petemillis Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 What happened there? I was about to say something to David Hibberd and his naked butt got vapourised! David, you came in to offer your full support to Zoe and stated that you were leaving PN because of all the peurile drivel in this thread. Well, this is the Philosophy of Photography Forum and I can't see anything other than questioning and learning and discussion going on here. There's not been a single incident of bad mouthing going on - well, not until Zoe referred to "witless worms" (but she did say that was trying to be funny) and then you referred to stuff you don't agree with as peurile drivel or whatever. I don't understand why you should feel the need to quit the whole PN thing because of one thread - it's like cancelling a subscription to a magazine because you didn't like one of the readers' letters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 What DID happen to DAVID? hmmm Ok, ZOE ~ I looked at your website. I didn't really have time last night. I am very impressed. YOUR pictures are right on the spot what I was talking about. Beautiful lines. Very tasteful and very wonderful. I didn't see many male models, honestly. But I had not looked that far. But then again it goes to show you "I" really don't mind looking at the lines of the woman (SEE). BUT again if my Mother is reading this (hi mom) she will no doubt have to go look for herself. I agree with PETE do not leave silly PN because of silly people like what ever David said. I hope it wasn't bad. I also hope I didn't offend. I am just about shadows, taste and lines. I don't rate or comment on nudes here on PN. My name is attached to everything I do. Makes pretty good sense to not go sticking my nose into to much here. BUT I will say this. Zoe, you have a great EYE and a great passion for what you do. You don't need to go defending what you do at all. Your work defends itself. The expressions in your eyes and the camera does all that for you. IF YOU DO NOT POST any of your pictures on PN how could we ever not find you? How could we not look into the soul of your camera. I was frustrated last night when I could not pull your pictures up do to the fact I had to pull some blockers off my computer. You, my dear need to let go and let your soul come out. I would love to see some of YOU up close. Ask FRED, I yern for it!! Put just a few up of what you do. I might not comment but I will e-mail you and tell you what I think. I am honest and true in what I feel. Don't let a few NITWITS bring you down. This is your life and your living it. For me my life is to change peoples pictures into fabulous one's and learn the art of phhotography. My life is to change them. Your life is to capture them. Maybe one day I can do both. I can't do that without studying YOU and what you do. PLEASE don't give up this small battle! Everytime you give up a small battle then part of YOU gives up. Also a piece of business sense. THIS IS A GREAT marketing tool here!! Keep up a few as this is a great place to market "YOU". Ok, Enough said. Thank you Pnina ~ we are two of a kind ;) YES!! ~ micki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I now leave this discussion and thanks for indulging my un-spell- checked comments. Expect the theme will reappear again. Because we have the hormones, all seekers of individual expression,truth, and group acceptance same time. Think 'Plato having coffee with Hugh Hefner.' One thing. A moderator would be useful to keep politics away from seekers of Truth. I nominate Dr Ruth Wiseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I correct my last glich, sorry, I meant of course Dr Ruth Westheimer,nee Siegel :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Ahh, yes, censorship, the road to Truth! We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Visit Zoe's site, put up with her Flash, read every word, consider to whom she's marketing, evaluate in your own terms, read every word she's posted on this thread. If you care to, read what I said as well. Don't know about you, but I'm turned on at various levels by certain photography (Weston's Pepper, National Geographic, Hustler, nekkid ladies up in trees) and am mystified by Zoe's seeming dislike for that response ("repulsed"). I don't understand how she rationalizes repulsion for sexual response to nudes, while defending Sturges' carefully posed "nubiles" (some of them illegal online, whether or not you agree with the law). Incidentally, Sturge's gorgeous images, examples we're discussing dating back 20-plus-years, seem more contemporary than Zoe's, most of which strike me aesthetically as 40s-60s. Contemporary doesn't mean better of course. Speaking of nostalgia, I recommend Miki's posts to men of a certain age, who may recall special relations with National Geographic (how does Miki know about that...a school librarian?). John Kelly, Witless Worm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Thank you Micki, I join your letter to Zoe, I could not see her work yesterday, but I went to look at it today, and I liked many of her images. As it is a discussion forum, we shall hear many ways of thinking, tastes and like/dislike comments. I do strongly think that it is important to keep the debate in a cultural wording. I hope Zoe will reconsider and open some of her work at PN so we can have easy access to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 John, <BR><BR> I will, did, do, and considered everything you said. <BR><BR> I am so very honored that you put me in the same category as a Librarian. If you have not noticed by now I am a poor speller but an avid reader so a Librarian would be wonderful. But unfortunately I am stuck here in my house to only deal with the passive aggresive people in the world. Oh, that's me. <BR><BR> Zoe is not "repulsed" by the word "repulsed" but "repulsed" that you would put words in her mouth. If I get that straight. <BR><BR> Anyone in HER line of artistic work would only be offended if others out there are doing something that is distasteful. I'm sorry but I can't think for her but I got the distinct impression that she was NOT at all FOR that kind of work, nor does she agree with it. That is all I am going to say. <BR><BR> Now about the little boys will be little boys. <BR><BR> Hello, knocking on little mans head. :) <BR><BR> In fact are we all going to like wake up now or are we all going to stay in our dream world? Is this where the counsellor says lets be true to ourselves? <BR><BR> I don't need to be a School Librarian to know that information. It is tucked into everyones past history and everyone's little minds. <BR><BR> We all remember those little hearts beating faster the first time we all say a bit of Nakedness somewhere. It is a natural progression for adolescence. <BR><BR> To deny it is to deny the truth about ones self. I don't need to be a librarian peeking at little boys looking at magazines to know this. <BR><BR> So, you are NOT a witless worm ok! <BR><BR> Just seeing things as you see it. That is ok. Just a bit different. <BR><BR> Just don't be so harsh. Even on yourself :) <BR><BR> Naked people are ok to like. <BR><BR> We are all just talking about what KIND of naked people we DO LIKE. <BR><BR> That is all! <BR><BR> I found this to be just as Sensual personally. <BR><BR> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6459350" > Fern Unfurling </a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Heavens Above Micki - please don't post links to such photographs showing Fern with a big stiffy! Oh how disgusting :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolerenee Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 John: Im not leaving forever but I do have to get rid of my internet for a while so I'll have check in periodically when I get the chance, heavens knows when that will be. So dont dispair! I shall return... Micki: You are completely crazy and I have trouble following just ONE line of your thought process let alone fifty or so but I absolutely ADORE you and all of your quirkyness and great big heart :) Gordon: I'm glad you seem to be enjoying life all on your own. Everyone else: Great thread, keep those enormous brains pumping but dont bust a spring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Thanks Nicole. I wish you only joy in your life. Well I'm off to the library to pick up some old National Geographics and maybe I'll pick up some Vonnegut to reread while I'm there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Pete, he he ~ well, if you were not able to go to the LIBRARY like me and Gordon to check out the HAWAII vegitation. HE HE Nicole, I adore you as well! ;) I talked with Zoe, she sends her best. HA! Off to go do some art myself. Going to go take pictures of nice strong tree's. YEP! Wonder if I can make them look sexy? hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Make sure you pick some big thick long stiff ones... trees that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 HA!! Well, I'm serious. I have this THEME I have to do. I have to take a picture of a TREE. Well, I'm not a TREE picture taker. Hmmm, so NOW I am dedicated to taking a sexy tree picture. LOL he he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Micky, did you ever see my sexy looking bent one (http://www.photo.net/photo/6436922) ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilpeters Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 If a photograph is all about the subject, it's a Naked. If it's all about the light, composition, mood, atmosphere, it's a Nude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Neil http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=457 is interesting with respect to Naked and Nude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisionphotography Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Very well said Neil. Add to that if it captures the SOUL it moves on to fine art and becomes a work that affects you in your dreams also. It becomes part of you. Check out Freds new picture. You would understand. I personally think he crossed over into what you just said. Light, composition, mood, atmosphere. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 Sorry, but I have to take issue with Fred Goldsmith here... Fred, how can you say that my photograph is more exploitative than any of Sturges's work? I have a photograph here - which I took of a professional model, who was getting paid for the work she was doing, she was a consenting adult, and furthermore, you can't actually "see" anything in the shot because she is kneeling behind the speaker. Now, how you think that is more exploitative than full-frontal nude shots of children who are clearly not even of school age, and clearly not getting any sort of reward for being made to pose like that - I find hard to justify. Could you please explain yourself, Fred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 I've been on holiday, and away for a couple of weeks, and just got back. Read the whole thread through, and I'm quite proud of myself for starting this one off!!! I'd like to make a couple of points regarding the work of Jock Sturges: Zoe pointed out that Sturges took the photos in places where society accepted nudity. Well, that's all well and good, but he chose to exhibit the pictures in places where nudity was not accepted as the norm - especially when it involves very young children. Zoe also points out that the authorities has a problem with Sturges taking family portraits on a french nudist beach. She asks us "What could be more innocent?" I ask: What was a man doing on a nudist beach with a camera??? "Hello, madame, I am a man with a camera on a nudist beach. Would you mind if I took a few snaps of you and your children - naked?" Come on - this is perverse!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Dave-- Welcome back. You did start a good thread here. I find Jock's photos less exploitive than yours because they treat his subjects with care and respect. I don't feel he is looking at them so much as relating to them. Your opening statement, "Nice Set of . . . Headphones" suggests that you are poking a little fun, and pointing me to your model's hidden breasts as well as the headphones, not to your model as a human being, just to your model as a way for you to sell your product and make a little titillating pun. Exploitation is not only to be found in overt nudity or sexual situations. It is to be found in the way we treat people, how we use their images, etc. Honestly, I don't think your photo is terribly exploitive, and I as well as you have more of a sense of humor than to get seriously offended by your photo. It's a good photo and a good ad. But it does rely on some amount of exploitation and objectification. The point is that I think you are not after the humanity of your model and I think Jock is. That someone, no matter how young or old, is nude, is not automatically dirty, shameful, or inappropriate. There are contexts. And that someone is not nude does not mean the context can't be a wee bit demeaning or usurous or exploitive. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well explained, Fred. i still stand by my opinion of Sturges's work though. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Right... I'm off to take some sexy pictures of trees. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dave-- I think we have reached some common ground and appreciate your response. I will look forward to those boldly erect trees. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 Ha Ha Ha - whilst trawling Photo.net i came across this sexy tree picture by our colleague Josh Myers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now