Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
El Gringo wrote: Society decays for any number of reasons. Poverty is the worst. I think perhaps, nudity in society is not a cause but an effect of other problems. Julius Ceasar said that "Poverty is the mother of all crime." Poverty fosters immorality. Decay stems from poverty not from nudity. To think that society will be destroyed because of nudity, is absurd, narrow-minded, even ignorant. -el gringo I have to disagree a little with this generalization gringo. Poverty by itself does not cause these kinds of problems. I think poverty in the midst of wealth may. Its when you have a mixture of well-to-do and not-well-to-do that you have problems. Both from exploitation and greed/resentment. If you look at societies where you have only poverty, you see very little of these kind of problems, especially crime. Of course this is not always true either. I have personally visited a town in Mexico that I would say is as poor as anything I have ever seen, yet the people were very content, despite their lack of comforts/wealth. They were'nt starving or anything, but they had no running water, no electricity, no toilets, no phone, no access to medicine/medical care, were extremely remote, had no real protection from the elements aside from a simple mud hut, yet I have never seen a place where people respected each other as much. There was ABSOLUTELY no crime. It was unthinkable, there was no cultural precedent for this nor did it come up in people's minds of how to gain from taking advantage of others. What you had was a neighbor helping neighbor mindset that prevented people from falling through the net. Government was non-existent (thank goodness), with very little communication with the outside world. Its been quite a few years since I've been there, but I had seen something similar in another town, and it fell apart when their wealth increased due to government intervention, roads, electricity, running water, etc. In that example, all of a sudden a new generation was brought up exposed to more wealth and the knowledge of even more wealth in the big cities and the cultural resistance to crime slowly decayed. So its more complicated than just poverty, there are other elements in the mix that make people in those circumstances react in immoral/unethical ways. rg
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi Stan, I appreciate your sentiments. I do appreciate that someone is exploring their beliefs (though personally I doubt that, and would suggest exploring in other fashions), a... I have to say this to Paul, especially, since I don't want him to get the wrong impression (which I suspect he hasn't). It was thoughtful and appropriate that he post a warning regarding the content of his photos. I was not "offended", as I did not look. I just wish we hadn't broached the subject matter at all. In reference to distortion of images... I'm not sure to which you're referring. Tom C. From: Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:18:16 -0500 I usually avoid getting into one of these side-bar discussions. But I do want to note here that I am very impressed and appreciative that Bob B. and Tom C. and others have been able to express their objections without screaming, yelling, or accusing anyone of being the devil in disguise. And people by and large have responded to their objections without invective, distortion, or any of the other verbal spices that so often lead to verbal blows on this forum. Antonio, there is a model here you could learn from. And since I have gotten started... Bob, Tom, one thing you might want to reflect on that may make you more comfortable with the image of the last supper: a famous painter once misrepresented a scene that is portrayed in the Gospels. The image is not the truth. The Word is the truth. And so now someone has done a parody of that false image to make a point about their own beliefs. Maybe you could celebrate that there is someone who is actively exploring and displaying their beliefs rather than rejecting the person and their art because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Stan On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: Thanks! I appreciate hearing your opinion. It differs from mine, but you're entitled to it. Knowing other folks opinions is a Privilege. After all, they don't have to tell you. Regards, Bob... From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my permission to ridicule me for stating it. Okay Bob: RIDICULOUS Here's my request: I think things work pretty well the way things are, I haven't noticed any bombardment of sexual images. I think anyone who considers posting images of a similar nature in the future should not be discouraged.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I usually avoid getting into one of these side-bar discussions. But I do want to note here that I am very impressed and appreciative that Bob B. and Tom C. and others have been able to express their objections without screaming, yelling, or accusing anyone of being the devil in disguise. And people by and large have responded to their objections without invective, distortion, or any of the other verbal spices that so often lead to verbal blows on this forum. Antonio, there is a model here you could learn from. And since I have gotten started... Bob, Tom, one thing you might want to reflect on that may make you more comfortable with the image of the last supper: a famous painter once misrepresented a scene that is portrayed in the Gospels. The image is not the truth. The Word is the truth. And so now someone has done a parody of that false image to make a point about their own beliefs. Maybe you could celebrate that there is someone who is actively exploring and displaying their beliefs rather than rejecting the person and their art because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Stan On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: Thanks! I appreciate hearing your opinion. It differs from mine, but you're entitled to it. Knowing other folks opinions is a Privilege. After all, they don't have to tell you. Regards, Bob... From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my permission to ridicule me for stating it. Okay Bob: RIDICULOUS Here's my request: I think things work pretty well the way things are, I haven't noticed any bombardment of sexual images. I think anyone who considers posting images of a similar nature in the future should not be discouraged.
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
LOL! I'm sure it doesn't matter, but I'm up there close to record status on both accounts, I would think! ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14 Jul 2004 at 12:35, Tanya Mayer Photography > wrote: > > > And that has got to be the most inconcise, and > long-winded sentence anyone > > has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full > of BS... > > That was OK, I'm pretty sure I win that competition > :-) Which contest is that, Rob? The "Most Inconcise, Longest-winded Sentence Ever On PDML" contest, or the "Geez, I'm So Full of Bullshit" contest? Or, does it matter? (sorry, couldn't resist that one...) cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14 Jul 2004 at 12:35, Tanya Mayer Photography > wrote: > > > And that has got to be the most inconcise, and > long-winded sentence anyone > > has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full > of BS... > > That was OK, I'm pretty sure I win that competition > :-) Which contest is that, Rob? The "Most Inconcise, Longest-winded Sentence Ever On PDML" contest, or the "Geez, I'm So Full of Bullshit" contest? Or, does it matter? (sorry, couldn't resist that one...) cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > PS Frank, did you just wink at me again?!?! No, dear. I mean, Yes, dear. I mean, I don't know. Well, I really mean, "whatever you think the best answer is"... -frank (having a horrid flashback to my days as a married man) = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 14 Jul 2004 at 12:35, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > And that has got to be the most inconcise, and long-winded sentence anyone > has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full of BS... That was OK, I'm pretty sure I win that competition :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
And just WHERE did I say that Neanderthals were offensive?!?! I simply said that we like to show off on this list about just how "educated" we are on a certain subject, and then go and negate it all by acting like and uneducated, illiterate being (ie. neanderthal)... And I totally agree with Bill, there are far more things that could be deemed as offensive, such as people with blatant disregard for other people's opinions due to them being so self centred that they think that they are the only one who is RIGHT. ie. "uncouth" or "crude" - which is how *I* would view somebody who thinks that they are the only ones entitled to an opinion, or with the correct opinion, on any given subject. And that has got to be the most inconcise, and long-winded sentence anyone has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full of BS... lol. tan. PS Frank, did you just wink at me again?!?! -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 12:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) > On 14 Jul 2004 at 10:40, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > We seem to > > pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this > > list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar > > neanderthals! > > So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-) > Not offensive, uncouth. Far worse in my opinion. William Robb
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) > On 14 Jul 2004 at 10:40, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > We seem to > > pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this > > list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar > > neanderthals! > > So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-) > Not offensive, uncouth. Far worse in my opinion. William Robb
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Spencer Tunick's photos are more about scale > than art. It's a > feat of organization to get all those people in one > place at the same > time without their clothes. > But most of the images seem ordinary to me. I guess > my favorite is the > one that looks like a field of sheep. It's > metaphorical and has some > elementary beauty to it, > but I find the majority of the work to be dull. > paul I saw a TV doc on Tunick once. I believe he uses (or at least used) a 6x7 or 67. Just thought I'd inject some Pentax content into the thread Don't much like his work, though. I mean, it's okay, but it don't turn my crank... cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Rob said: > So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-) Not a single one of them ever used a Pentax. Clearly, they had no taste. ERN
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 14 Jul 2004 at 10:40, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > We seem to > pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this > list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar > neanderthals! So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
--- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > "You mustn't do that, some people might find it > offensive". > > Well, f_ck them. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob Thank you, Bob, for briefly and succinctly putting things into a language and perspective I can understand and relate to. cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hohum, I HAD, previous to this, been enjoying this really interesting, thought provoking, and at times, funny thread. HOWEVER, can't you people see that us all having different opinions is just the thing that makes the world an interesting place to live in?!? I probably have extremely different opinions to most of you here, and if I feel like it, I may voice them from time to time, HOWEVER, I do not judge somebody because their opinion differs from mine, and I would appreciate the same respect for the opinions that I have formed myself. I listen to it, I note it, and I say to myself "well, good on them for being able to think for themselves instead of being some kind of pack animal". If we all thought the same, and agreed on everything, what a boring world this would be... I love heated discussions, whether it be on photography, politics, religion, naked pics (hehe!), WHATEVER, but why does it have to deteriorate it to some undiginfied, egotistical, mudslinging and insult throwing competition every time? Can't we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that? We seem to pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar neanderthals! (and I am not referring to anyone in particular here, before you all go getting offended by that comment!) I love it when people disagree with me, and I always respect their opinions and their right to *have* a different opinion from mine. In many cases, people offering me their different opinions has opened my mind and taught me to "think outside the box". Jeez, think of it this way - there are many hundreds (maybe thousands?) of religions in this world - most of whom vastly different beliefs, if every person in everyone of those religions really took things to task and wanted to pursue the fact that *they* were they only ones who could possibly be correct in their beliefs, then we would all be trying to kill each other! (We don't need to start a discussion about past and ongoing religious wars here, it was just an example). Or to take the emphasis off religion, if I hate peas, but ERN loves them, does that make her right and me wrong? Or vice versa? The age old argument about abortion is a classic one - I personally could never do it, and disagree with it wholeheartedly, but who am I to say what another person can or cannot believe or do with their body and what's in it etc? (again, not trying to start an argument here, it's just an example!) Lets just have some interesting, thought provoking discussions, whatever the topic may be, and make it a rule that we won't let our friggin' egos get in the way and start calling each other childish names, shall we? tan. *the peace loving hippy chic* (well, my name is "fairygirl" for a reason, you know! hehe.) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) El gringo, whoever that is, posted: > Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE > CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT > OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE > CHOOSES... Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be offensive. I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not still self- expression. Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist does indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses. Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and anybody being insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted. > You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a > hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when all > they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other > belief. I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other people. I am quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the record, that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief heard. The belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already being heard. > I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece > with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I > can patronize you if Thats what it takes... Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like it or not: Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you couldn't. In the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and then you proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! Well, I did borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unle
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
El gringo, whoever that is, posted: > Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE > CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT > OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE > CHOOSES... Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be offensive. I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not still self- expression. Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist does indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses. Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and anybody being insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted. > You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a > hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when all > they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other > belief. I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other people. I am quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the record, that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief heard. The belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already being heard. > I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece > with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I > can patronize you if Thats what it takes... Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like it or not: Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you couldn't. In the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and then you proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! Well, I did borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unless you know beyond any doubt what a particular artist intended a piece to mean, how can you be certain who did and who did not miss the point? Note that I said I knew nothing whatsoever about this particular artist and what she intended with this particular piece of work (which I have not examined closely). I said I was making a general comment. The rest of your post can pass without response from me since it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. > I honestly cannot believe the > kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to. ARE YOU FROM THE MIDDLE > AGES?>??? Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples heads off > for speaking ill of our good lord... Whomever that is. > > -el gringo > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three > shot series) > > > Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared: > > I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the > > Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. > > Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps > > it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the > > world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is > > offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe that art > > is usually too vague to take that personally. > > > I think that as many artists as there are in the world, we can't generalize > about all of them successfully. I don't know anything about Renee Cox at > all, > so I'm not saying anything about her specifically. But -- Some artists may > indeed produce something that can be interpreted in any number of ways and > be > ambiguous, but some other artists do select their subject matter and their > presentation deliberately to provoke, or even to insult, people whose values > they do not share. If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why then > should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take > offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work, > wouldn't > you think? > If an artist didn't set out to cause offence, but is too self-centred to > notice > that his or her choice of subject and presentation can offend other people's > taste or values, again -- why should the viewer not take offence if the work > is > offensive, even if the offence was caused by the artist's ignorance rather > than > malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the > criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This > is > my ART"?? > > > ERN > >
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Tom C. noted: Now... the flipside... most people without a moral center (religious or otherwise), and I'm not intending to imply anything about any PDML member, won't give a damn about infringing on my freedoms, wishes, or desires. And we can be thankful that no one here has infringed on your freedoms, wishes, or desires. No one has asked you to look at anything you find offensive, and no one has asked you to discuss any of these issues. We are all free to do as we choose. Thank God for that. Paul
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13 Jul 2004 at 11:41, Tom C wrote: > The problem I see with this whole thing is this... > > 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. > 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is OK > today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards change? > 3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of nudity > put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. 4. The basic > building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. Societies position of what is moral changes constantly (is cyclic in fact) and has since the start of written history (if not before). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Afghan girl (was Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13 Jul 2004 at 19:42, Bob W wrote: > It seems to me that unless you have a problem with that type of > photography in general then it is probably rather inconsistent to > single out that particular picture. Well yes I do in fact, I'm totally at odds with it usually, the arguments/self justifications presented by most photographers engaging in these types of activities are generally poor to say the least. > I think you're putting a very negative spin on his motives. According > to what I have read, he returned many times looking for her to try and > learn what had become of her, partly to satisfy public curiosity, > partly to satisfy his own, and partly to tell her the story of her > photograph. Eventually he succeeded. I'd like to know what the motives really were and who drove/financed them. > NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the > woman in question. Here is some information about it: 17 or so years later, and they had to be asked, think about it. > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1205_031205_afghanfund.html > > It's probably true that National Geographic and Steve McCurry have made more > money out of the photograph than the fund has earned, but that is one of the > dilemmas of having professional journalists telling us about the world. > Different journalists resolve the dilemma in different ways. It may be but I've seen the particular National Geographic and Steve McCurry "how they found the Afghan girl" production and it's pure exploitation regardless of what has since been born out of it. But that's just my opinion of course, I don't even like shooting people on the street here without asking permission and I know legally it's entirely unnecessary. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
lol, good point Jens! tan. -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 3:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) It's interesting that the last supper apparently always takes place at only three sides of the table - too make life easier for painters and photographers :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juli 2004 23:58 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Hey Paul, interesting shots. By the way, have you ever seen "Yo Mama's Last Supper" by Renee Cox? It was the life-sized photograph that was displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001. It caused quite a flap because it depicted the Last Supper, with Jesus portrayed as a naked woman. I went to see it at the museum and I found it quite powerful. I'm having trouble finding a decent-sized image of it online but here is a small one. (Collin, this obviously isn't for you.) http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Cox/Shocking/viewimage.asp?num=4 Amita
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Bob W wrote: Hi, Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 8:58:42 PM, El wrote: I'm sorry I implied your statement was ignorant... Julius Caesar, as the ruler of possibly the most powerful empire ever in history, by nature of his... On a point of pedantry, Julius Caesar was never the emperor. Rome became an empire under Augustus. Yeah, but it was Julius, the old dog, that made Cleopatra preggers! keith whaley
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
That's appreciated Paul... sincerely. It also means if my son walked up and saw the warning in a post, he could conclude I was going to, or already had gone and looked. Or my wife, the same thing... or maybe now my son has the idea to go and look. I'm probably oversimplifying, and among other things realize I am not an island. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:39:44 -0400 I have never seen a sexually explicit image posted by a PDML member either on the PUG or elsewhere. The images I posted included nudity, they were not sexually explicit. And of course the PUG doesn't even allow nudity. That's a good thing, because you don't know what you're going to find when you go there. On the other hand, if I post a nude on my own web page and tell people here they can look at it if they choose, that's an entirely different matter. You can still read the PDML in the library and never worry about offending anyone. The images I posted didn't appear on the PDML or the PUG. Paul On Jul 13, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: I second that, Tom. I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause others to feel embarrassed. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. juli 2004 21:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all kinds of things we don't want to see or hear. My satellite TV controller has plenty of filters set up. This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting and tiresome. I personally would prefer that the PDML, and by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display of what some would consider sexually explicit images, even if there's a warning/disclaimor. It's as simple as that. I know that's probably too much to ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that reflects the disparate views of it's constituents. Which is true. I still would wish that nudity, whether considered art by some or pornography by others, does not become a topic of this list. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:17:08 -0400 On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" We already have that. No one here is bombarded with sexual images. For one, sex and artful nudity are not the same thing. More importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one on the forum has ever referenced a nude without indicating that viewer discretion is advised. If you choose of our own free well to view the piece, that certainly doesn't constitute bombardment. Paul
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Nudity is an issue here, as a result of cultural differences. I don´t think it has much to do with religion at all. When I was 4 to 6 I lived in Colorado. I didn´t care to much for clothes so when it was warm I usually took them of. My parents where, of course, scared of being arrested. In Norway, having a christian state religion (and in fact in most of the world), this seems crazy. Even at my brothers house in a strict muslim part of Indonesia small children were running around naked. As a nude child is considered to be innocent in my culture I could very easily have file such a picture in a PAW. I even did in the PUG, but you only saw his back. Now, is there a rule saying that I should follow some moral standards more than others? Should the photographed person cover their body, their breasts, their heads, or should we not make images of human beings at all, like some traditions dictate. For me sitting here it is difficult to know which standard to choose. On the internet you have to rely on peoples ability to make their own decisions, I cannot make them for them. When in doubt, I can warn them, but that was done in this case, so I can´t understand the reactions. DagT På 13. jul. 2004 kl. 23.03 skrev Tom C: I don't think nudity is as much the issue... I personally think the human body is a great work of art, but IMO, most images of nudes are not designed with that in mind. By in large I guess what I'd like to express is that there's a whole plethora of images and subject matter that could be discussed that is likely offensive to no one. Surely we can find something within that selection, instead of choosing what will offend some. Tom C. From: Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Also consider that nude human bodies during all times have been one of the major motives for all kinds of art. Sculptures, paintings, drawings... and photography. Not everyone agrees that nudity is the limit to enforce. -- anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
And you are the POT calling the KETTLE black, El Gringo. Tom C. From: "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:38:20 -0500 Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE CHOOSES... You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when all they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other belief. I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I can patronize you if Thats what it takes... I honestly cannot believe the kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to. ARE YOU FROM THE MIDDLE AGES?>??? Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples heads off for speaking ill of our good lord... Whomever that is. -el gringo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared: > I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the > Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. > Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps > it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the > world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is > offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe that art > is usually too vague to take that personally. I think that as many artists as there are in the world, we can't generalize about all of them successfully. I don't know anything about Renee Cox at all, so I'm not saying anything about her specifically. But -- Some artists may indeed produce something that can be interpreted in any number of ways and be ambiguous, but some other artists do select their subject matter and their presentation deliberately to provoke, or even to insult, people whose values they do not share. If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why then should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work, wouldn't you think? If an artist didn't set out to cause offence, but is too self-centred to notice that his or her choice of subject and presentation can offend other people's taste or values, again -- why should the viewer not take offence if the work is offensive, even if the offence was caused by the artist's ignorance rather than malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This is my ART"?? ERN
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Jul 13, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Cotty wrote: Ah, but were they taken with a Pentax? HAR! You can bet your sweet booty they were! Pentax *ist D all the way with the venerable SMC Pentax 50/1.4 mounted. No Canons in my closet HAR!
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, [...] > If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why then > should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take > offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work, wouldn't > you think? I wouldn't, no. Any artist could try to offend me, and perhaps fail. That does not mean that I've missed the point. It just means I live in early 21st century London and have seen several generations of attempts to 'epater le bourgeoisie'. Eventually it becomes tiresome. > malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the > criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This is > my ART"?? Perhaps we can turn this round, and ask why so many people seem to spend so much time being 'offended' by so many things. There seems to be a widespread belief around that everybody should be immune from 'offense' and protected from things they don't like. "You mustn't do that, some people might find it offensive". Well, f_ck them. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Tom C: 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. I don't agree. Morals have changed, for certain, but I'd say that most of these changes have been for the better. My assessment is that people on average are more happy now than a hundred years ago, and that is partly due to more liberal morals. 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. I don't agree with this either. Despite the big changes in what is considered acceptable behaviour etc, people still form families. Of course they do. I don't think there is any imminent threat to society or the family as a concept. And I don't think that people gradually will behave less ethical either. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and desires. I can't possibly see how you make that connection. 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? Maybe, maybe not. Since we all have very different definitions of "bombardment" and what acually is a "sexual image" it may be hard to draw that line. For example, I wouldn't call the pictures in question sexual. Also consider that nude human bodies during all times have been one of the major motives for all kinds of art. Sculptures, paintings, drawings... and photography. Not everyone agrees that nudity is the limit to enforce. -- anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
WHO did I TELL what? I only made some statements, expressed some opnions, and asked some questions? Tom C. From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:18:47 -0600, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I myself believe there is an absolute truth and that their is a God with standards for right and wrong. Some people believe not. That's their right to choose. Even having strongly held personal views and convictions, I believe it is not my right to force mine on others. If God has given individuals the freedom to choose their way of life, who am I to take it away? Now... the flipside... most people without a moral center (religious or otherwise), and I'm not intending to imply anything about any PDML member, won't give a damn about infringing on my freedoms, wishes, or desires. Whilst it's perfectly in order for you to tell them what to do and what not to do? Good grief! If there were a God, I'd ask to be a lion. John -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
> Tom C wrote: > Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all > kinds of things we don't want to see or hear. My satellite > TV controller has plenty of filters set up. > > This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting > and tiresome. I personally would prefer that the PDML, and > by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display > of what some would consider sexually explicit images, even > if there's a warning/disclaimor. > > It's as simple as that. I know that's probably too much to > ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that > reflects the disparate views of > it's constituents. Which is true. I still would wish that > nudity, whether > considered art by some or pornography by others, does not > become a topic of this list. There is certainly a lot on the internet that *I* don't want to see, much less my children. Having said that, as a subscriber of individual e-mails, I am often warned twice that a PAW might not be for me; firstly by any OT header in the subject line and secondly by having to click on a hyperlink to see the image concerned. The PUG has it's own rules of what is permissible to submit and what isn't. I certainly don't like the feeling that certain images may upset people - particularly here, but the images we see often reflect parts of human life some would best like forgotten - like iWitness. But it happens. By submitting some shots as PAWs, an element of choice is given with the captions before the link. I retain responsibility over use of the computer my end, but no doubt no matter how well I filter the outside world, something unpleasant will come in, often without any warning being given. PDML has always given me a choice. Malcolm
Re: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, D. Glenn Arthur Jr., discombobulated, offered: >At the same time, I would like to ask that those of >us who perceive such requests as censorshop try to >refrain from jumping the gun on accusations of >actual censorship, and to try to understand where >the request is coming from, so that we might find >solutions instead of just girding our loins for a >fight. "Censorship" is a pretty emotionally charged >word these days, so even when it's partially >applicable, saying it tends to make the other side >get all defensive. Yeah, we need to point out >the censorial aspects, but try to do so gently so >that others can see why you say it rather than >just making them go, "No I'm not!" Guilty as charged. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
That's what I meant, not to imply any disrespect to others on the list. If I remember my history correctly, Rome was already disintegrating, and the conversion of Constantine helped unite it to some degree. The "official" State Christianity adopted numeorus holidays, teachings, and beliefs from the pagan system of worship in Rome, and they continue to this day. That form of Christianity was startlingly different from both the teaching and behavior of Christ himself, and the early 1st century congregations. Tom C. From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:17:45 -0700 Tom C wrote: Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". Is that your way of saying, "in name only?" I can't think of any other way of interpreting those two sentences. keith whaley And you're way over the top. Tom C. From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400 "My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: The problem I see with this whole thing is this... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
From: "Tom C" > Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". Like so many other nations after them. Interestingly, most "muslim" countries are more muslim than "christian" nations are christian. That's one of the things they despise about the western world. I must say I can understand their POV...:-) Jostein (waving the cloth before the bull again)
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Christian, discombobulated, offered: >> Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". > >Hey I've stayed out of this thread! Why drag me into it > >Christian or "Christian" > ROTFLMAO Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:18:47 -0600, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I myself believe there is an absolute truth and that their is a God with standards for right and wrong. Some people believe not. That's their right to choose. Even having strongly held personal views and convictions, I believe it is not my right to force mine on others. If God has given individuals the freedom to choose their way of life, who am I to take it away? Now... the flipside... most people without a moral center (religious or otherwise), and I'm not intending to imply anything about any PDML member, won't give a damn about infringing on my freedoms, wishes, or desires. Whilst it's perfectly in order for you to tell them what to do and what not to do? Good grief! If there were a God, I'd ask to be a lion. John -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered: >REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL [expletive deleted] THREAD! IF YOU DON'T >WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS >BACK UP >YOUR expletive deleted] WHERE THEY BELONG. > >PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. Tom, *calm down* boy. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot
Cotty quoted and posted as follows, and I am snipping only for the sake of space: > On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: ..> >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? > > I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Cotty, it is possible to interpret his suggestion as a request for self- restraint rather than a call for censorship. I don't know what was in his mind, but that was what I thought he was saying when I read his post. Perhaps he will clarify it for us, but do you not think it's possible to read it this way too? ER
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: >Thanks! I appreciate hearing your opinion. It differs from mine, but you're >entitled to it. Knowing other folks opinions is a Privilege. After all, they >don't have to tell you. I concur. And back at ya! ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I guess you're another victim... :) Tom C. From: Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:16:44 -0400 (GMT-04:00) -Original Message- From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". Hey I've stayed out of this thread! Why drag me into it Christian or "Christian"
RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Sometimes I wonder if people who are so afraid of naked bodies are so afraid because they cant control themselves?? -el gringo -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) D. Glenn Arthur and all, I'd like to respond more to your post, but lack the time and I need to go to lunch. Let's look at it from another simplistic viewpoint. The PDML has had little, if any, sexual content, art depicting nudity, art with sexual content, however one wishes to define it, in the past. Now two in one week. As you said, the term bombardment was used in a collective sense, not neccesarially accurate when used in reference to the PDML only. We have all done well and fine without it in the past... why bring it in now? How many more persons will be encouraged to present similar, if not stronger images? How many will not use any disgression when posting the link? That's probably all I'll post. I sincerely want this to be a Pentax/Photography forum. Nothing more, nothing less. Tom C. >From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of >Eve, the three shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT) > >I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about >the list even though it's not about photography or cameras >per se any more. > >Tom C wrote: > > 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. > >Gonna come back to that one... > > > 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What >is > > OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did >standards > > change? > >Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not >that I'm usually one to argue "value relativism", but it does >seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and >taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully >measurable sense. Does a shift in "decency" standards >necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, >murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really >more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually >behave in a less _moral_ manner today? > > > 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. > > Man/Woman/Child. > >No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization >was built on the _extended_ family. > > > How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual > > images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. >Many, > > if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests >and > > desires. > >You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, >but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people >are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find >that possibility surprising. > > > 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > > bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? > >"Bombard"??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very >many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on >the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a >rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ >with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this >week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? > >*IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next >question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual >imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? > >Or is the perception that you are being "bombarded" here >a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the >world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, >however usual or unusual for here, is "oh no, not more of >this!" where the rest of "this" is on the telly and >billboards and such? > > > As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or > > disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can >certainly > > be called disparaging. > >Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? >Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't "disrespect" >imply _intent_, and doesn't "corrupt" depend on a particular >point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that >one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or >depiction
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >Bombardment may not have been the right word... I was using it in a general >sense... we are bombarded from numerous sources, and I was lumping the >recent PDML posts in with the rest. Ahhh, understood. Except that there is one problem with that. I am not bombarded! Oh that i were ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID I MEAN EVERYTHING!! -el gringo -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) "My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: > The problem I see with this whole thing is this... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I myself believe there is an absolute truth and that their is a God with standards for right and wrong. Some people believe not. That's their right to choose. Even having strongly held personal views and convictions, I believe it is not my right to force mine on others. If God has given individuals the freedom to choose their way of life, who am I to take it away? Now... the flipside... most people without a moral center (religious or otherwise), and I'm not intending to imply anything about any PDML member, won't give a damn about infringing on my freedoms, wishes, or desires. Tom C. From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400 "My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: The problem I see with this whole thing is this... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Tom C wrote: Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". Is that your way of saying, "in name only?" I can't think of any other way of interpreting those two sentences. keith whaley And you're way over the top. Tom C. From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400 "My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: The problem I see with this whole thing is this... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
-Original Message- From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". Hey I've stayed out of this thread! Why drag me into it Christian or "Christian"
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
'S a'matter, Greywolf? Someone say something that really resurrected your P.O. button? keith graywolf wrote: "My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: The problem I see with this whole thing is this...
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Rome never did become Christian. It became "Christian". And you're way over the top. Tom C. From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400 "My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: The problem I see with this whole thing is this... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
D. Glenn Arthur and all, I'd like to respond more to your post, but lack the time and I need to go to lunch. Let's look at it from another simplistic viewpoint. The PDML has had little, if any, sexual content, art depicting nudity, art with sexual content, however one wishes to define it, in the past. Now two in one week. As you said, the term bombardment was used in a collective sense, not neccesarially accurate when used in reference to the PDML only. We have all done well and fine without it in the past... why bring it in now? How many more persons will be encouraged to present similar, if not stronger images? How many will not use any disgression when posting the link? That's probably all I'll post. I sincerely want this to be a Pentax/Photography forum. Nothing more, nothing less. Tom C. From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT) I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about the list even though it's not about photography or cameras per se any more. Tom C wrote: > 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. Gonna come back to that one... > 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is > OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards > change? Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not that I'm usually one to argue "value relativism", but it does seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully measurable sense. Does a shift in "decency" standards necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually behave in a less _moral_ manner today? > 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. > Man/Woman/Child. No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization was built on the _extended_ family. > How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual > images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, > if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and > desires. You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find that possibility surprising. > 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? "Bombard"??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? *IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? Or is the perception that you are being "bombarded" here a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, however usual or unusual for here, is "oh no, not more of this!" where the rest of "this" is on the telly and billboards and such? > As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or > disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly > be called disparaging. Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't "disrespect" imply _intent_, and doesn't "corrupt" depend on a particular point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me, to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering communication on the points you're trying to get across. Bob Blakely wrote: < Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now < reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is < suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks < censorship in making requests? I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is clearly not an example of the _legal_, or strict, definition of censors
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I second that, Tom. > I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are > children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause > others to feel embarrassed. There was plenty of warning on these images. I was curious to see them, but first read the messages while I was at work. I went to look at them from home, but they had already been removed by then. PAWs should be allowed to display anything which is legal to display. If the content might offend some folks then there should be a warning saying that. Among a group of friends who often forward things to each other we just put a small tag "not worksafe" before links which wouldn't be appropriate to have on your display in most companies. alex
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
"My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now." Are those the values you are talking about? 100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England. Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was the only thing they actually practiced. In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids. And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became Christian. REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. -- Tom C wrote: The problem I see with this whole thing is this... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I'm sorry I implied your statement was ignorant... Julius Caesar, as the ruler of possibly the most powerful empire ever in history, by nature of his position, has more insight into social matters than you or I ever will. And if you think about what he is saying for a moment, you will realize, that it is in essence, a condemnation of the state of Rome. Rome itself, could only be blamed for crime, because Rome could not keep the people out of poverty... Imagine that you rule the most powerful nation on earth, and when I say rule, I mean, RULE, not REPRESENT Imagine that, and then imagine how tempting it would be to behave like Stalin, just send the criminals to Siberia... Stalin was a fool, Caesar on the other hand, at least had the intelligence to see how his nation was flawed, and for me, when a person in that heady position, is driven to such self-assessing insight, I can only assume there is some truth in that insight. -el gringo "What makes Julius Ceasar, of all people, an authority on the subject?" Tom C.
Re: OT: Afghan girl (was Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Well and rationally countered, Bob. keith whaley Bob W wrote: Hi, BTW I have a real problem with the Afghan Girl pic I'm not quite sure how you can have a problem with the original photo. As far as I know, when he took it he was not really aware of what he had in the can until it was processed. He was taking photos around a displaced persons camp, as that type of photographer does every day, and she was just one of many. It seems to me that unless you have a problem with that type of photography in general then it is probably rather inconsistent to single out that particular picture. and worse the fact that he went back for another dip at the trough, I think you're putting a very negative spin on his motives. According to what I have read, he returned many times looking for her to try and learn what had become of her, partly to satisfy public curiosity, partly to satisfy his own, and partly to tell her the story of her photograph. Eventually he succeeded. as far I I'm aware she's still no better off even after all it's done for them (McCurry and NG). http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the woman in question. Here is some information about it: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1205_031205_afghanfund.html It's probably true that National Geographic and Steve McCurry have made more money out of the photograph than the fund has earned, but that is one of the dilemmas of having professional journalists telling us about the world. Different journalists resolve the dilemma in different ways.
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I second that, Tom. I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause others to feel embarrassed. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. juli 2004 21:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all kinds of things we don't want to see or hear. My satellite TV controller has plenty of filters set up. This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting and tiresome. I personally would prefer that the PDML, and by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display of what some would consider sexually explicit images, even if there's a warning/disclaimor. It's as simple as that. I know that's probably too much to ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that reflects the disparate views of it's constituents. Which is true. I still would wish that nudity, whether considered art by some or pornography by others, does not become a topic of this list. Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three >shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:17:08 -0400 > > >On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: >> >> >>"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't >>bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" >> >> >We already have that. No one here is bombarded with sexual images. For one, >sex and artful nudity are not the same thing. More importantly, to the best >of my knowledge no one on the forum has ever referenced a nude without >indicating that viewer discretion is advised. If you choose of our own free >well to view the piece, that certainly doesn't constitute bombardment. >Paul >
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Thanks! I appreciate hearing your opinion. It differs from mine, but you're entitled to it. Knowing other folks opinions is a Privilege. After all, they don't have to tell you. Regards, Bob... From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: > > >"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't > >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" > > > >Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a > >demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of > >discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my > >permission to ridicule me for stating it. > > Okay Bob: > > RIDICULOUS > > Here's my request: > > I think things work pretty well the way things are, I haven't noticed any > bombardment of sexual images. I think anyone who considers posting images > of a similar nature in the future should not be discouraged.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all kinds of things we don't want to see or hear. My satellite TV controller has plenty of filters set up. This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting and tiresome. I personally would prefer that the PDML, and by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display of what some would consider sexually explicit images, even if there's a warning/disclaimor. It's as simple as that. I know that's probably too much to ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that reflects the disparate views of it's constituents. Which is true. I still would wish that nudity, whether considered art by some or pornography by others, does not become a topic of this list. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:17:08 -0400 On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" We already have that. No one here is bombarded with sexual images. For one, sex and artful nudity are not the same thing. More importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one on the forum has ever referenced a nude without indicating that viewer discretion is advised. If you choose of our own free well to view the piece, that certainly doesn't constitute bombardment. Paul
Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about the list even though it's not about photography or cameras per se any more. Tom C wrote: > 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. Gonna come back to that one... > 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is > OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards > change? Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not that I'm usually one to argue "value relativism", but it does seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully measurable sense. Does a shift in "decency" standards necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually behave in a less _moral_ manner today? > 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. > Man/Woman/Child. No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization was built on the _extended_ family. > How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual > images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, > if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and > desires. You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find that possibility surprising. > 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? "Bombard"??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? *IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? Or is the perception that you are being "bombarded" here a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, however usual or unusual for here, is "oh no, not more of this!" where the rest of "this" is on the telly and billboards and such? > As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or > disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly > be called disparaging. Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't "disrespect" imply _intent_, and doesn't "corrupt" depend on a particular point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me, to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering communication on the points you're trying to get across. Bob Blakely wrote: < Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now < reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is < suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks < censorship in making requests? I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is clearly not an example of the _legal_, or strict, definition of censorship, but it shares much in common with actual censorship. I'm _not_ going to claim that it's morally equivalent, because, as I said, it's in a grey area, but I do not think it is unreasonable for people to have an initial emotional reaction the same as they would react to a call for censorship. You see, it's advocacy of a community standard which would impose censure on certain things; no formal censor, since messages are not manually approved by a moderator before posting, but it's an exhortation for others to raise their voices in support of this "no sexual bombardment" idea and _make_sexual_images_unwelcome_. The result would be "self-censorship" not from an innate sense of "I shouldn't do that", but from _fear_ of community disapproval, complaint, argument ... whatever force the would-be-censors can bring to bear in this medium ... the fear of becoming "outcast". It's a tricky thing. The request is, in some senses, a reasonable one: "I don't want to see these things and I would prefer a forum where they are not present". But asking others to make them unwelcome means changing the environment for others in a way that is, to them, for the worse. And let's face it, it's really hard to make such a request without the folks it's aimed at feeling like it's an attempt to restraint them
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Bombardment may not have been the right word... I was using it in a general sense... we are bombarded from numerous sources, and I was lumping the recent PDML posts in with the rest. Tom C. From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:50:43 +0100 On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: >"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" One or two pics in (a long time) is hardly 'bombardment'! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" We already have that. No one here is bombarded with sexual images. For one, sex and artful nudity are not the same thing. More importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one on the forum has ever referenced a nude without indicating that viewer discretion is advised. If you choose of our own free well to view the piece, that certainly doesn't constitute bombardment. Paul
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: >"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" > >Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a >demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of >discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my >permission to ridicule me for stating it. Okay Bob: RIDICULOUS Here's my request: I think things work pretty well the way things are, I haven't noticed any bombardment of sexual images. I think anyone who considers posting images of a similar nature in the future should not be discouraged. Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Personally, I think there are far too many racing car pictures on this site. As a devout Walkist, any form of car picture tends to offend me, and fast cars pictures tend to offend me absolutely. Now I don't want to impose any form of censorship, so just stop posting them. I know there are only a few Walkists here, but we're right and you're wrong, so just do what we say. Ours is the one true religion! John On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:29:25 -0700, Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I think your judgment that what Tom suggested censorship was way off base. And no, I am not censoring you from accusing folks of suggesting censorship, by the way. Make and report your false assumptions all you like. I even suggest that you make them seem more real by assigning me (or others) to some group about whom you have some caricature view of and then accuse us of those views! GAWD! The prejudice! Now, the following is a request. It is only a request. It is not a demand. Failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. The request may be ignored. "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my permission to ridicule me for stating it. Regards, Bob... From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. >2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is >OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards >change? >3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of >nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. >4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. >Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, >families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today >in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual >images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, >if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and >desires. >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: >"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" One or two pics in (a long time) is hardly 'bombardment'! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >I respect what you said. I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting >self-sensorship. > >I for one, believe in the right to free speech and free expression. The >obvious problem occurs when exercising ones rights to such trample on/or >violates another perceived rights. > >We all exercise a degree of self-censorship when we are about to say/write >something and then have a second thought about how that might affect the >recipient, or the recipient's view of ourselves. I am simply suggesting we >exercise that same thoughtfulness when it comes to presenting images. > >Granted, these images are not imbedded in the PDML... and an individual has >a choice... Understood ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
For which we should all be thankful... Jens Bladt wrote: It's interesting that the last supper apparently always takes place at only three sides of the table - too make life easier for painters and photographers :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juli 2004 23:58 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Hey Paul, interesting shots. By the way, have you ever seen "Yo Mama's Last Supper" by Renee Cox? It was the life-sized photograph that was displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001. It caused quite a flap because it depicted the Last Supper, with Jesus portrayed as a naked woman. I went to see it at the museum and I found it quite powerful. I'm having trouble finding a decent-sized image of it online but here is a small one. (Collin, this obviously isn't for you.) http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Cox/Shocking/viewimage.asp?num=4 Amita
OT: Afghan girl (was Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, > BTW I have a real problem with the Afghan Girl pic I'm not quite sure how you can have a problem with the original photo. As far as I know, when he took it he was not really aware of what he had in the can until it was processed. He was taking photos around a displaced persons camp, as that type of photographer does every day, and she was just one of many. It seems to me that unless you have a problem with that type of photography in general then it is probably rather inconsistent to single out that particular picture. > and worse the fact that he > went back for another dip at the trough, I think you're putting a very negative spin on his motives. According to what I have read, he returned many times looking for her to try and learn what had become of her, partly to satisfy public curiosity, partly to satisfy his own, and partly to tell her the story of her photograph. Eventually he succeeded. > as far I I'm aware she's still no > better off even after all it's done for them (McCurry and NG). > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the woman in question. Here is some information about it: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1205_031205_afghanfund.html It's probably true that National Geographic and Steve McCurry have made more money out of the photograph than the fund has earned, but that is one of the dilemmas of having professional journalists telling us about the world. Different journalists resolve the dilemma in different ways. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I might also add that the disclaimor regarding the content of an image/movie/lyrics, etc., no matter how well intentioned, is the loophole that is used by entertainment industries to present material that might otherwise be considered totally objectionable. There is a great dichotomy in society and even individuals today regarding what we view as proper behavior for ourselves and others vs. what we view as acceptable to watch or look at. If rape is wrong, why depict it in popular entertainment for young people to view. If drug use is wrong, why depict it in popular entertainment for young people to view? There's the saying 'we are what we eat'. That can also be applied in a more intellectual sense. Our behavior and mores can be affected by what we consume and process with our eyes, ears and brains. Not meaning to be on the soapbox here... heading back down. Tom C. From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:47:48 +0100 On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. >2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is >OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards >change? >3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of >nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. >4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. >Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, >families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today >in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual >images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, >if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and >desires. >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. With great respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I think your judgment that what Tom suggested censorship was way off base. And no, I am not censoring you from accusing folks of suggesting censorship, by the way. Make and report your false assumptions all you like. I even suggest that you make them seem more real by assigning me (or others) to some group about whom you have some caricature view of and then accuse us of those views! GAWD! The prejudice! Now, the following is a request. It is only a request. It is not a demand. Failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. The request may be ignored. "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my permission to ridicule me for stating it. Regards, Bob... From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: > > >1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. > >2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is > >OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards > >change? > >3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of > >nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. > >4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. > >Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, > >families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today > >in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual > >images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, > >if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and > >desires. > >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? > > I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if > you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture > in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the > photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view > the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have > written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are > suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster > proceeded was fair and correct IMO.
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
You are mispplying my words. I did not say or think "society will be destroyed because of nudity". I said 'moral decay contributes to the decay or society as a whole'. What makes Julius Ceasar, of all people, an authority on the subject? Tom C. From: "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:13:13 -0500 Society decays for any number of reasons. Poverty is the worst. I think perhaps, nudity in society is not a cause but an effect of other problems. Julius Ceasar said that "Poverty is the mother of all crime." Poverty fosters immorality. Decay stems from poverty not from nudity. To think that society will be destroyed because of nudity, is absurd, narrow-minded, even ignorant. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) The problem I see with this whole thing is this... 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards change? 3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and desires. 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three >shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:02:48 -0400 > >I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the Last >Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. Perhaps it >speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps it speaks to >the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the world. Like most >art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is offended by art, whether >it be good art or bad art. I believe that art is usually too vague to take >that personally. >Paul > >On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: > >>In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who >>is >>my Father and my best friend. >> >>Regards, >>Bob... >> >>From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>>>It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the >>>>nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my >>>>parents, or perhaps my best friend. >>>> >>>>In fact, it was. >>> >>>Please explain. >> >
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Society decays for any number of reasons. Poverty is the worst. I think perhaps, nudity in society is not a cause but an effect of other problems. Julius Ceasar said that "Poverty is the mother of all crime." Poverty fosters immorality. Decay stems from poverty not from nudity. To think that society will be destroyed because of nudity, is absurd, narrow-minded, even ignorant. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) The problem I see with this whole thing is this... 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards change? 3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and desires. 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three >shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:02:48 -0400 > >I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the Last >Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. Perhaps it >speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps it speaks to >the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the world. Like most >art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is offended by art, whether >it be good art or bad art. I believe that art is usually too vague to take >that personally. >Paul > >On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: > >>In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who >>is >>my Father and my best friend. >> >>Regards, >>Bob... >> >>From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>>>It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the >>>>nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my >>>>parents, or perhaps my best friend. >>>> >>>>In fact, it was. >>> >>>Please explain. >> >
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Cotty, I respect what you said. I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting self-sensorship. I for one, believe in the right to free speech and free expression. The obvious problem occurs when exercising ones rights to such trample on/or violates another perceived rights. We all exercise a degree of self-censorship when we are about to say/write something and then have a second thought about how that might affect the recipient, or the recipient's view of ourselves. I am simply suggesting we exercise that same thoughtfulness when it comes to presenting images. Granted, these images are not imbedded in the PDML... and an individual has a choice... Tom C. From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:47:48 +0100 On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. >2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is >OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards >change? >3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of >nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. >4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. >Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, >families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today >in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual >images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, >if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and >desires. >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. With great respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. >2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is >OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards >change? >3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of >nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. >4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. >Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, >families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today >in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual >images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, >if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and >desires. >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. With great respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
The problem I see with this whole thing is this... 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards change? 3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and desires. 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:02:48 -0400 I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe that art is usually too vague to take that personally. Paul On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who is my Father and my best friend. Regards, Bob... From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. Please explain.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
HAR! Regards, Bob... From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It's interesting that the last supper apparently always takes place at only > three sides of the table - too make life easier for painters and > photographers :-)
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
> It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the > nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my > parents, or perhaps my best friend. > > In fact, it was. Please explain. > The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his > willingness to cause pain to a multitude of people which is > about his character. The artist, Renee Cox, is a woman. This interview with her is worth the read. http://archive.salon.com/sex/feature/2001/02/22/renee_cox/ Cox portrayed Jesus herself so that she wouldnt exploit anyone. She was raised Catholic, and she says that the piece was meant as a critique of the Catholic church, because women hold no position in the church. She also says she wanted to include African-Americans in these classic scenarios. This piece was part of a series that includes the Pietà, Adam and Eve and Michelangelo's David. > You say "It made an impact on [you]." Please describe this impact. It was moving to see Jesus portrayed as a woman. The fact that it was a woman of color made it that much more striking. It gave new meaning to the idea that God is in all of us. It was a very honest, confident piece.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I had a similar reaction. I do think it is well executed, in that I could have just ignored it if it was badly done. Bob said he felt sadness, whereas I feel more of an uncomfortable confusion. Either way I found the quality of the photo hard to ignore. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/04 11:54PM >>> This is art and well done. It is indeed powerful, however... It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his willingness to cause pain to a multitude of people which is about his character. You say "It made an impact on [you]." Please describe this impact. Regards, Bob... --- "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hey Paul, interesting shots. By the way, have you ever seen "Yo Mama's > Last Supper" by Renee Cox? It was the life-sized photograph that was > displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001. It caused quite a flap > because it depicted the Last Supper, with Jesus portrayed as a naked > woman. I went to see it at the museum and I found it quite powerful. I'm > having trouble finding a decent-sized image of it online but here is a > small one. (Collin, this obviously isn't for you.) > > http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Cox/Shocking/viewimage.asp?num=4 > > Amita
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hmmm. Regards, Bob... --- "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob Blakely wrote: > > > This is art and well done. It is indeed powerful, however... > > > > It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). > > It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best > > friend. > > > > In fact, it was. > > That line is just obscure enough to make no sense at all. > > keith whaley > > > The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his willingness to cause pain > > to a multitude of people which is about his character. > > > > You say "It made an impact on [you]." Please describe this impact. > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > --- > > > > From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>Hey Paul, interesting shots. By the way, have you ever seen "Yo Mama's > >>Last Supper" by Renee Cox? It was the life-sized photograph that was > >>displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001. It caused quite a flap > >>because it depicted the Last Supper, with Jesus portrayed as a naked > >>woman. I went to see it at the museum and I found it quite powerful. I'm > >>having trouble finding a decent-sized image of it online but here is a > >>small one. (Collin, this obviously isn't for you.) > >> > >>http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Cox/Shocking/viewimage.asp?num=4 > >> > >>Amita > > > >
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
This is art and well done. It is indeed powerful, however... It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his willingness to cause pain to a multitude of people which is about his character. You say "It made an impact on [you]." Please describe this impact. Regards, Bob... --- "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hey Paul, interesting shots. By the way, have you ever seen "Yo Mama's > Last Supper" by Renee Cox? It was the life-sized photograph that was > displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001. It caused quite a flap > because it depicted the Last Supper, with Jesus portrayed as a naked > woman. I went to see it at the museum and I found it quite powerful. I'm > having trouble finding a decent-sized image of it online but here is a > small one. (Collin, this obviously isn't for you.) > > http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Cox/Shocking/viewimage.asp?num=4 > > Amita
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Jeeez! I'm not getting Collin's posts, and I'm obviously I'm missing some good stuff. I'm not being facetious here. I enjoy divergent points of view, and Collin has proven himself to be a gentleman. I don't have him blocked (or anyone else for that matter). I don't know why I keep missing his posts, but I'd sure like to see this one. Why am I not receiving??? Paul On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:04 PM, Pat White wrote: Collin (spelled your name right this time), the news of Renaissance art being used to assault the Catholic Church is a new one on me. Do you know of any links to sites where I might learn more about this? Just curious. Thanks. Pat White
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Collin (spelled your name right this time), the news of Renaissance art being used to assault the Catholic Church is a new one on me. Do you know of any links to sites where I might learn more about this? Just curious. Thanks. Pat White
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Well, Paul, your pictures certainly provoked some discussion! Hmm, isn't that what art is meant to do? Also, you raise a valid point about religious art often depicting nudity. However, many people feel that a painting may be art, but a photo of the same subject is porn, sort of like the old "art is in b&w, porn is in color" way of thinking. As for religious art, well, most of the saints aren't around, so there's not much religious photography. Besides, getting miracles on film could be quite a challenge for even the best photographer. And to Colin: temptation has been depicted in many ways. I've seen a version of The Temptation of Saint Anthony that was pretty erotic, featuring a vision of a row of nude females, seen from a low angle. I could well imagine the good saint feeling tempted. To sum up, though, Paul's images were mildly sensual, definitely not porn, and I don't think they served to trivialize the concept of their title. Pat White
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I like the shapes he makes with the bodies. They are interesting from a sort of abstract, design perspective. The concept of human bodies as paint is kind of interesting. I agree, I wouldn't want to lie down on a cold pavement with no clothes on, but there are lots of things I wouldn't do that lots of people enjoy. Maybe these people want to be immortalized in a famous photograph. Who knows. I saw a documentary on Tunick's work recently and I found it knd of interesting. Moreso than someone like Wegman or Geddes, for instance, although I guess Tunick is just as commercial as they are. > -Original Message- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, > the three shot series) > > > I think Spencer Tunick's photos are more about scale than art. It's a > feat of organization to get all those people in one place at the same > time without their clothes. > But most of the images seem ordinary to me. I guess my > favorite is the > one that looks like a field of sheep. It's metaphorical and has some > elementary beauty to it, > but I find the majority of the work to be dull. > paul > On Jul 12, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Amita Guha wrote: > > >> to me that seems like a very lazy, easy-target piece of work. Not > >> shocking at all, but the sort of thing a 16-year-old might > think was > >> clever. > > > > Then you must not like Spencer Tunick's work at all... > > http://spencertunick.com/ > > > > Amita (no, I'm not fixated on nekkid people, I'm just bored > with work) > > >
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I think Spencer Tunick's photos are more about scale than art. It's a feat of organization to get all those people in one place at the same time without their clothes. But most of the images seem ordinary to me. I guess my favorite is the one that looks like a field of sheep. It's metaphorical and has some elementary beauty to it, but I find the majority of the work to be dull. paul On Jul 12, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Amita Guha wrote: to me that seems like a very lazy, easy-target piece of work. Not shocking at all, but the sort of thing a 16-year-old might think was clever. Then you must not like Spencer Tunick's work at all... http://spencertunick.com/ Amita (no, I'm not fixated on nekkid people, I'm just bored with work)
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13 Jul 2004 at 0:18, Bob W wrote: > > His work just shows how stupid some people can be (sorry if there are any > > participants here). What else could you call someone who could be persuaded to > > lie on the earth/asphalt in the rain/cold without their gear on and have > > photos taken of them in order to make money/fame for someone else? > > What, like this you mean? (Warning, Will Robsinson! Danger! Female > upper body approaching!) > > http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/botticelli/venus/venus.jpg I've no problem with models or modeling as long as there is acknowledgement and/or profit sharing for the models and that they aren't degraded in the process. I saw a video documentary of when the Tunick man shot in Melbourne, it was wet, cold and dingy and the participants were clearly not comfortable, yet it didn't seem to bother him (in a warm jacket of course) or them. Hence my initial comment about how stupid some people can be. BTW I have a real problem with the Afghan Girl pic and worse the fact that he went back for another dip at the trough, as far I I'm aware she's still no better off even after all it's done for them (McCurry and NG). http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, >> >> Then you must not like Spencer Tunick's work at all... >> http://spencertunick.com/ > His work just shows how stupid some people can be (sorry if there are any > participants here). What else could you call someone who could be persuaded to > lie on the earth/asphalt in the rain/cold without their gear on and have photos > taken of them in order to make money/fame for someone else? What, like this you mean? (Warning, Will Robsinson! Danger! Female upper body approaching!) http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/botticelli/venus/venus.jpg :o) -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, Monday, July 12, 2004, 11:36:13 PM, Amita wrote: >> to me that seems like a very lazy, easy-target piece of work. >> Not shocking at all, but the sort of thing a 16-year-old >> might think was clever. > Heh...the local Catholics and mayor Guilianni sure thought it was > shocking. that's what makes it such a lazy piece of work. These people have their hot buttons primed and ready to fire on a hair trigger. It's like ringing a door bell and running away while they shake their fist at you. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, > Then you must not like Spencer Tunick's work at all... > http://spencertunick.com/ on the contrary - I rather like it - it's very intersting. He did a photograph a couple of years ago at Selfridges, a department store in London where I used to work. Several people in it that I recognise... > Amita (no, I'm not fixated on nekkid people, I'm just bored with work) It's ok. You're allowed to be both. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Jul 12, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Bob W wrote: . I'm trying to keep medieval prejudice and ignorance out of my house. -- Cheers, Bob Your wisdom once again made me smile, Bob. Thanks, I needed that. We all have our own devils, don't we? And if another man's friend happens to be our devil, I guess we just have to just pay him no heed. Paul
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Too late. Regards, Bob... From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > Monday, July 12, 2004, 7:36:41 PM, Collin wrote: > > > I made no demand; just presented a term with an understood definition. > > But I also cannot present my point by sacrificing my world view. > > It's easy to obfuscate between "art" and "pornography", missing the point that > > pornography is the nature of content and art is, generally, the character in which > > content is presented. > > > But, to those who hold to the content of the Bible as truthful and trustworthy, it is. > > > My only goal is to keep porn out of my house. > > please do not post this kind of thing to the list again, Collin. I'm > trying to keep medieval prejudice and ignorance out of my house.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, Monday, July 12, 2004, 7:36:41 PM, Collin wrote: > I made no demand; just presented a term with an understood definition. > But I also cannot present my point by sacrificing my world view. > It's easy to obfuscate between "art" and "pornography", missing the point that > pornography is the nature of content and art is, generally, the character in which > content is presented. > But, to those who hold to the content of the Bible as truthful and trustworthy, it > is. > My only goal is to keep porn out of my house. please do not post this kind of thing to the list again, Collin. I'm trying to keep medieval prejudice and ignorance out of my house. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Paul, (and others) It's good to have civil dialog with disagreement. Here we can get things done. It's not simple nudity that I've objected to. Rather the sensual character presented. As excellent as they are, having that over-riding theme is the issue. Much (obviously not all) of the art done during the Renaissance, using the human form as the ultimate expression, was done as an assult on the RC church. That's especially true of later enlightenment depictions. They exalted human above God. (that was an expression of early Humanism.) Collin - original -- From: Paul Stenquist Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:06:31 -0700 I didn't receive the first message in this thread. However, I feel I should respond. First, I don't equate nudity in a photograph or painting with pornography. If this were the case, much of the art in Vatican City would have to be considered pornography. Michaelangelo's sculptures reveal far more of the human form than do my photographs. I'm not saying that my work is artful, but it is an attempt at art, and the human body has always been considered a fit subject for artistic representation. Perhaps more importantly, the link in the PDML contained a specific warning for those who would rather not see an undraped figure. I don't intend to leave the photos in my folder for very long. However, some may still wish to view them. But at the end of this day, I will remove them. By the way, I am a practicing Christian. My wife, incidentally, found the photos quite beautiful as did the mother of the young lady who modeled for me. Paul Stenquist Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I didn't receive the first message in this thread. However, I feel I should respond. First, I don't equate nudity in a photograph or painting with pornography. If this were the case, much of the art in Vatican City would have to be considered pornography. Michaelangelo's sculptures reveal far more of the human form than do my photographs. I'm not saying that my work is artful, but it is an attempt at art, and the human body has always been considered a fit subject for artistic representation. Perhaps more importantly, the link in the PDML contained a specific warning for those who would rather not see an undraped figure. I don't intend to leave the photos in my folder for very long. However, some may still wish to view them. But at the end of this day, I will remove them. By the way, I am a practicing Christian. My wife, incidentally, found the photos quite beautiful as did the mother of the young lady who modeled for me. Paul Stenquist On Jul 12, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: :- Original Message - :From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :> #1 "Teats" is still commonly used in the agricultural community, particularly dairy production, :> when speaking in mixed company. It's just the civil &:courteous thing to do. : :Interesting. I didn't know that. Mammalian glands on humans have names :derived from the corresponding glands in other species in many languages, I :think. More or less honourable... : :> #2 It would be appropriate, especially in a group of mixed world views, not to place links to such :> material in PDML. Many of us have enough trouble keeping porn out of the house without it :> being handed to us. (Yes, this is porn because of its clearly sensual content.) : :It would also be appropriate not to demand of everyone to look upon sensual :content as porn. I, for one, differ strongly between the two. I made no demand; just presented a term with an understood definition. But I also cannot present my point by sacrificing my world view. It's easy to obfuscate between "art" and "pornography", missing the point that pornography is the nature of content and art is, generally, the character in which content is presented. :> #3 Your title and clearly sensual composition have absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical :> account. This is a patent insult to those of Judeo-Christian heritage because it alters the :> story from on of sin (which would lead to redemption) and makes it a display of mere sensuality. : :The process of biblical sayings diverging from it's original meaning started :centuries ago. It's a natural process. :Also, I don't see how you can take it upon yourself to speak for me with :regards to the insult part. I'm certainly of Judeo-christian heritage and :don't feel insulted at all. But, to those who hold to the content of the Bible as truthful and trustworthy, it is. :> #5. Don't keep confusing Puritan morality with the rest of Christianity. :> That usage is nothing more than a perjorative. : :Sorry, Collin, but I don't think your post made things better in that :respect. Coming from circles of a living faith, I see your point, but I :don't think the message goes home. Personally, I'd say you come across as an :angry member of List Police. My only goal is to keep porn out of my house. :With the anger peeled away I respect your stance, even if I don't agree with :your view of this particular case. : :Best, :Jostein Collin Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Man, porn at home is the best way to enjoy it. Antonio On 12 Jul 2004, at 20:36, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: My only goal is to keep porn out of my house.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
:- Original Message - :From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :> #1 "Teats" is still commonly used in the agricultural community, particularly dairy production, :> when speaking in mixed company. It's just the civil &:courteous thing to do. : :Interesting. I didn't know that. Mammalian glands on humans have names :derived from the corresponding glands in other species in many languages, I :think. More or less honourable... : :> #2 It would be appropriate, especially in a group of mixed world views, not to place links to such :> material in PDML. Many of us have enough trouble keeping porn out of the house without it :> being handed to us. (Yes, this is porn because of its clearly sensual content.) : :It would also be appropriate not to demand of everyone to look upon sensual :content as porn. I, for one, differ strongly between the two. I made no demand; just presented a term with an understood definition. But I also cannot present my point by sacrificing my world view. It's easy to obfuscate between "art" and "pornography", missing the point that pornography is the nature of content and art is, generally, the character in which content is presented. :> #3 Your title and clearly sensual composition have absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical :> account. This is a patent insult to those of Judeo-Christian heritage because it alters the :> story from on of sin (which would lead to redemption) and makes it a display of mere sensuality. : :The process of biblical sayings diverging from it's original meaning started :centuries ago. It's a natural process. :Also, I don't see how you can take it upon yourself to speak for me with :regards to the insult part. I'm certainly of Judeo-christian heritage and :don't feel insulted at all. But, to those who hold to the content of the Bible as truthful and trustworthy, it is. :> #5. Don't keep confusing Puritan morality with the rest of Christianity. :> That usage is nothing more than a perjorative. : :Sorry, Collin, but I don't think your post made things better in that :respect. Coming from circles of a living faith, I see your point, but I :don't think the message goes home. Personally, I'd say you come across as an :angry member of List Police. My only goal is to keep porn out of my house. :With the anger peeled away I respect your stance, even if I don't agree with :your view of this particular case. : :Best, :Jostein Collin Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Collin, - Original Message - From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > #1 "Teats" is still commonly used in the agricultural community, particularly dairy production, > when speaking in mixed company. It's just the civil & courteous thing to do. Interesting. I didn't know that. Mammalian glands on humans have names derived from the corresponding glands in other species in many languages, I think. More or less honourable... > #2 It would be appropriate, especially in a group of mixed world views, not to place links to such > material in PDML. Many of us have enough trouble keeping porn out of the house without it > being handed to us. (Yes, this is porn because of its clearly sensual content.) It would also be appropriate not to demand of everyone to look upon sensual content as porn. I, for one, differ strongly between the two. > #3 Your title and clearly sensual composition have absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical > account. This is a patent insult to those of Judeo-Christian heritage because it alters the > story from on of sin (which would lead to redemption) and makes it a display of mere sensuality. The process of biblical sayings diverging from it's original meaning started centuries ago. It's a natural process. Also, I don't see how you can take it upon yourself to speak for me with regards to the insult part. I'm certainly of Judeo-christian heritage and don't feel insulted at all. > #4 There is an ongoing debate about how right (yes, some see it as perfectly acceptable and > to be encouraged) it is to patently offend the faith of orthodox Jews and Christians. > That's what the movie "Saved" is all about. Can we keep that clear offense off PDML? Sure. Haven't seen the film anyway, so it's impossible for me to know how the two relate. > #5. Don't keep confusing Puritan morality with the rest of Christianity. > That usage is nothing more than a perjorative. Sorry, Collin, but I don't think your post made things better in that respect. Coming from circles of a living faith, I see your point, but I don't think the message goes home. Personally, I'd say you come across as an angry member of List Police. With the anger peeled away I respect your stance, even if I don't agree with your view of this particular case. Best, Jostein
