DougBPhoto wrote:
Many of us make assumptions and care not what the truth is, because as far as so many people are concerned, the only truth that matters is what we each as individuals believe.

Tiny details such as actual intent or meaning matter less than preconceptions and interpretations formed through our own personal filters.

Great illustration of the reality that those viewing art invariably see things as they personally elect to view them, many never caring to understand what the artist actually was thinking or intended.

In the end, what really matters, what someone intended, what their real motivations were, or what we come up with in our own minds as an explanation for what we see?

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I'm going to do a nude self portrait series soon. Real nude, not the implied stuff I've been doing. I'll probably let my boy see, but no one else.

Art for art's sake.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I'm available if you need another opinion... you know, for art's sake.

No, I'm pretty sure you just wanted to see her tits.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
The real question (often overlooked on this thread) is...

Why won't you show this private art around?

For me my sketches and drawings are my love letters...

the art I don't show is the art that I use to figure someone out aesthetically... it is where I fall in love with a visual quality that I want to translate later into paint.

I am not ashamed of it... if someone wanted to see it, I would show it to them... but it is like a love letter...

You don't share it readily...

scrymettet wrote:
99% of the time.

this

Model Sarah wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure you just wanted to see her tits.

It is not like there is some shortage of tits (as you say) on the internet nor on this site.

If seeing her tits was what I wanted, that is what I would have said.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself.

I don't need your unsolicited "help" arrogantly proclaiming what YOU assume I mean, because you're typically incorrect about my posts, and now nearly always ever since I declined to hire you.

DougBPhoto wrote:
It is not like there is some shortage of tits (as you say) on the internet nor on this site.

If seeing her tits was what I wanted, that is what I would have said.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself.

I don't need your unsolicited "help" arrogantly proclaiming what YOU assume I mean, because you're typically incorrect about my posts, and now nearly always ever since I declined to hire you.

It sounded a bit creepy and as the OP seemed to have responded "subtle"...

There is really no need to be catty. I still have no idea what you're talking about as far as 'hiring'. Unless your idea of hiring is countless messages wanting me to trade with you on my two trips to Portland and many to Washington.

There isn't a need to bring this up in the forums.

Model Sarah wrote:
It sounded a bit creepy and as the OP seemed to have responded "subtle"...

There is really no need to be catty. I still have no idea what you're talking about as far as 'hiring'. Unless your idea of hiring is countless messages wanting me to trade with you on my two trips to Portland and many to Washington.

There isn't a need to bring this up in the forums.

As you say, the OP responded, so why would you feel you needed to make a big deal about something that had nothing to do with you, other than trying to provoke me?

If the OP wished to question my motivation, she has every right to do so, and I would have gladly elaborated or explained if she requested such, but it had nothing to do with you.

It seems you're the one making a big deal out of something that was not about you in the least.

It is also funny though, as one of your most recent forum responses to me was saying you had no idea who I was, and now you're claiming that I've sent you countless messages about shooting, which is, as usual, not accurate.

The point remains that you've only made a point of trying to stir up shit with me after I refused to pay you, and it is your subsequent behavior towards me in the forums that has made it an issue here. 

Don't start shit if you don't want someone to call you out on why you're doing it.  You went out of your way to call attention to my post and try to make me look bad (as you've attempted in the forums for a while now), I should certainly have the opportunity to put that into proper context, otherwise don't start shit in the first place, and I'll have no reason to respond.

This thread is discussing art, and I offered to look at her work from an artistic stand point.  If she wished to censor them for her modesty, that would have been fine, because "seeing her tits" was not why I offered.  I've seen her post for over a year about her photography, and have looked at it in the past.  We had been cordial, so I was interested in her work, nothing more.  I have an appreciation for the art that other photographers create, and there is nothing creepy about that, although you clearly wish to make it seem otherwise.

I find it ironic that there is so much discussion going on in society about moving on from beliefs that female breasts or nipples are sexual in nature, and yet here you are trying to suggest that trying to see her "tits" is the only reason to have any interest in seeing her work.

I was expressing interest in seeing her art as art, nothing more.

Not everyone on this site is here to see "tits", and that certainly is not why I am here, nor has it ever been why I am here. 

I find that a quite offensive assumption, whether intended strictly as a personal attack upon me, or as rude assumption made towards male photographers in general, regardless, it is totally uncalled for.  Especially in a thread that is about art appreciation, and on a site where they claim there is a rule that we are to treat others with respect.

Not sexualization, not objectification, just art.

On a site for professionals, professional models and professional photographers, that should not be such an inconceivable concept.

Art for art sake.

DougBPhoto wrote:
As you say, the OP responded, so why would you feel you needed to make a big deal about something that had nothing to do with you, other than trying to provoke me?

If the OP wished to question my motivation, she has every right to do so, and I would have gladly elaborated or explained if she requested such, but it had nothing to do with you.

It seems you're the one making a big deal out of something that was not about you in the least.

It is also funny though, as one of your most recent forum responses to me was saying you had no idea who I was, and now you're claiming that I've sent you countless messages about shooting, which is, as usual, not accurate.

The point remains that you've only made a point of trying to stir up shit with me after I refused to pay you, and it is your subsequent behavior towards me in the forums that has made it an issue here. 

Don't start shit if you don't want someone to call you out on why you're doing it.  You went out of your way to call attention to my post and try to make me look bad (as you've attempted in the forums for a while now), I should certainly have the opportunity to put that into proper context, otherwise don't start shit in the first place, and I'll have no reason to respond.

This thread is discussing art, and I offered to look at her work from an artistic stand point.  If she wished to censor them for her modesty, that would have been fine, because "seeing her tits" was not why I offered.  I've seen her post for over a year about her photography, and have looked at it in the past.  We had been cordial, so I was interested in her work, nothing more.  I have an appreciation for the art that other photographers create, and there is nothing creepy about that, although you clearly wish to make it seem otherwise.

I find it ironic that there is so much discussion going on in society about moving on from beliefs that female breasts or nipples are sexual in nature, and yet here you are trying to suggest that trying to see her "tits" is the only reason to have any interest in seeing her work.

I was expressing interest in seeing her art as art, nothing more.

Not everyone on this site is here to see "tits", and that certainly is not why I am here, nor has it ever been why I am here. 

I find that a quite offensive assumption, whether intended strictly as a personal attack upon me, or as rude assumption made towards male photographers in general, regardless, it is totally uncalled for.  Especially in a thread that is about art appreciation, and on a site where they claim there is a rule that we are to treat others with respect.

Not sexualization, not objectification, just art.

On a site for professionals, professional models and professional photographers, that should not be such an inconceivable concept.

Art for art sake.

I had to look up message history to remember who you were and you were one of the Portland photographers that are notorious for 'never having money' - your words - to pay professional models. You're a known white knight in the forums and it is hilarious, believe me. That's really all I know you from. Then I saw the somewhat creepy response here and (though mostly in jest) I responded in the way that anyone would who read that. Once I looked over the message history and your 10+ messages to me trying to get me to trade with you (not refusing to pay but trying to trade)  I kind of remembered who you were. There's no reason to lie about that, Doug. You're the one that brought it up.

Now as to your point about sexual anything in art.... that's an interesting discussion however, the way your post came across is pretty creepy and even the OP thought so. It has nothing to do with you personally or " male photographers" in general at all so no need to use that attack because it is ridiculous. It is the fact that your post just seemed creepy. I'm sure that is inconceivable to you, but I'm not the only one who read it that way. It might be why she doesn't show her own personal work, because of responses like that. I definitely understand as even my own artwork gets the random creepy response every now and again. It's ridiculous how one dimensional people are.

Now, if you would please stop attacking me as though I know who you are that would be great. Because I still don't really but I know creepy when I see it.

Model Sarah wrote:

I had to look up message history to remember who you were and you were one of the Portland photographers that are notorious for 'never having money' - your words - to pay professional models. You're a known white knight in the forums and it is hilarious, believe me. That's really all I know you from. Then I saw the somewhat creepy response here and (though mostly in jest) I responded in the way that anyone would who read that. Once I looked over the message history and your 10+ messages to me trying to get me to trade with you (not refusing to pay but trying to trade)  I kind of remembered who you were. There's no reason to lie about that, Doug. You're the one that brought it up.

Now as to your point about sexual anything in art.... that's an interesting discussion however, the way your post came across is pretty creepy and even the OP thought so. It has nothing to do with you personally or "photographers" in general at all so no need to use that attack. It is the fact that your post just seemed creepy. It might be why she doesn't show her own personal work, because of responses like that. I definitely understand as even my own artwork gets the random creepy response every now and again. It's ridiculous how one dimensional people are.

Now, if you would please stop attacking me as though I know who you are that would be great. Because I still don't really.

Isis22 wrote:
I sometimes start out taking a photograph that no one will ever see. But, if I like it I want to show it. So, the intent is there but I cave.

.  I am a caveman too then.  I like to do some shoots just for the fun of it:  I like to try different equipment techniques, new poses and just to share an experience with someone ( my equivalent of a drinking buddy). If it turns out great, I do want to show it. 
I do model as well, and don't post since I have teenagers, who I want to protect from embarrassment, but again, when something looks good, The artist side of me does wish to share

Michael Kerrek wrote:

That's, like, 90-something percent of the creative process. You do the work, over and over, until you like it. Then, you throw it out. Then, you do something until you hate it, and you develop it more, and more, until you hate it slightly less... and then maybe you let someone read/see it.  I do that with writing all the time, and I've heard many others I've known say the exact same thing lol

That's not the case at all. This is 100% finished, good work that I am happy with, not scraps I'm throwing away.

DougBPhoto wrote:

As you say, the OP responded, so why would you feel you needed to make a big deal about something that had nothing to do with you, other than trying to provoke me?

If the OP wished to question my motivation, she has every right to do so, and I would have gladly elaborated or explained if she requested such, but it had nothing to do with you.

It seems you're the one making a big deal out of something that was not about you in the least.

It is also funny though, as one of your most recent forum responses to me was saying you had no idea who I was, and now you're claiming that I've sent you countless messages about shooting, which is, as usual, not accurate.

The point remains that you've only made a point of trying to stir up shit with me after I refused to pay you, and it is your subsequent behavior towards me in the forums that has made it an issue here. 

Don't start shit if you don't want someone to call you out on why you're doing it.  You went out of your way to call attention to my post and try to make me look bad (as you've attempted in the forums for a while now), I should certainly have the opportunity to put that into proper context, otherwise don't start shit in the first place, and I'll have no reason to respond.

This thread is discussing art, and I offered to look at her work from an artistic stand point.  If she wished to censor them for her modesty, that would have been fine, because "seeing her tits" was not why I offered.  I've seen her post for over a year about her photography, and have looked at it in the past.  We had been cordial, so I was interested in her work, nothing more.  I have an appreciation for the art that other photographers create, and there is nothing creepy about that, although you clearly wish to make it seem otherwise.

I find it ironic that there is so much discussion going on in society about moving on from beliefs that female breasts or nipples are sexual in nature, and yet here you are trying to suggest that trying to see her "tits" is the only reason to have any interest in seeing her work.

I was expressing interest in seeing her art as art, nothing more.

Not everyone on this site is here to see "tits", and that certainly is not why I am here, nor has it ever been why I am here. 

I find that a quite offensive assumption, whether intended strictly as a personal attack upon me, or as rude assumption made towards male photographers in general, regardless, it is totally uncalled for.  Especially in a thread that is about art appreciation, and on a site where they claim there is a rule that we are to treat others with respect.

Not sexualization, not objectification, just art.

On a site for professionals, professional models and professional photographers, that should not be such an inconceivable concept.

Art for art sake.

I made it quite clear I wasn't interested in showing another other than my significant other. For you, a random Internet stranger, to ask to see my nudes is at least rude and at worst creepy. Fact is.

Jay  Edwards wrote:
Years ago I would draw for my own amusement: sketches...detailed and realistic.  They got tossed out during a move and I never really went back to it.

you should pick up some materials and play one day again

pen

pencil

paints

markers

watercolors

oil pastels

charcoals

pastels

gouache

whatever else you want...... mix up photos in there. Just PLAY!

IMAGINERIES wrote:
So keep it private........Like your private garden...No need to tell everyone that
they can't get in!!..

Uh, I'm not "telling anyone they can't get it." I'm asking if people are having similar experiences.

IMAGINERIES wrote:
So keep it private....No need to tell everyone that
they can't get in!!..

Lumen Sky wrote:

You quoted this without saying anything...?