nudity in the gallery

[Sanders McNew]

FWIW -- and as a newcomer I appreciate that my views carry little weight
-- but it seems to me that censoring content is a slippery slope. I did not
see the offending photograph. But by removing it, the moderators have
stifled all discussion and reduced this to an abstract post hoc discussion of
principles.

People will always disagree about where good taste is violated. A famous
example is Rudy Giuliani's attempted eviction of the Brooklyn Museum from
its building for showing Nigerian artist Chris Ofili's portrait of the Virgin Mary,
that had incorporated cow dung into the materials used. Giuliani deemed it
sacrilege, even thought that was not Ofili's intent, and drew a line from which,
happily, the law forced a retreat.

Art progresses by provoking, by poking at pat notions of aesthetics and norms
and sensibilities. At bottom, the moderators should consider whether the site
is about the nuts and bolts of rangefinder cameras, or whether it aspires to
nurture artistic expression. If the Forum's mission is the former, then censoring
images on the site arguably makes sense. But if it includes the latter, then I
think the censorship was a disservice to the photographer and the community.

Sanders

 

[RayPA]

The discussion for this image went quite deep. My contribution to the discussion was in response to the strong reactions it was receiving. I added that we should examine more closely images that generate a strong personal reaction.

I agree that there was an element of vulgarity to the image, but I felt that the artist was in full control of the image and that the vulgarity was intentional. The artist was making a point, expressing an opinion about the concept of matriarchy and linking that to the concept of the concubine, harem, and the odalisque (Marc's contribution).

Jocko, I think found the steretypical "orientalism" an affront, and felt that the image was more more or less pornographic in nature, thinking maybe it was all just an excuse to prominently display the female genitalia in a crude unflattering fashion.

I didn't feel the artist was out to arouse or tittilate. It was by no means a "boudoir" image, and to assume the artist is a pornographer and dismiss the image is to walk away and miss any opportunity to examine an image that had some depth to it. This is the type of examination that makes one a better photographer in the end. I brought in the Witkin reference because this poster is obviously influenced by Witkin's work, which is very deliberate and carefully considered, with lots of subtext.

In regards to the no genitalia rule. If the gallery is to be censored (which I'm against) then the no genitalia rule may be the easiest method for the moderators to handle. It's unfair to place the determination of what is and isn't offensive in the hands of a moderator. The member who posted this image has posted similar images in his/her gallery.


.

 

[Jocko]

The artist was making a point, expressing an opinion about the concept of matriarchy and linking that to the concept of the Odalesque.

Ray, this is what really interests me. I was at pains to point out that I have no objection whatsoever to depictions of genitalia, and that I greatly admire the Symbolist and Decadent art of the 19th century - the schools which the photograph is intended to echo. I should also add that the painter I most admire in the last 100 years is Egon Schiele, whose work is as brutally explicit as one could possibly be.

Schiele is making a point about human nature, he is expressing a vision: every line has a purpose. But I honestly don't understand what this photographer intended to say - and I doubt he did either. All I can think of is that by entitling his picture "Matriachy" he means us to draw an obvious Freudian lesson; that woman, the eternal odalisque (basically a slave kept for sex), really rules the world because she (or rather her genitals) form the focus of desire and the source of life etc etc. Given that Odalesque literally translates as "chamber function" we really are in Dr Freud's consulting rooms. As fin-de-siecle cliches go, this boy knows his stuff 🙂

But I wonder if he really thought any of this through. Until I'm enlightened otherwise, it just seems to me pastiche. But I do wish other people could see it and decide for themselves.

Cheers, Ian

 

[Silva Lining]

I didn't see the original picture.

But after 52 posts about its 'censorship' or removal, I would really like to see it to judge for myself !

Strange thing is, forum rules notwithstanding, if it had not been removed, we'd all now be talking about Domke bags or something else..... 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

It was a woman holding a Billingham bag. I think it was an olive 335.

 

[Socke]

I remember the discussion about people who can't read RFF at work because of nudity, they wanted this site safe for work and they got it that way. No need to blame the moderators.

 

[Ken Ford]

It was a woman holding a Billingham bag. I think it was an olive 335.

*snort!!!*

 

[ChrisN]

This both fascinates and disturbs me.

I fully understand that the moderators have a difficult job, but one of the things that I believe stops a good forum from rising higher is the hair-trigger mentality displayed at times by moderators here.

There is a fine line between moderation and censorship, and between enforcing rules and imposing personal tastes, and I think the line is crossed here too many times. Censorship should be a last resort, not the first. The heavy hand of censorship both stifles debate and drives anything more intellectual than the moderators' personal taste into the wilderness. Bland food is boring. Bland photography is boring too. But bland debate is the thin end of the wedge. Heaven forfend that we should offend the moral majority.

Regards,

Bill

This whole discussion must be terribly frustrating for the people who were not able to view the offending image. The forum does have this well-known and well-understood rule that images posted to the gallery shall not display genitalia, male or female. Simple rule, easy to understand, very little interpretation required. Right or wrong.

The image, whatever its other qualities, clearly and simply broke that rule. The moderator had no choice - once the request was put to the moderator by a member, either the image would be removed, in line with the rule imposed by the owner of the forum, or the moerator would have to resign from the role as moderator. His action was not "hair-trigger" or hasty - no lengthy consideration or weighing of arguments was necessary; the image broke the rule.

Question the rule, certainly, but the moderator deserves no criticism from us in relation to this. In fact I think the moderators err on the side of allowing questionable images to remain, rather than hastily disposing of some that might be borderline cases.

What interests me is that the creator of that image has not seen fit (at this time) to add it to his portfolio on his own (commercial) website, which contains images with similar style (ie similar photoshop treatment) but nothing as explicit. Perhaps he is using this site to test for reactions, or to raise the traffic at his site. I wonder if he has posted it elsewhere.

 

[pesphoto]

Drat I missed this one. If it was indeed merely outright porn i have no problem with it being deleted. There have been tasteful nudes shown here without being deleted. I trust the moderators decisions.
But if someone wants to email me the photo in question i'd be happy to assess it for myself.

 

[Xmas]

Jenni

In Bill's post we need to replace majority by min... most people dont care. Only in US do many people bother going to church, europe is slipping...
In your signature you need to add 'tease'
In our photos we need fig leaves.

Noel

 

[ernstk]

Frustration...

Frustration...

It's extremely frustrating not to be able to express a view on this, since the photo is gone.

Does anyone have a link to the photographer's website, where I can see the photo?

Regards
Ernst

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

The photographer's website is mentioned upthread.

I went there and did not see this specific photo, but then I didn't look all around. I thought the photos had merit and that this one was a one off - perhaps designed to shock in a Damien Hirst sort of way.

 

[rxmd]

Hi Joe,

wes, i have to say that i'm disappointed in your reply. [...] people are so quick to judge others here, especially those of us with some responsiblity for keeping the site running smoothly and troll free. talk about self righteous...

Maybe this is just the result of some of the more controversal deletions over the last months, such as the "sicko photography" thread or Magus' user account, since the transfer of the site ownership to Stephen.

In general I personally would rather have less things deleted; I seem to have a different decency threshold from the site owner or some of the moderators. I guess, however, in this particular instance a no-nudity approach does help to keep RFF readable for many. It's a pity I didn't get to see the picture, though; I've taught Orientalism classes and would be interesting in seeing both the picture and the discussion.

Philipp

 

[Pablito]

I find all this a bit disheartening because right or wrong the removal of the image from the gallery involved a judgement call, whereas in post #37 there is a violation of RFF rule #6 regarding the posting of copyrighted images. No judgement call needed in post #37, this is a clear violation, yet that photo, by Horst, has not been removed by the poster (as I requested earlier) nor by the moderator.

One of the nice things about this forum is that it puts amateurs on an equal footing with professionals - we share and learn from each other. However I am dismayed at how lightly the issues of intellectual property are taken here. As someone who makes a living through my images, and as someone who has suffered real losses due to piracy and theft of intellectual property, I ask folks to think twice before posting an image they did not create. When I have raised this issue here in the past, I have been chided or told, basically, to lighten up. BASTA!

 

[gb hill]

Pablito, What does BASTA mean and what language is it? Is it like good day! I really don't know and am curious. Learning about others I think is a good thing.

 

[xayraa33]

Basta,= enough ! in spanish IIRC.

 

[Socke]

Basta,= enough ! in spanish IIRC.

italian, in spanish it's more like "se acabó!"

 

[Sanders McNew]

I find all this a bit disheartening because right or wrong the removal of the image from the gallery involved a judgement call, whereas in post #37 there is a violation of RFF rule #6 regarding the posting of copyrighted images. ... I am dismayed at how lightly the issues of intellectual property are taken here. As someone who makes a living through my images, and as someone who has suffered real losses due to piracy and theft of intellectual property, I ask folks to think twice before posting an image they did not create.

Well, if it violates RFF rules then that is that. But at least under US copyright
law (other nations' laws vary) the post is not a "piracy and theft" of Horst's
"intellectural property." The US copyright laws recognize a Fair Use Doctrine,
that permits reproduction of copyrighted works without license under certain
circumstances, usually where the reproduction is for educational or critical
purposes, has no commercial value, is not intended to replace the original,
and causes no economic damage to the original. (See 17 U.S.C. sec. 107.)

In this case, the poster reproduced Horst's photograph to make a point, not
to profit from the photograph. If anything, the post probably helps increase
the value of Horst's work by increasing awareness of it. I would expect a US
court to find the post covered by the doctrine. Other nations might reach
different conclusions.

Sanders

 

[gb hill]

Basta = enough! That makes sense. Thank you very much.🙂

 

[gb hill]

Well, if it violates RFF rules then that is that. But at least under US copyright
law (other nations' laws vary) the post is not a "piracy and theft" of Horst's
"intellectural property." The US copyright laws recognize a Fair Use Doctrine,
that permits reproduction of copyrighted works without license under certain
circumstances, usually where the reproduction is for educational or critical
purposes, has no commercial value, is not intended to replace the original,
and causes no economic damage to the original. (See 17 U.S.C. sec. 107.)

In this case, the poster reproduced Horst's photograph to make a point, not
to profit from the photograph. If anything, the post probably helps increase
the value of Horst's work by increasing awareness of it. I would expect a US
court to find the post covered by the doctrine. Other nations might reach
different conclusions.

Sanders

You are very right. Most don't understand the copyright act and it scares them to death. I hope the owner of the site as well as the moderators read this and make the adaquite changes.