(obvious?) missing category vs. political "correctness"

Hi Shawn/All,

Peter asked for a "scenario", and got more than that..dress, expression, setting, pose, lighting and other suggestions/critique, etc. This spirited exchange from 10 or so(at this time) interested participants.

Shawn needed to position himself "over a bed" to shoot a model (maybe in pj's for a mattress ad.- maybe NOT).

<p>

I think the responses indicate (if it needs to be said) that such subject matter(call it what you will.. glamour/erotic/nude etc.) is very appropriately a part of any forum claiming to be oriented around "people" photography(unless we take the stand that models in such categories are not "people").

<p>

Is the forum willing to "pretend" there is no interest in such among "serious" photogs such as we, to avoid the inevitable/occasional tongue-clucking disapproval of some self-appinted censor? A trip to any bookstore/library of merit will find such material quite-rightly categorized in a forthright manner..acknowledging the inherent value of the subject matter(needless to say, of interest to the "cultured" and "not-so-cultured" alike).

<p>

Certainly there is a great amount of photographic activity "focused" on these topics. The subjects in each case(g./e./n.) are "people". Not babies, not "formal" portrait sitters, not "runway"fashion models. But, entirely as "deserving" of categorization on a forum such as this.I realize that these categories are subject to attention from "visitors" having little interest in the photographic methodology, but there are plenty of sites more suited to their interests, which I believe would soon have them on their way again.

My point is that it would be more honest and helpful to those seriously interested in these types of photography, to have a defined category for them...rather than have them tucked away in the "uncategorized"(wink-wink!) category, as they become "dated".

For those who are uncomfortable with mature subjects, I'm sure some reasonable level of "censorship" re. any posted images would be readily accepted by the group.

<p>

I have some background in sculpture, and have always found it interesting that the artistic depiction of the human form, if in a museum or coffee-table book, is "classic art"...but in your neighbor's house it is likely to be seen as evidence of perversity(unless, of course, your neighbor's house is a mansion).

Discussion?

Larry

I cannot even begin to become as eloquent as Larry here, but I have

to admit I like his logic. Glamour photography (or photographing

women nude, is one of the main reasons I got into photography. I've

always wanted to work for Playboy or Penthouse magazine. True, when I

was younger there were other "ulterior motives" but now I'm older and

more wiser, I now understand the concept of Artistic expression and

viewing the unclothed human form as classic art.

No matter how well intentioned, glamour photography will always have

the stima of the "lowly prudient interests of men" because of uman

nature.

Notwihstanding, I think that a Glamour photography category is

justified. Censorship, well the world being what it is, maybe some

type is justified. My recommendation is that a panel of judges review

submissions to the category to ensure that decency standards that do

not infringe on artistic expression are maintained. To those who

would feel that the standards are stifling, they would be invited to

take their toys and go home.

<p>

Marcus J.

I cannot even begin to become as eloquent as Larry here, but I have

to admit I like his logic. Glamour photography (or photographing

women nude), is one of the main reasons I got into photography. I've

always wanted to work for Playboy or Penthouse magazine. True, when I

was younger there were other "ulterior motives" but now I'm older and

more wiser, I now understand the concept of Artistic expression and

viewing the unclothed human form as classic art.

No matter how well intentioned, glamour photography will always have

the stima of the "lowly prudient interests of men" because of human

nature.

Notwihstanding, I think that a Glamour photography category is

justified. Censorship, well the world being what it is, maybe some

type is justified. My recommendation is that a panel of judges review

submissions to the category to ensure that decency standards that do

not infringe on artistic expression are maintained. To those who

would feel that the standards are stifling, they would be invited to

take their toys and go home.

<p>

Marcus J.

Hmmm, Somehow I very much doubt that political correctness is at the

heart of the omission of a Glamour category. Shawn strikes me as

being prudent, rather than a prude. Perhaps he thought the other

categories encompassed Glamour, or maybe (as he stated up front) he

doesn't want this to become a, uh, men's site.

<p>

Shawn did ask for additional categories we thought might be

appropriate, so maybe this doesn't have to be an "issue". I don't

think it's a big deal really, one way or the other. People should

post the work they're doing and can probably figure out where to draw

the line. I for one, promise to *very* closely review images of

questionable content for appropriateness ;-).

I have had to address this issue for my own forums. Because of that,

I <i>won't<i> suggest a solution for this forum. What is appropriate

for my forum isn't neccesarily correct for Shawn's.

<p>

At some time, and probably sooner rather than later, Shawn will have

to decide what to disallow. What rules will be followed? North

American? British? Dutch? Asian? Modern Greek? Ancient Greek? How

conservative or liberal? Are pretty girls OK, but pretty boys

prohibited? Or discouraged? Do these decisions have any implications

for the future content and accessability of the forum?

<p>

Where are the boundaries between non-glamour and glamour, and between

glamour and banned? Personally, I loved the two photos recently

posted here, and don't see them as 'glamour'. I don't want to

categorise them.

To those following this thread who may not have read my next posting "My Mistake!", please do so to be aware of the "correction" therein.

Larry

Shawn, perhaps a few "adult" type catagories would be appropriate.

That would take care of any accidental exposure <joke>. Rest assured

trib and I (amongst others) will be sure to make it hot for any

misogynists masquerading as Arteests.

<p>

The politics and psychology of the human figure in art is one of my

favorite topics of discussion and favorite forms of art. I am

continually disappointed by the lack of a badly needed forum to

address this important subject; the rendering of the human form in

the twenty first century.

<p>

A friend has a show opening at the Blue Milk Gallery in Atlanta that

is all B&W figure studies of women with eating disorders, I'd like to

be able to encourage her to post an image here for discussion, but

current rules disallow that possibility. In particular I'd like

<i>you</i> to participate in that discussion. Working in the fashion

industry puts you squarely in the middle of these issues. (take

<i>that</i>!) see ya... t

<p>

Suggested catagories might be lifted from William Ewings excellent

book "The Body": Fragments, Figures, Probes, Flesh, Prowess, Eros,

Estrangement, Mirrors, Politics, Metamorphosis, and Mind. You would

enjoy the book... t

I chose to decide on no nudes, etc. based on prudence. Personally, I

love nudes, and the make up probably about 10% of my work. My

underlying plan with the rule (apart from keeping away, well,

perverts) was not to deny nudes, but to establish a certain type of

poster--a typical, serious photo.net/PoP/BW Film (Printing) type

of crowd.

...didn't mean to post, sorry. To continue: I had planned on letting

the clothed fashion/glamour photos be as powerful as they could be,

with the mere exception that I would delete anything I myself deemed

pornographic (which is obviously risky business, judging something

oneself...). As these posts continued, I was planning on letting up on

the nude prohibition.

<p>

But I am very happy with the way things have been going, and so for

the time being (until I start getting death threats) I really have NO

PROBLEM with nudes. <b> post away unclothed...</b>

<p>

<b><i>ANY PORNOGRAPHY WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. AND IF IT IS

</i>ABSOLUTELY AND BLATENTLY<i> PORNOGRAPHIC, THE POSTER WILL NOT BE

ALLOWED TO POST PHOTOS AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTENT. THIS IS MY

ONLY RULE. IT IS MY SITE AND I HATE PORNOGRAPHY</b></I>.

<p>

Any questions?

Yikes. A Trib and Tom Force. That would scare the jinkers outta

Shaggy Mary J or no. You may have biten off more than you can chew with

that one Tom, given the new rules...

<p>

I think I'll start with just one, well-marked "Adult" category. Please

post all nudes in there.

<p>

Please everyone remember this is a TRIAL, and if it goes awry I'll

probably have to say "no more". It is OUR site, so it is up to US to

keep it from falling apart...shawn

So is it ok to post serious amateur artistic pornography?

<p>

(with tongue planted firmly in cheek :)