Thanks Dan. I said earlier that I'd keep my thoughts to myself, having already expressed them several times but I couldn't resist engaging with Paul.
My bad. What I do want to say is that I'm not censoring or telling anyone what to post, I'm merely expressing my displeasure for what's been posted. And I again ask (rhetorically) who would feel good about a daughter or (at our age) a grand daughter posing for something like that. I don't believe that many would honestly answer that they'd be okay with that. And one more time I say, I'm done with this topic. I've made my opinions clear, more discussion runs the risk of becoming acrimonious. Cheers, frank On 24 August, 2015 12:49:38 AM EDT, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[email protected]> wrote: >Paul, I don't see Frank's comments as either angry or impolite. He is >merely expressing an opinion. You disagree with that opinion, and so >do I, but that is what makes for interesting discussions. If we all >thought alike, and all said the same thing about each image, this >would be a boring forum. > >Dan Matyola >http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > >On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 11:55 PM, paul stenquist ><[email protected]> wrote: >> Your anger is inappropriate.. There is room for polite discourse >here. Throughout history, nudes have been an art form,. Most often, >women are the subject, in part because their bodies are a more pleasing >shape. A heterosexual woman artist, who is a close friend, told me she >only paints female nudes because they are simply more visually >interesting and attractive. >> >> How does revealing one’s body demean the subject? Is the human body >something that must be be hidden, something to be ashamed of? Is it in >some way foul? Throughout history, women’s bodies have been celebrated >by artists. It’s partly a function of the way human sexuality works. >Women are the attraction. Men pursue. It’s a psychology as old as the >human race. You want to change that? >> >> If it’s not about nudity, why do you only object when the photos are >of nudes? Sex is a part of life. Women are objects of desire. For the >most part, men are not. There are exceptions of course, because both >gender and sexual attraction are variable, but the history of >sexuality and art has placed the woman on a pedestal. It’s certainly >not demeaning. She is the object of desire. >> >> Yes, it might strike some as ridiculous if men dressed and posed in >this manner, in part because of convention. But more so because most >wouldn’t find it attractive or appealing. Attractive and appealing are >good things. They are not feelings that should cause fear or anger. >> >> You need to have another look at Renoir’s nudes if you think they >weren’t sexual. And much of western art is far more sexual. Bruce’s >photos are artful in every way. They invoke a time and a place >accurately. They are visually pleasing. They tell a story. >> Paul >> >> >>> On Aug 23, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Knarf <[email protected]> >wrote: >>> >>> This is NOT about political correctness, Paul. I know those are >among the biggest swear-words in your vocabulary, so anything that you >strongly disagree with has to do with "political correctness". >>> >>> I really don't give a flying F about the story or the stageplay or >the movie. On the face of them, these photos objectify and demean >women. They portray women in a sexual way that men are not generally >portrayed. >>> >>> That's why they are sexist. Why is that so difficult to understand? >If men dressed and posed this way it would look ridiculous. Yet when >women do it, it's okay? >>> >>> I will reiterate yet again: This is NOT about nudity. This is not >about skin. >>> >>> This is about a sexual depiction of a woman in a way that a man >would never be depicted. >>> >>> As for Renoir and Michelangelo, their depictions of female nudes >were neither suggestive nor sexual. And in the case of Michelangelo, he >also did male nudes (hello: David?) so at least there was some balance. >>> >>> There is, quite frankly, no comparison between the female nude in >Western art and Bruce's Cabaret photos. >>> >>> I'm not calling for the banning of anything, I'm not calling for >censorship. I'm asking that we try to understand why depictions like >the Cabaret series can be harmful to an identifiable group (in this >case, women) and govern ouselves accordingly. >>> >>> Here's a question to honestly ask yourself: How would you feel if it >was your daughter or grand daughter in those photos? Would you be okay >with that? Wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable in the least? Really? >>> >>> I know how I'd feel. And that's why I know that this is not >something I feel right about. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> frank >>> >>> On 23 August, 2015 10:37:44 PM EDT, paul stenquist ><[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I’m hesitant to address this, but I’m also confused, so I think >I’ll >>>> speak up. These photos are a very accurate depiction of Cabaret, >they >>>> capture the essence of the story, as produced both in the theater >and >>>> on film Are they exploitative merely because they are mildly >erotic, as >>>> was the original? And if these photos are exploitative does that >mean >>>> Renoir and Michelangelo and countless other artists who depicted >the >>>> female form are somehow violating some kind of arbitrary moral >standard >>>> as well? I think that if we were to agree that is the case, it >would be >>>> a sad commentary on the human condition. Eroticism banned. A new >>>> Puritan age. A banal existence, mandated by political correctness. >>>> >>>> Paul >>>>> On Aug 23, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Knarf <[email protected]> >wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nah, not riled up. Just not happy about the subject matter (I >don't >>>> mean Dorrie, of course, I mean what I see as the exploitative way >she's >>>> portrayed). >>>>> >>>>> But I've said my piece on that score. I'll simply not comment on >>>> these types of photos, except maybe every couple of months or so, >as a >>>> "these are demeaning to women" reminder. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce knows I think he's a wonderful photographer, both >technically >>>> and artistically, and I'm sure he understands that my lack of >comment >>>> is not a lack of opinion on his work. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> frank >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> >>>>> frank >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Daniel J. Matyola >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Now you have really done it! This will certainly get Knarf all >>>> riled >>>>>> up . . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Very well done indeed. My only negative is the pasties. They >are >>>> not >>>>>> attractive or tasteful, and they actually give a greater feeling >of >>>>>> exploitation, rather than less. >>>>>> Dan Matyola >>>>>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Bruce Walker >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> A creative project that my designer and I worked on over 8 >weeks, >>>> then >>>>>>> 6 hours shooting, and a month waiting for the publication >embargo >>>> to >>>>>>> end ... has finally been published. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://nifmagazine.com/cabaret-by-bruce-walker/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An image from it will also appear in the UK print magazine Femme >>>>>>> Rebelle in September. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All images: K-3, DA* 16-50/2.8 >>>>>>> Lighting is from three Einsteins with an assortment of mods and >>>>>>> shtuff. My lighting design. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Model: Dorrie Mack >>>>>>> Makeup and hair: Coral Brandenburg >>>>>>> Designer and stylist: Eva Mocek/GearPunk’D >>>>>>> Assistant: Anique Alletson >>>>>>> Photographer and Artistic Director: Bruce Walker >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GearPunk’D (Eva) custom made a gold jacket, punk-influenced >>>> long-line >>>>>>> corset and matching choker, shorts and pasties for Dorrie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comments will be warmly embraced! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -bmw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly >above >>>> and follow the directions. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly >above >>>> and follow the directions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my >brevity. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>> and follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >and >>>> follow the directions. >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >and follow the directions. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >and follow the directions. > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
