photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
kodak_challenge | all galleries >> Kodak Challenges >> Challenge 49: Backgrounds >> Competition Gallery:: > 4th Place The Voyeur-(ddk)
previous | next
5/11/08 david k.

4th Place The Voyeur-(ddk)
by david k.

Kodak DCS 645C

other sizes: small medium large original auto
comment | share
kodak_challenge07-Jun-2008 05:57
Ah, but she wouldn't pass the pencil test, LOL!
Flick.
Guest 05-Jun-2008 20:37
Hell .... I think I need to give up any hope of cerebral photography and intellectual conversation ..... all I think of when I look at this picture is "nice pair of ti*s" ?!?
Ga.
david k.29-May-2008 01:22
Brent,
This case goes way beyond POV. I can understand if the images were in an educational institution like your examples, they weren't. They were part of an exhibition in a private gallery where one can choose to visit it or not depending on ones POV. In this case a zealot has created a situation where opposing POVs are robbed from their right to see what they feel is art, this is censorship at its worst and her pretense is protecting the innocent. I have a young child and I would be one of the first to scream if I felt any indecency was involved here, this is a definite case of misguided morality imo and unfortunately like all fanaticism is having a snowball effect. They have started removing his works from museums already, its disgraceful!
Guest 29-May-2008 00:18
David,

To think of the opposing side in Bill Henson's case - to remove the personal aspect of your photo. I am not sure if I agree with either side, but I think I might understand aspects of both sides.

Let us say that I have a 13 year old teenage daughter and she is going to take an art class at a public school. Let's say the teacher is a big fan of Bill Henson and has several posters of teen nudes up in his room. The class is going to end up being a "workshop/ study of Bill Henson - his vision of beauty and technique".

Now let us take the same scenario and the class is going to be "Ansel Adams (whoever) - his vision of beauty and technique"

Unless you do not have kids, it is obvious that there is "something" different about the two scenarios.

I think what evolves from these kind of situations is that there becomes a standard of "tastefully done" and "appropriate environment". For whatever reason, some artists feels obliged to walk the boundaries of these standards to see if a culture is evolved (or devolved - depending on your POV)enough to be able to handle the "new" boundary cases. I think an artist should feel like he is hitting the correct point in the boundary if he can get people that are shocked at his/ her work and people that really admire his/her work.

As Flick pointed out - I personally am a lot more timid and would probably seldom even get into the boundary area.

I don't think it is necessarily misguided morality as much as a different POV. I think both POVs are necessary to have a lively and energetic culture.

brent
david k.28-May-2008 22:32
No Flick, it wasn't a dig at you, I'm not shy and would communicate directly if it was aimed at you. Besides, Brent is an old friend of yours, not mine, its fruitless to be under handed here. You should know that I respect your position wether I agree/sympathize with it or not regarding this image.

My reply to Brent's comment was about the bigger issue at hand that he brought up. The recent situation with Bill Henson is a biggy for me, I've been a fan of his work for a very long time and this sudden change of stature is very troubling. He went from a national treasure to being accused of child pornography in an instant based on person's complaint, do I begrudge her that, you bet.

As far as attention to this image goes, if you knew me you'd know that its not about that. I appreciate the feedback and hope that you'd continue in the conversation, there's always something to learn from an opposing pov.
kodak_challenge28-May-2008 19:42
if that's a sideways dig at me, David, (and i hope it isn't) you're missing the point -
as anyone who knows me from this forum of old will tell you.
Certainly my stance had nothing to do with morality, sexual or otherwise, but was to do with an aversion to the objectification of women.
If you feel your work is valid (and if you don't, why are you displaying it?)
then you should have no need of the remarks in your last message to support it.
Well, this is now getting tedious so I'm bowing out of the discussion.
Sufficient to say that your image has now achieved attention out of all proportion to its subject mmatter and artistic aspirations.
Flick.
david k.28-May-2008 17:45
Hi Brent,

"As artists are we only to promote the dignity of others?" That's a valid point but I don't really see any indignity towards the model in this shot. Its always interesting to see how others react to an image, specially one such as this which I find very benign, for lack of a better adjective.

There seems to always be individuals with less tolerance towards sexual subjects, or objects as in this case, that often arise from a negative point of view disguised as (misguided) morality. There's one such important case going on right now regarding the works for Bill Henson. I'm not comparing this work to his, which is far superior but just a sign of changing times.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-fin...1183097197.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/internati...095915&srvc=rss
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/24/2254455.htm

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

david
Guest 28-May-2008 15:50
I told my pastor a lawyer joke once. He told me he didn't get it.

I should have learned the lesson from him.

Cheers Flick - family are doing well - big hugs right back !

brent
kodak_challenge27-May-2008 17:27
Hi there Brent.
And to think you got embarrassed by my orgasm pictures when we had the
Philosophy of Photography group.
How are the family?
Big hugs,
Flick.
Guest 27-May-2008 14:48
Interesting discussion.

Just out of curiosity - is there a difference in showing about where we are as a culture and promoting the behavior?

As artists are we only to promote the dignity of others? (In spite of what we learn in school/ readings the answer might be yes). Thanks for lifting the discussion to something more than "Nice shot"

brent
david k.27-May-2008 14:46
Ladies, at this point I have to say LOL and good luck.
kodak_challenge26-May-2008 16:53
"You talk as if the model was somehow violated."
Of course not. Just it gives a very negative view of women.
I see someone else has added to the discussion.
Your image is getting lots of attention. You'll probably win ;-)
Please note that Csaba got my 4 point vote in the last challenge for his Mi-stress pic,
so this is not a vendetta against erotic images per se.
Flick.
Guest 26-May-2008 16:15
Predictable cheesy, soft porn - obviously men's critical faculties go out of the window when presented with a young girl displaying herself.
david k.26-May-2008 15:18
Honestly Flick, I'm not bothered by your negative reaction nor do I feel that I have to defend myself, but I'm curious about the why. You talk as if the model was somehow violated.
kodak_challenge26-May-2008 06:57
Weston's nudes, as do those of Bill Brandt, imply respect for the model. This, in my opinion, doesn't.
well, we could argue round in circles. You are bound to defend your own work/viewpoint
naturally.
I can honestly say that (as far as i can remember) this is the first time I've taken
exception to an image since the Kodak challenges began.
david k.26-May-2008 01:07
Well, that could be argued for lots of photographs, starting with the famous Weston nudes down to most of commercial fashion photography using people as mere clothes hangers. This is just another nude in a city landscape image and not Irving Penn portrait, sorry that the title has negative a sentiment for you.
kodak_challenge25-May-2008 18:32
Yes, they do, and that would be equally distasteful.
However, woemn don't generally pinch mens' undewear off the line or heavy breathe down the phone (LOL)
I'm not being deliberaterly nasty, the image is very well portrayed,
I'm just objecting to the subject matter and the way she seems to be
an object rather than a person.
david k.25-May-2008 16:49
I promise you that there was no stalking involved in the process here.

You should know that men get stalked by women too, often by those close to them!
kodak_challenge25-May-2008 12:27
Absolutely not, I've done naked group rituals many times.
It's the whole voyeur angle i take exception to.
What men find titilating many women find threatening or distasteful -
especially as a lot of women (I know several) have been subject to stalker activity,
sexual abuse etc.
david k.24-May-2008 14:27
Problem with nudity Flick?
kodak_challenge24-May-2008 08:08
This is distasteful.
Flick.
kodak_challenge21-May-2008 07:18
I think this is very carefully composed with a great impact. My favourite from the three images. Cheers, MCsaba