A Philosophical question ......

In our times, it seems appropriate to ask such questions before acting.

 

I have few photographs, well a set of photographs that I made on the photographing nature, and the set frankly and openly depicts "Natural selection" in the world of birds. Depiction may be somewhat "very frank" or some would say "graphical".

 

I like to think of photography as an art, and not a form of entertainment, and art has to be honest. So, would it be acceptable to post such photos publicly ? How ca I tell the right from wrong channels through which to display such work ?

So, would it be acceptable to post such photos publicly ?

Having not seen them, I can only say it sounds like it would be acceptable to post them.

How ca I tell the right from wrong channels through which to display such work ?

You can submit them to certain publications or web sites and they'll let you know if they want to present them. That won't make anything right or wrong, but it's a practical way to see what different venues are interested in displaying.

 

When you make your photos public, there will likely be some people who will find some social, political, or aesthetic objection to them. It's good if you go into it feeling that you're providing something worthwhile. You can take the reactions for what they're worth, either letting them influence you or standing firm in your own judgment about them. That will depend on the reactions and how they strike you.

You can add a third definition of photography, that of documentation, evidence. Obviously, the goal would be to strive to depict the subject in a clear and (as much as humanly possible) unbiased fashion.

 

Without having seen the photos in question, it sounds like they fall under this category.

 

I have hundreds of photos of fish farms, seashores, coastal erosion from a previous existence as a marine science student. They are not artistic, but they served a purpose and arguably, in some respects, have more historical value than, say, a beautiful sunset.

This topic has been addressed by those of us with more 'puritan' minds in the past:

 

Rampant Sexual Imagery on Photo.net

 

Some animals are inherently improper, like these camels (strictly dromedaries)

evening news LOVES showing pictures of bloated bodies on the beach, loves showing photos of people executed in Ukraine and everywhere else like coca cola loves putting its logo on everything.

 

Your just doing what national geographic does and even fly fisherman does.. any bird magazine... etc.

Hmmm.. "Graphical or "very frank" "natural selection" in the world of birds could mean almost anything. Chickens ripping another chicken apart and eating it, to name but one example. Yes, the natural world has many sides- not all of them pretty. That doesnt mean the whole world wants to see all these things. Anything that can be labeled as you have labled your photo series, "might not" be for everyone.

 

That you even felt a need to ask is at least somewhat telling.

Choose your audience wisely.

Choose your audience wisely.

Or provoke them as the thickness of your skin allows! :)

Are the birds dressed or undressed?

It depends on your audience. You always have to take that into consideration when posting a message be it pictures or words.

In our times, it seems appropriate to ask such questions before acting.

 

I have few photographs, well a set of photographs that I made on the photographing nature, and the set frankly and openly depicts "Natural selection" in the world of birds. Depiction may be somewhat "very frank" or some would say "graphical".

 

I like to think of photography as an art, and not a form of entertainment, and art has to be honest. So, would it be acceptable to post such photos publicly ? How ca I tell the right from wrong channels through which to display such work ?

 

 

I can't speak for any of PN's moderators or its management. However, I would sincerely hope that bird photographs that show raptors with their prey. will be acceptable.

You can add a third definition of photography, that of documentation, evidence.

 

 

Steve, I don't think that documentation is any way a definition of photography. Rather, it's one of photography's purposes.

Brat’s opening comment implying that being art and being entertaining are mutually exclusive is questionable.

Must all art be approached with grim determination?

For examples: Marriage of Figaro, Meistersinger, Dizzy’s Salt Peanuts. Are not these both art and entertainment?

Don’t worry about whether it’s art or not, just do what makes you happy.

The camels has won over BS

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281950.The_Scientific_Image

 

A propos all that.

Edited October 15, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker