RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad

RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad

  • Good

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • Bad

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my view this site is meant to bring together rangefinder photographers for fun and sharing. I think that we have to realize that we all come from different backgrounds, political views and countries. A bit of self-cencorship is called for. If you think that a photograph might be overly offensive then just make the decision to not post it. It is merely being respectful to others when you do this. Like others have said, we are here because of Jorges generocity. If someone really needs to post photos to express themselves in a way that might overly offend others there are other place to do this. In cases like this where egpj seems to have posted a photo that might offend without any agenda then the forum owner and moderator will take care of it.

Most of the other photo forums have fallen victim to horrible in-fighting that almost destroyed them. I certainly don't want to see this happen here. I prefer to see whatever censorship is needed to keep that from happening.
 
Frank, it (the graffiti) was not art. Something that I found amusing about the piece was the heart that was painted over behind it. You can see it to the left of the "B". The two differing emotions was something that I saw. I liked the turmoil in that image but nobody else could see it. Sooo, I really accomplished nothing. "Art" yes but not effective.
 
egpj, I had to go back to see the partially painted over heart as I hadn't noticed it before.

A third argumment has surfaced against the posting of this image in the gallery, that of cultural/historical sensitivity and respect for others.

Has the decision by Jorge to censor this image from the RFF gallery been validated for you after this discussion, or are you still in disagreement with the action?

"With one photo I can offend just about every political group and religous order. Dang! I gotta frame that one!"

It's not your photo, egpj, the swastika is capable of doing that all by itself. As for hanging it on my wall, no thank you.
 
it seems like the messenger is sometimes confused with the message s/he is reporting.
i didn't read this picture as the photographer intending to offend; but saw it more as reporting, and juxtaposing the conflicting symbols, and presenting the political intent of the grafittist.
further, it seems like just about any picture is capable of offending someone, whether it is because of references to politics, religion, objectification and exploitation of individuals and cultures, or pictures that are more about technique and tools, or those that are plain old boring and banal.
 
I understand why he cut it now and it is HIS perogative. In the photo someone made a statement of hate about our president while painting it in front of a heart. It is a duality and I think it is worth exploring the concepts that are expressed. One of hate (rather inappropriate in my political opinion) covering over one of love.

I'll keep my pictures on my webpage. Hopefully that will keep me out of trouble. I just don't like being censored.
 
FrankS said:
The second reason is more complex, but Nick and others have explained it well. Your shot of the artwork, is not a work of art. It is a documentation of a work of art. There is no artistry in a photo duplication. Your image carries only the political message, and demonstrates only technical competence on the part of the photographer. Is a photo of a peice of art art if it includes no context? No. This is not censorshipo of your art, it is censorship of a political statement.
Click to expand...

Frank, my esteemed friend, this is a specious argument. Your statement rips open an enormous can of worms. ART CANNOT BE DEFINED. It is what the artist says it is. Is a religious icon art? Can a photo of that icon be considered art? How about a painting? I submit: Any representation of an idea, in any form, can be considered art.
That's a wide open interpretation. Good reason for that, since art itself is damn difficult to pin down.
I disagree with you on your statement, "is not a work of art."
No one can define this. If I spit on the street, and call the splatter art, it is.
If someone writes, "WHY?" in dripping spray paint, on a wall, and it's photographed, that's art, and I doubt any would have questioned it.
Might not be a great photo, but it wouldn't have generated any controversy.
And for those who object specifically to the swastika, those who are offended by it--- you should be offended, as should any who see it; and the suppression of that image would only serve to subdue its message. All right thinking individuals should be outraged whenever we see it--- and we should see it, lest its lessons be forgotten.
 
I think it is a fairly safe bet if anyone here were to guess my personal politics they would quite likely be wrong; my personal feelings about this particular image or any other image aside I am a strong proponent for free expression in art in the larger community. What I am saying is that regardless of whether or not I like or agree with an image or the statement that an image makes I respect and advocate the right of the individual to make and display the image.

In the smaller more communal setting of our forum I think that it is prudent for us to respect the sensibilities of all and try not to offend -- we are something of a family here and we do have an outstanding track record of cooperation, good spirit, and respect for one another. As BJ B pointed out ultimately it is Jorge's sandbox and I respect Jorge and his judgement as much as I respect anyone's individual rights.

Egpj, I thought that your photograph was provocative and that is an important element for an image and art -- regardless of whether I was sympathetic or offended by the statement the image made. It is a good photograph, but perhaps not best displayed here. If I had taken the photo I would have posted it as well, but that doesn't mean much because I frequently find myself on the wrong side of appropriate behavior 😀. I hope that you have taken no personal offense that it was removed because I am certain that none was intended.
 
As For the Poll...

As For the Poll...

My vote in the poll was forced into "Black or White" on a question that contains a great deal of grey. Had this been in the form of 1 to 5 I would have submitted a response somewhere other than the extreme. In spite of my feelings about censorship you have my word that I will not post any nude pictures of myself 😉.
 
Honu-Hugger said:
In spite of my feelings about censorship you have my word that I will not post any nude pictures of myself 😉.
Click to expand...

Certainly, something good has come about due to this discussion!
 
At one time, Jorge posted some rules about photos that could go on the RFF Gallery, so it's not like he's exercizing power just because he can. It's all clearly reasoned and explained.

In any case, egpj, you've proved to be a mature, responsible and gracious RFF member. Don't let these things clip the wings of your enthusiasm.

Saludos!
 
Krasnaya_Zvezda said:
If I spit on the street, and call the splatter art, it is.
[/I]
Click to expand...

where is the line between art and the loss of bodily fluids? If your puddle of spit is art, do you think anyone in the "print swap" would like to get an 8x10 "glossy" of one of my sneezes during ragweed season........ probably not so much? 😉

My question is what if the "Swasti-Bush" wasn't done with art in mind but as a political statement, is it art if art wasn't intended? When did it become art, when you took the picture?

BTW, don't remove your gallery because of this incident, I've seen some of your other stuff and would like to see more.

Todd
 
I fully support Krasnaya Zvezda. Frank's argument about art was totally specious -- remember R. Mutt and the urinal -- and besides, part of the function of art is to hold up a mirror to the world. The world includes politics; to pretend otherwise is to hide one's head in the sand. Some are happy to do that; others are not.

Was the picture offensive? To some, possibly, though I can't help feeling they were neing unusually thin-skinned. So was Serrano's 'Piss Christ'. But even if you REALLY don't like something, surely the only sensible reaction (after due reflection) is along the lines of 'I wondfer why they were stupid enough to do that.'

Some pictures are indeed like the child who shouts BUM in order to shock people, but we can dismiss childisness easily enough. Some remind us of things that should not be swept under the carpet, but faced: the swastika and its Nazi heritage are a good example. Sure I find Nazi swastikas unpleasant; but they won't just go away if I pretend they don't exist.

I don't like the idea of starving children or wars, either, but I don't say that no-one should photograph them in case someone is offended. They are SUPPOSED to be offended. That's the point. People who are offended can either try to mend their ways (if they are in the wrong) or to change the world for the better (if they are in the right).

Finally, 'in the wrong' and 'in the right' are value judgements, as Bush so elegantly and eloquently demonstrates. You do not need to go very far down the path of 'I don't like this, so I'll ban it' to run into serious trouble.

Sure, it's only a photography forum, and Jorgeis doing a great job (it's easily the BEST photography forum) but this doesn't mean we always have to agree with him. I am profoundly grateful for the forum he founded and runs but this isn't the first time we've differed and the only way it is likely to be the last is if he throws me off the forum, which I hope and believe to be unlikely.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I don't understand what censorship is supposed to protect us from. I think most of the members of this Forum are adults who recognize the world is an imperfect place and contains things that will be offensive to some people. I can deal with being offended. I don't want censors trying to defend my sensibilities. I think I am better off knowing what is going on in the world than being protected by some well meaning censor.
 
Thanks Rodger and Oldprof for putting into words what I was thinking. I would like to add that when the word art is used so much in this issue I want to hurl. Now be good children and eat your dull/bland gruel.

Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom