If it looks like a duck,.....

[ellis_vener_photography]

Ivar,<P>I like <A HREF = http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/weirdcustomers/Y02M05D0304P31>this one</A> more. it is very witty in a droll Elliot Erwitt sort of way.<P>Who is Katja Kean?

[bobatkins]

Here's an intereting statistic. Do you know what the #1 search string for photo.net is?

 

"Nudes"

 

Yup, there sure are a lot of art lovers out there...

 

There's a school of thought that says the entire internet was developed so that men could see pictures of naked women. That's not so far from the truth.

 

I could make a good argument, based in part on on protection of minors, why nudes should be in a patron's only section of photo.net. Note that I think nudes SHOULD be part of photo.net and that fine art figure photography is very much a valid subject. However some image rejection (censorship if you like) should be applied even to a section with restricted access. This is a PHOTO website, not a PORNO website.

[bacsa]

I agree:)

[hal_bissinger]

<i>Hal � My definition requires the image to be sexually explicit.</i><p>

Yeah, but what is sexually explicit about this? In my view this is not a very good picture of an pretty unattractive naked women just standing there. Doesn't do a damn thing for me and probably wouldn't even merit a look if you hadn't asked me to.

[chris_hawkins]

Hal: I agree with your assessment of the picture. To answer your question regarding what is sexually explicit about the photo. Explicit = "free from all vagueness and ambiguity, externally visible"

You can clearly see her labia.

[markci]

<i>

No, I�m not the pubic hair police. That should be clear.

</i>

<p>

It's not the least bit clear to me. Your objections seem to be based on two aspects of the model's appearance: no pubic hair and fake boobs. In other words, if the model doesn't meet your stereotypical view of what an art model should look like, it must be porn. But frankly a lot of women shave down there these days, and if your model has fake boobs, she has fake boobs.

<p>

The only other criteria you gave were that it was in a bedroom, which is just silly, and that it's "explicit." There's nothing explicit about it -- it's just a woman standing there naked with a slightly bored expression. If she were spreading her legs and pleasuring herself then you're starting to get into pornography.

<p>

There's equally explicit stuff on photo.net's own nudes tutorial (red alert: one of them lacks public hair!). Actually more explicit: multiple women touching each others' breasts.

<p>

You might want to talk to the Pope about that whole Sistine Chapel thing too. Naked guy, no public hair in a reclining position even!

[markci]

<i>

Our judge Potter would classify this as porn and he'd have an awful lot of people beyond the reactionary prudish contingent agreeing with him.

</i>

<p>

You're incorrect. Stewart was a liberal and was writing in concurrence with an opinion that uphelf first-amendment protection for a film that was deemed pornographic. "I know it when I see it" was in reference strictly to the hardest of hard-core pornography.

<p>

Frankly this is one of the least titillating nudes I've seen in a long time, and I think anyone would have to be pretty hard up to get their chubby going over it.

[bobatkins]

Well just because porn is bad porn, doesn't alter the fact that it's porn!

 

I'm not suggesting that this is, just that the quality of the image isn't important. I'm sure there must some well shot, well light, artistically photographed images with attractive subjects that photo.net would want not to host. Subject matter matters. This isn't an X-rated site and sexually explicit images don't belong here (at least not in public galleries with no attempt at restrictions on viewing). Photo.net should not become an on-line version of Hustler or an covert excuse for porn. "But Honey, I was just looking at a PHOTOGRAPHY site, honest".

 

There's a lot of really bad amateur porn out there (I assume...) and I don't think we want to see it on photo.net. Nor do we want to see the good stuff! I think we do need to address this issue before it becomes a problem.

[hal_bissinger]

<i>You can clearly see her labia.</i><p>

Well, yeah, she was born with it wasn't she? <p>

By the way, I do agree with you and Bob that PN is not the place for this kind of stuff, porn or not.

[mottershead]

I've always been of mixed mind about the nudes on photo.net. Some, even perhaps most, of them are artistic in intent, and there is no doubt that nudes have a long and distinguished history as an artistic subject. On the other hand, allowing them on photo.net opens the door to pornographic images. We have had outright pornography uploaded to this site, and we delete it as soon as we learn of it. It is also the case that the nudes are among the most popular images, and the /nudes page is one of the most trafficed. I don't believe that the great interest in these images is purely academic or entirely aesthetic, and I must admit it bothers me to be running a site that presents images that have prurient appeal, no matter how artistic. In the end, it seems to me that we should not be stopped from presenting aesthetically valid images because of the potential for prurient interest on the part of some viewers.

 

Besides the aesthetic nudes which command an undue (but hardly unaccountable) interest, there are the ones that are not very aesthetic, which are pornography or borderline pornography. I deleted some photographs of a penis with a large butterfly perched atop it, after many people complained that they were pornographic. In some of them the penis seemed to be partly erect, which is what decided me to delete them. I later discovered that the photographs had been included in an exhibition in a public art museum in Tel Aviv. I still wonder about that decision.

 

This photograph, like many uploaded by this photographer is a borderline case it seems to me. It does not adhere to the conventions of fine art nude photography regarding lighting, pose, etc. On the contrary, the pose, the frank gaze of the model, and many other details make sexuality an obvious theme of the photographs. Whether the photographer's intent is to arouse is not clear to me.

 

However, if we delete them, there will be an enormous outcry about censorship. People will demand to know what standards we used to determine that the image was pornographic, and we will be compelled to resort to the arbitrary and unsatisfactory "I know it when I see it" standard of Justice Stewart. So, we will probably let it stand.

[bobatkins]

Brian

 

I'm not sure what's involved, but we have a checkbox for "unmanipulated" images, so how about one for "nudes" (though we might find a better descriptor than that). At least this would enable moderators to check all the potentially problematic uploads and see if there was anything really objectionable without having to look at every single image that gets uploaded. [Note we could probably charge people to moderate this group...]. Moderators could also rate these images or portfolios on merit, in the same way all images are rated, so the better and more artistic efforts could be differentiated from the rest. At some point in the future this checkbox info could be used to prevent these images from being viewed "accidentally" and the ratings info used to present the better images and/or portfolios. Existing images won't be in the system, but we could request that all photographers go back and categorise their own images in this way and even if some slip through, at least we'd have future images categorised.

 

I know we'd get cries of CENSORSHIP if we even ask for a checkbox for "nudes" (or images not suitable for a general audience), but that does not mean we should not do it. The last thing we should do is stifle artistic freedom. On the other hand we don't want to become a covert porn site and we already do remove some images which cross our invisible line.

[chris_hawkins]

Mark: I don't know if you are just yanking my chain, but I'll respond anyway.

 

Did you read my post where I said "Nude art is one of my favorite subjects and some explicit images fall in my definition of art...." This is a clear statement of my beliefs that sexually explicit photos are not necessarily porn.

 

If you bothered to read my earlier post you would see that I clearly stated that it was the combination of the four things I noted that made it porn in my eyes. I'm familiar with the Three Graces, Date Rape, and other nudes Phil G. posted. They aren't porn. They are art. If you can't see the difference between Phil's images and the image in question I can't help you and there is no point in discussing it further.

 

Brian said...."In the end, it seems to me that I beleive that we should should not be stopped from presenting aesthetically valid images because of the potential for prurient interest on the part of some viewers." I agree completely.

[markci]

Yes, I <i>quite obviously</i> saw your criteria, since I addressed them all in detail. I think they're silly.

 

I can see a difference, but the problem is that your criteria don't.

[sandy.]

Wow, long thread...to me <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1392850&size=lg"> this is art </a> and I am not ashamed to have it framed and hang in my office. The other one, if I were still a child, I would hide it under my mattress and look at it when nobody's around. The fine line between art and porn is vague at best, this is why we called it a <u>fine</u> line. So I resort to my own guideline : If I don't mind sharing the image with my 16 year old son, it is art, otherwise, it is pure pron, or pseudo-art at best...

[markci]

Sandy, as far as the "fine line" goes, I think both you and Chris are looking at it wrong.

 

Nobody has yet been able to define either concept, so to assume a nude image must be one or the other is a false dichotomy. How do you know the categories are exhaustive or mutually exclusive if you can't even define them? I submit that most nudes, including this one, are neither art nor pornography. They are snapshots of naked people. I think it's also possible for an image to be both pornography and art, to different people or even the same person.

 

There are a couple of really uptight notions driving all this. One is the notion that there is something "wrong" or "bad" about nudity, and that it can only be "excused" if it serves art. Therefore anything with nudity that isn't art is highly suspect and probably porn. This is why people get investigated for bathtub photos of their children. This notion is actually codified in law in a sense in the "socially redeeming value" test for obscenity.

 

Another is that there is something uniquely shameful or dirty about sex, and that images that address sex or stimulate a sexual response are somehow more suspect than images that stimulate other emotions or address other aspects of human nature.

 

As to the image in question, I didn't think it was art, but now I'm starting to wonder. It has certainly generated more discussion than some lame Weston wannabee or Farber clone image.

 

Brian mentions that the image in question does not "adhere to the conventions of fine art nude photography regarding lighting, pose, etc." Excuse me, but this is a bad thing? I must have been dozing when conformity became an essential aspect of artistic expression.

[sandy.]

May be this is a better way to illustrate the point :<P><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1392850">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1392850</a><p>If you read the comments given to and folders presented by this photographer, it is quite clear to me what art is, and what is not.

[sandy.]

PS : I do live in a puritanical world, which is our country, which is good ol USA, hence the comments.

[nikos]

I don't really get it. Who cares if it is or it is not porn? If you don't like it, look at other photos.

 

If there are fears of the top-rated gallery turning into some sort of am-i-hot-or-not then just add some field to be flagged for nude photos and filter by it so each can choose. And stick to the current policy of rarely deleting stuff that is utter garbage (like the masturbating guy we saw last week) or illegal.

 

After all, there is no such thing as porn or art objectively. There are just photographs. Some we find delightful, some we find offensive, each to their own predispositions.

 

Hell, I don't like 80% of the stuff uploaded on photo.net - so what? The reason I keep coming here is to wade through tons of mediocrities for the few gems. Good enough for me. Let's not bicker and argue about everything that bothers us personally. Why do I only see people complaining about nudity and "porn"? Why don't we see people posting comments like: "hey this guy is just uploading holiday snapshots of his granny and dog - get rid of him, this is not art"

 

So are we striving to preserve a quality status in PN? Make it an art-only content site? If so, I would please like to see all vacation snapshots deleted. Or, are we just trying to impose each our own prejudices, aesthetics and puritanism on others? In that case, never again say "get rid of it, it is not art?", instead say "get rid of it, it offends me - I am the quality standards god"

[bobatkins]

Because, as stated above, most of us live in the USA and the USA is a puritanical country, like it or not. General community standards are that you don't just wander across such images. When did you last see a nude on prime time TV?

 

Now taking american TV as a standard to follow is itself a very slippery slope, but at least it is a standard! You can pretty much look at an image and decide if it's "ready for prime time". If not, check the box and flag it as "not for a general audience". Lots of images in this category would be perfectly acceptable on photo.net in the right context. Some would not. Playboy doesn't publish explicitly sexual images, that's their choice. They don't have to. They have standards. Other magazines like Hustler don't have such standards, or at least their standards are different, most would say lower.

 

Why are bad nudes more offensive to most people then bad pictures of your vacation? See point #1 above. Because that's the way it is. I don't think anyone here wants an "anything goes" policy - and tough luck if they do because they don't have one now and they're not going to get one. Once you agree that SOME images should be removed, the only argument is where the line is drawn and that's a personal decision. If we had moderators making that decision, we'd chose them carefully and then let them make the decisions. It would be a good idea if moderators had shown legitimate fine art figure work in their portfolio and it wouldn't be a bad idea if at least one of them was female.

[sandy.]

Photo.net is a very good educational site for teaching my child who is interested in photography. We go to the gallery and I would try to explain to him the best I can why this photograph is good and highly rated, and why the other ones are ignored. I actually do that with my son. But imagine the embrassment I had when I come across the photo we are talking about here. What should I say to my son? That explicit nudity is good? That it is acceptable by our society? The only thing I can do is to quickly skip to the next picture. But sometimes they come in chains! Again, what should I say to my child? If I wanted him to see explicit pictures, there are plenty of sex.com that anyone can go to. Last thing I want my son to see is a picture like the one here on photo.net. In my mind, this is a place for him to hone his skill, not a place for him to see girlly pictures.

 

Maybe if you were a parent, you would understand this better.

 

Shouldn't let this wonderful, educational place go to waste.

 

My thoughts.

[nikos]

Sandy: What you do with your son is very good, assisting him to develop an artistic/aesthetic sense. Extend it, be pluralistic about it. He will get to see crap now, tomorrow, all his life. You can't just keep him insulated. Help him develop his own standards (with your own guidance) of what is aesthetically interesting, and what is nude-housewife snapshots.

 

Why don't you just explain to your son why this particular image is crap? Don't shy away from it. You can pretend that your son doesn't see porn anywhere, but the truth is he will. And if you don't explain that part of the world to him early enough, he might get the wrong ideas. Many youngsters have false idea about sex and sexuality because they think that what they see in porn films is how you do it at home. Puritanism and timidity in dealing with porn at a young age are to blame for the sexist world we live in. The youngster who has gotten most of his knowledge about sex from porn material (most youngsters fall into this category) has got the wrong images - women are whores, men are stallions, no sensuality involved, just moaning action behind close doors. Then we wonder why they beat their wives.

[sandy.]

Nikos, believe me, I teach my son, and I teach him well. At fourteen, I gave him wine, I gave him beer, and I gave him scotch. I also let him try cigarettes, and now he hates both, and my mission's done. I allow him to watch R rated movies on DirectTV, just to take the some of the mystery of sex out. I have already taught him little things about sex. But the last place I want him to find explicit photos or sex is on photo.net. This is similar to finding sex in his art history textbook. It is the WRONG place.

 

Of course, if the moderators so choose, PN can become a XXX site. I just don't think this is Phil Greenspun's intention for PN.

 

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

AND...I don't beat my wife.

[bobatkins]

You are not wrong.

[sandy.]

Bob, and I am glad. Thanks.

[nikos]

Sandy, I hope you didn't get offended or something. Neither did I suggest you beat your wife, (I was just commineting on how these phenomena start by false images) nor that you don't know what you're doing with your son. (I already said you're in the right direction) I just recommended that you deal with the occasional bad-taste or pornish image the same way you deal with any other image and that in the end your son is likely to gain rather than lose from this attitude.

 

Of course I don't want PN to be a porn site, but let's not be overly fearful. It's not anywhere near there, it has never been so (I've been a user since 1997-98 I think) and it's not likely to be.