There is an image by this title that has a debate going on in the comments section. I think for the sake of the site and the photog who took the image we could debate it here in rant.
I for one understand all the positions taken on the image. The thing that tic's me off is people insulting each other over their opinions.
I don't particularly like the image idea and I don't find it to be in the realm of "Fine Art". I think it is a poor technical image. But that is my opinion and have a right to it.
If they were a true and serious attempt at artistic expression... yes. If they're to prove an inane point with very lttle in the way of serious contribution... no.
I think the true colors come out with the user's responding to "good" comments and not to "bad" ones. He asks for intelligent criticism, but seems to decide that the only "intelligent" critics are the ones that agree with him.
I can't not call it 'art' because that is, naturally, in the eye of the beholder. It's not as offensive to me as Piss Christ or that one with the elephant dung and the Virgin Mary, but still, I don't see much redeeming value in it. Too much shock to be fine art, too weird to be erotic.
Personally, I find the image to be mildly offensive. I'm not sure why. Lord knows I'm not a prude... It's as if he's shoving something in my face and taunting me, sort of. But I'll be generous and say this may be the "artistic purpose" of the image. I don't care for it at all.
I think it's just pretty much gross. That's simply a reaction, not a professional critique, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night either.
Lighting is harsh, colors washed out, and subject matter simply does not appeal to me at all.
um... that's... interesting. And more than slightly creepy. I much prefer the one DrA posted from an artistic standpoint. The thumbnail is outstanding. :)
I pretty much have stated my thoughts in the comments.
I don't particularly like it, thought it mildly humorus, but see absolutely no need for this site to allow this kind of shock value here.
Sorry - guess I am somewhat protective of the moral values here.
What I don't get is why hasn't this been brought to the attention of those in charge or has it? If it's not in breach of the TOS then the real issue here is with the admins and not the photographer or that photograph.
I personally don't find it offensive. It's not in my tastes but I don't make up the rules here so who am I to blast this person for posting a photo that apparently meets the TOS? As I mentioned in that photo thread, the people who hate it the most are the people directly responsible for giving this photo the exposure it keeps getting. Just ignore it.
Yanko I dig man. But it was not going away it continued to get attention and some of it attacks on opinions. That is why I thought it deserved to be public and those who had such strong opinions could debate them in public. If they can't defend it in public in my mind it must be porn.
Yanko I dig man. But it was not going away it continued to get attention and some of it attacks on opinions. That is why I thought it deserved to be public and those who had such strong opinions could debate them in public. If they can't defend it in public in my mind it must be porn.
Just my .02
Ok, I won't be so subtle... Ignore that and look at my photos instead! :P
What I don't get is why hasn't this been brought to the attention of those in charge or has it? If it's not in breach of the TOS then the real issue here is with the admins and not the photographer or that photograph.
I personally don't find it offensive. It's not in my tastes but I don't make up the rules here so who am I to blast this person for posting a photo that apparently meets the TOS? As I mentioned in that photo thread, the people who hate it the most are the people directly responsible for giving this photo the exposure it keeps getting. Just ignore it.
I agree here. My Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy from med school days certainly considers the mons pubis and labium majus as part of the female genitalia. If all we are avoiding are the labium minora, then I think the TOS rule about this has very little bite to it...
What I don't get is why hasn't this been brought to the attention of those in charge or has it? If it's not in breach of the TOS then the real issue here is with the admins and not the photographer or that photograph.
I personally don't find it offensive. It's not in my tastes but I don't make up the rules here so who am I to blast this person for posting a photo that apparently meets the TOS? As I mentioned in that photo thread, the people who hate it the most are the people directly responsible for giving this photo the exposure it keeps getting. Just ignore it.
I agree here. My Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy from med school days certainly considers the mons pubis and labium majus as part of the female genitalia. If all we are avoiding are the labium minora, then I think the TOS rule about this has very little bite to it...
