Cincinnati, Ohio, US
Ben Hinman wrote:
I've been on and off Model Mayhem since 2005 (this is my first time here as the photographer, though.) It's not a new thing. I'd always had the most views and comments on whatever picture was closest to naked, completely regardless of any other factors. /shrug
Jan 08 13 03:57 am Link
London, England, United Kingdom
model emily wrote:
From the rule book:
Wait.. The term critique means to give an opinion whether good or bad, so saying 'Great picture!' is also a critique. So you shouldn't be allowed to do that either haha!
Jan 08 13 04:05 am Link
Tempe, Arizona, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Jan 08 13 10:09 pm Link
Westwood, California, US
Ah yes, but not everything that sells has this effect on the art its sold with. Maybe the increase in appeal to popular demand is just what happens when america's 2 favorite vices combine. Lust and greed are just as appealing as mass approval, and any one of them could be driving the gradual watering down of the trade.
Jan 09 13 03:27 am Link
Haddon Heights, New Jersey, US
The larger question is why you think naked tits are sensational and the people who want to see them are perverts. Of course, you are leaving out the model who wants to show and why she does it. Is she a deranged sex maniac?
Friends of mine and I sat around trying to come up with the most shocking scene that makes a statement. What we came up with? A dare to wear a Sandusky football jersey, soap on a rope around your neck, and hand out candy to kids on Halloween. THAT's sensationalism, a commentary on perverts, and was too daring for any of us to do, even though no one was getting naked.
This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of sincerely disturbed people out there. One of our contracted secretaries leveled a charge of being threatened by a deadly weapon against me because I was handing out dozens of kazoos for Christmas among coworkers so they could hum along with Christmas carols. In her mind, and due to whatever hang-ups she has, kazoos were scary, threatening, deadly, and sensational.
So, perhaps you don't have as many issues as our contracted secretary. But, those issues are yours.
Jan 09 13 04:25 am Link
New York, New York, US
Ben Hinman wrote:
You've gotten right to the heart of photography. It's not the quality of the image that matters, it's the content.
Jan 10 13 07:08 am Link
Los Angeles, California, US
personally, i think good taste took an enourmous hit the day larry flynt published the first issue of hustler
that said - any form of censorship would be far worse
Jan 10 13 07:41 am Link
Lansing, Michigan, US
I'm not fond of some of the photos I have seen on here, but that's just me. Let others shoot or model what they want. Who are you to judge? You got to remember, not everyone holds your opinion or likes the things your do. Hence why there are so many different type of photographers. One of your visions could be another photographers trash, or vice versa. No reason to complain.
Jan 10 13 07:58 am Link
Ufa, Bashkortostan, Russia
probably, fighting with human sensory organs is futile, and the sensations are everywhere 3
"true facts" of life serve their purpose for the people with no subtle senses (sensory deficiency) to wake them up a little:
WOW! I knew it! Excellent! Magnific!
Jan 10 13 08:01 am Link
Topeka, Kansas, US
Ben Hinman wrote:
What ports are you looking at? I mean, I see a lot of the nudity (giggity), but I've missed the "licking things." And I hang out in the weird sections of the forums. So-links please!
Jan 10 13 08:24 am Link
Annandale, Virginia, US
Everyone's idea of perfection, beauty and art varies. What you may find appalling someone else might think is the most beautiful thing they've seen. The whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing isn't far fetched. Perception is to blame for that.
Photography, modeling, painting, etc are all forms of expression, so expecting that to fall into a particular set of "standards" is like Congress...pointless (at the moment).
Jan 10 13 08:38 am Link