Can I get a comment removed ?

[pmj]

I thought your point was that flickr.com is doing much better in terms of Alexa traffic than

either photosig.com or photo.net.

 

Comparing on photosig.com and photo.net, photo.net seems to do better. Both seem to have

peaked in early 2006. photo.net shows an upward line at the right end of the graph.

[david_dorcich1]

My point is you are only expecting comments bases upon the technical aspects of your image, that is unrealistic no matter what the subject matter is.

[cd]

Josh,

No one wants to see PHOTO.NET become another playboy.com or porn site (notice the distinction?), there are too many of those already, But I would like to see the rights of photographers posting edgier material defended more rigorously. Material in passing that legitimate galleries have no trouble with. Photo.net is part of a larger community, the ART community, and as such has an obligation to defend the works of that community (1st Ammendment anyone?).

 

As you pointed out, name-calling serves no one. Personal attacks aimed towards the photographer or the model do a diservice to the community that is photo.net, and do nothing to advance the art of photography as a whole.

 

I would defend their right to post all the cat, dog, flower, and grazing cattle shots that their hearts desire, and be critiqued on such, why are they allowed to impugn my rights to post my images, without being attacked personally.

 

You and I both know that several (many?) photographers who commonly post edgier material have been vilified in the comments to the point that they have either completely abandoned NET or cut back severely on their postings. I believe that the long term stats bear this out.There is simply less of interest to look at on photo.net, this translates to less traffic, and less revenue for the site, and could eventually lead to it's collapse (unless Amazon is waiting in the wings). It has happened before. I would like to keep photo.net healthy.

[cd]

David, Believe me, I know to expect it, I simply want it noted as inappropriate. A message needs to be sent out that those sort of comments won't be tolerated. As Josh so eloquently pointed out, he gets a volume of mail complaining about too many nudes.... constantly.

 

These are people who are trying to shutdown an art form I see as valuable beautiful and eloquent, to shame those who practice it into complying with their sense of both decency and aesthetic.

 

You may not see it, but after going thru it 20 years ago I've come to recognise the signs, these are people for whom nudity no matter how beautiful or eloquent simply has no place in art or daily life. There has to be a counterpoint to that.

 

I'd would simply like a demonstrable intolerance towards personal attacks. They can tell me that I have no technique, they can tell me I couldn't shoot my way out of a camera obscura, but when you go towards personal attacks on the very person, to shame or humiliate them out of pursuing their chosen art form..." then that's just too much. I'm taking a stand.

[davidmccracken]

You can disapprove of comments on your photos. Just don't submit them for critique.

[joshroot]

<i>"You can disapprove of comments on your photos. Just don't submit them for critique."</i>

<p>

That isn't actually correct. It works that way for ratings, but any image can have comments left on it, there is no way to turn the comments off. Also in the past, the decision was made to give users the ability to "disapprove" comments left on their overall gallery, but not individual photos. The thinking probably was to help "force" people who normally don't take critique well, to have to read and look at any less-than-glowing comments. Having negative as well as positive comments on images also helps further the idea that photo.net should be a place to share and learn, and not just a "pat on the back" kind of place.

<p>

However, it is probably worth re-examining both decisions.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"I'm starting to see why this site is declining rapidly... too bad I paid for 3 years."

 

This site has been declining rapidly since Philip launched it way back i nthe 1990s. It is sort of like the M.C. Escher woodcut of a mobius strip like staircase, forever going up and down at the same time in the same plane.

 

"Josh, I lay it squarely at the foot photo.net for not defending the right of a photographer to post his images without derision."

 

If you don't want to hear other people's opinions about your photos y , keep them to yourself and don't post in a public forum. Is it photo.net's place to censor criticism?. I do disagree with the comment he made, BTW. Tells me more about him than about you.

 

By the way most of the really kinky people I've met live in small towns. I think it's the social pressure that turns them that way.

 

"These are people who are trying to shutdown an art form I see as valuable beautiful and eloquent, to shame those who practice it into complying with their sense of both decency and aesthetic.

 

You may not see it, but after going thru it 20 years ago I've come to recognise the signs, these are people for whom nudity no matter how beautiful or eloquent simply has no place in art or daily life. There has to be a counterpoint to that. "

 

Carlos David,

 

I agree with that last perception and your stand completely. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. But we also have to realize that people like Mr. Keam probably see people like us as bullies as well.

[jtdnyc]

Putting aside the specific photo and the specific comment, I find it ironic that here we

have an artist demanding censorship -- and invoking the First Amendment as if it

supported his position!

[photobiscuits]

Well, it's too bad things have gone so sour in this thread. I like photonet. I also take edgy pictures but knowing what kind of reaction they will receive I choose not to post them here. I don't think the community wants to see them and really I don't need the community's opinion on my contribution to the genre.<br>

But I wonder, does anybody know of a photo sharing/critique site that welcomes kinky erotica?

[at]

....For Mike Nikolic....yes, go to www.photosig.com

 

They have an erotic section. Sort photos by category. Nice site

for posting but photo.net is a much better site for "how to".

[cd]

Ok good feedback all, and I think that as long as we remain respectful this can be a healthy debate.

 

I'd like to re-state one point in particular that I have repeated over and over again, and it remains fundamental to the issue. I'm absolutely in support of good critiques (both pos & neg). Please feel free to tell me my pictures suck, and if I could impose upon you, tell me why, it would go a long way to supporting the basic tennet of this site. LEARNING. That is the true intent of a critique to inform and encourage, not dissuade. You can someone their images are too dark or to light without attacking them personally. When you go after a person directly then it becomes vile, and dear readers, that should not be permitted... We should (need to) encourage true critiquing wether it be accurate or not, positive or not but should stop vile attacks in their tracks.

 

to Ellis:

The stats don't bear you out on the popularity of NET. It peaked in 2006 and is now on the decline (5 yr graph), while digital camera sales continue to soar, and more importantly books, seminars and other teaching tools on photography explode, so where is photo.net in all this as a teaching tool? They've allowed a small segment of the population to have their way, and have made this site less interesting. On the subject of bullying .... not to bring it back to the schoolyard, but really who took the first swing ? Have I no right to post, without personal comdemnation ? When did I bully Peter? (who BTW has a site called portraitsbypeter.com , with not a single pic of a human being, this is factual ,not an attack.)

 

BTW Ellis: Erotica is considered an art form, for legitimacy check out Picasso's erotica... http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/28/0228hot.html , sadly Americans weren't allowed to see the work (telling isn't it?)

 

to Jonathan.

You have a twisted view of liberty. Your freedom of expression should not crush mine. There are limits to your freedom , when they impugn on others' freedoms. Yes there are limits to freedom when they attempt to limit or crush the same rights in others. Suggested reading, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

 

to John.

You are an ellegant word smith, if I only had your skill, I might move men to action, if not mountains.

 

to Mike.

Mike you have eloquently proven my point, you don't feel welcome here (sadly, you are not the first to say this) unless you post pictures of puppies, sunsets, or grazing cattle. I rest my case.

 

to somone else.

She has five fingers (tilt your head to port sailor). Or it could be a case of an M.C. Escher illusion, further research is required. Thank You.

 

 

Not to bring about any conspiracy theories but, I do believe there is an actual organized agenda at play here, where several members (usually with fundamentalist religious roots) have taken it upon themselves (and working in unity with others) to dissuade legitimate members of this community from posting pictures that do not fit into their moral zone (creationism anyone?). Their tactics range from bombarding the admins with complaints about too much nudity, to posting comments that are dissuasive to the poster. Feel free to read about the fight a generation ago ...

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3467/Mapplethorpe-Obscenity-Trial-1990-Obscenity-or-Art.html

 

C.

[joshroot]

Ellis was making a joke that some won't get. He is alluding to the fact that over the decade that photo.net has been around, people regularly and consistently declare that it has gone downhill and is much worse than it was previously. Just for fun, read an early version of this type of complaint from 1997:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0004xz

 

Regarding the original question:

 

As one poster has removed their post and the other has been edited to re-direct critique to the image itself, I would say that this particular issue has been dealt with. I will be closing this thread shortly.

[cd]

Ok Josh I understand. Too bad , cuz it was getting interesting as it evolved into a debate about art vs society. In case I didn't mention it, you are a valuable addition around here, this site is better for having you. - C.

[joshroot]

I have no problems with an "art vs. society" debate. But the Feedback forum isn't really the place for it. Try Casual Conversations or Phil. of Photography.

 

Thanks for the compliment. I try.

[jtdnyc]

Carlos, thank you for the link to the "suggested reading," but you might be interested to know that I am a lawyer by training and was the writer of a video on the history of censorship, narrated by Walter Cronkite, that was shown daily in the main exhibition hall of the New York Public Library for several months in 1984. I know more than a little about this subject.

 

The First Amendment deals with censorship by the government and has no applicability in this instance. Even defamation is permissible under the First Amendment, if it is either factually correct or simply an expression of opinion.

 

If you're talking about the *spirit* of the First Amendment, rather than its actual text, you might consider whether a call for censorship of someone else's opinion is consistent with that spirit.

I don't think it is.

 

Using your logic, I'd be demanding removal of the word "twisted," but I'm happy simply to respond to it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<B>BTW Ellis: Erotica is considered an art form</B><P>To be clear I wasn't questioning whether erotica in general is an art form , I was referring specifically<I>to the photo you posted.</I> What separates your "erotica" from Picasso's is the difference between being original with great feeling and being a hackneyed cpatische of cliches.<P>

 

You might want to take a few weeks reading Kenneth Clark's "The Nude" and also looking at Robert Mapplethorpe and Ralph Gibson's photography and then: really think about how to find a way to dig deeper and make original work. You've got the chops now you have to apply them. This last clause is true of 99.999% of the photographers ( established or beginners, commercial, professional, or amateurs) that I know --and I know way too many-- so don't take it personally.

[photobiscuits]

August, thank you for the suggestion but I've been to photosig and found the censorship there arbitrary, extreme and completely lacking in accountability. For any negative feelings people may have about Photo.net, I have found they are much more accepting here.

Now I will be quiet as I am off topic and the thread is about to be closed.