahaha laughs, and more laughs. Well, I wouldn't really classify the following as voyeur, but rather slight exhibition (?) 8)

I call this, boobies in the toobies.
Image

And this was before the boobies in the toobies started.
Image

Oh, and how bout these booty/booby shots.. they look as provocative as your pictures :wink:
Image
Image

I better stop before I start posting all my galleries :P

BTW, In my own opinion - I dont think your photo's are about good or bad taste. Rather, I think its more of who's style it fits. I'd say about 80% of male viewers will like it, whereas the latter wouldn't. The 20% would probably include homosexuals, priests, and that sort of thing. Psst... maybe todd is just gay, or a priest, or a gay priest... :lol:

artandrevolution
 
Posts: 236


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:23 pm


I think people are misinterpreting what i said.
a)i never called anyone names.
b) i thought the actual photography was shot poorly. and had nothing to do with the subject matter.
and
c.) i actually often take pictures of other women that are scantily clad. and some i even cut off the heads. I just think mine are more classy. classy is sexy too.
"The role of the revolutionary artist is to make revolution irresistable"

janniklindquist
 
Posts: 139


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:14 pm


artandrevolution wrote:I think people are misinterpreting what i said.
a)i never called anyone names.
b) i thought the actual photography was shot poorly. and had nothing to do with the subject matter.
and
c.) i actually often take pictures of other women that are scantily clad. and some i even cut off the heads. I just think mine are more classy. classy is sexy too.


I'm sorry, but you did call someone names - more or less directly. You accused photographers who does photos such as the ones discussed in this thread of being guilty of "objectifying women" and also guilty of not "trying to use the camera to study the female figure" but instead being "just someone who likes tits and ass". That's *very* condemning words and it's certainly not just an opinion. Actually, I find it quite hard to believe that you buy that relativistic "opinion"-rubbish yourself. You obviously have strong moral believes. Why don't you acknowledge that openly instead of hiding behind cliches about differences of opinion?

You are certainly free to think that the pictures discussed are technically and/or aesthetically bad. What I would like to know is how that makes the photographers of those pictures morally bad?

artandrevolution
 
Posts: 236


Post Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:18 pm


Telling someone that the way they portray women as "objectifying" is not calling anyone "names" in the sense of calling someone an asshole or jerk.
Obviously we could debate this for hours but i dont see anything "subjective" about the photographs. Maybe i do have a certain sense of "morality" as you would call it, but i dont think the photographer is a "bad" person but i do believe that all men inherently objectify women routinely even if they dont think they do. Sexism, Racism and Classism are all realities that people face everydady. I simply just called it like i saw it.
would you rather have me have lied?
people didnt like that thread i made either...
I also dont really take any of this very seriously, i mean...it is just a messageboard. but again, i guess that's the amusing nature of it for me.
"The role of the revolutionary artist is to make revolution irresistable"

jfhasson
 
Posts: 16


Post Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:15 am


Important questions raised by the Voyeur debate :

1) "what is art ?". The answer is quite simple : if you pay 23 $ a year to Emily & Slug here in PBase, then you will be referred to as a "PBase artist", which settles the problem. Since Mozart did not pay 23 $ to Emily & Slug, the question "was Mozart an artist ?" remains open, however.

2) "must one belong to some blacklist to be a TRUE artist ?". Charlie Chaplin belonged to Senator McCarthy's blacklist, which is a clue. So I take the liberty here to thank Todd for having included me to his blacklist of PBase users. Everyone here should write to Tood & hopefully get blacklisted, hence upgrading as an artist. In fact, I did not start the debate : Todd did. Please check 15 february comment :
http://www.pbase.com/jfhasson/voyeur_below
(The true reason why I posted in the forum is that it's quite unhealthy to leave nasty words unanswered. Shooting & chatting keep me healthy.)

3) PBase user Art & Revolution "suspects" me of being of male gender. I, of course, plead guilty. "Art & Revolution" ungratefully called me part of the problem, not of the solution. This is forgetting that hundreds of people so far read "Art & Revolution" point of view thanks to the Voyeur debate.

jfhasson
 
Posts: 16


Post Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:57 am


Answer to ehreng :

First of all, thanks for you nice comments on my OTHER photos !

Most of the times there is no "decision-making" process in my voyeur gallery photos. Street shooting is a matter of milliseconds. Desire & shoot, like a spider to its prey, I just cannot resist. I guess one day I will have enough of it.

One exception though : a woman in the street did ask me to photograph her. So there was a decision making process : I lied down on the pavement trying to look under her miniskirt, people around staring... She's easy to spot in the gallery
http://www.pbase.com/jfhasson/voyeur_below
(white miniskirt & green top)

Most of the times "models" that spotted me are happy, & I get a smile.

The surprising thing is that the most agressive reactions come when I photogtaph a person's face. Then you sometimes get into streetfighting.

I am not a professional artist, but I suspect desire has something to do with art. How many nude sculptures and paintings since 5000 years ?

Cheers.

Jean-François.

rileypm
 
Posts: 678


Post Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:39 am


jfhasson wrote:

Important questions raised by the Voyeur debate :

1) "what is art ?". The answer is quite simple : if you pay 23 $ a year to Emily & Slug here in PBase, then you will be referred to as a "PBase artist", which settles the problem. Since Mozart did not pay 23 $ to Emily & Slug, the question "was Mozart an artist ?" remains open, however.

2) "must one belong to some blacklist to be a TRUE artist ?". Charlie Chaplin belonged to Senator McCarthy's blacklist, which is a clue. So I take the liberty here to thank Todd for having included me to his blacklist of PBase users. Everyone here should write to Tood & hopefully get blacklisted, hence upgrading as an artist. In fact, I did not start the debate : Todd did. Please check 15 february comment :
http://www.pbase.com/jfhasson/voyeur_below
(The true reason why I posted in the forum is that it's quite unhealthy to leave nasty words unanswered. Shooting & chatting keep me healthy.)

3) PBase user Art & Revolution "suspects" me of being of male gender. I, of course, plead guilty. "Art & Revolution" ungratefully called me part of the problem, not of the solution. This is forgetting that hundreds of people so far read "Art & Revolution" point of view thanks to the Voyeur debate.


Just to set things straight a bit, unless terms of service and the such has changed here on pbase, this is a photo sharing web site not an art gallery. I don't think slug or emily have said otherwise (if they have, I have somehow missed it and apologize).

Todd did not start this debate, jfhasson did by asking for a debate in the thread's title.

On a different note, it is often difficult to get a good "ass" shot and include the face as they seem to be at odds with each other. (I have seen some folks, however, where the differences were minor).

To have a collection of photos of women's "asses" or "tits" is up to whoever is taking the photo. If it is in the open and in public it would seem that it is fair game. Just like all else, if it offends click out of it.

newtothescenery
 
Posts: 97


Post Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:07 am


I think all those who oppose Jean and his work should simply stfu, especially the chickenheads. Those super negative critiques, or rather insults seem to arise from so-called artists that can't do much better themselves. This is called hate, and is utilized by those called haters. Quit hating, and go drink some haterade. Jeez - I hate all those fat headed big ego'd low class artists that think their artistic skills are better than those of others. Remember, just like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. If I say it's art, and it's beautiful, then god damnit - THATS WHAT IT IS. IT IS WHAT IT IS - GOT IT?
Canon EOS 30D, EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM, EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM, BG-E2 Grip, 580EX, http://www.BlendedEvents.com

artandrevolution
 
Posts: 236


Post Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:53 pm


speaking of hate..that last post sounds awefully hating.
Personally i was neither offended by the photographs or really care much about it either way. The dude asked for a debate so i suppose he got one. eh?I feel more inclined to say that if you dont want someone's opinion then they shouldnt post "DEBATE HERE IN THIS THREAD" on a public forum. If i saw the gallery in "most populars" i wouldnt have clicked on it.
"The role of the revolutionary artist is to make revolution irresistable"

PreviousNext

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ddecroix, luxun54 and 2 guests