Ben Hinman wrote:
emily, i'm not interested in any "thats life, deal with it" speeches. thats like, 90% of posts on this forum.

It's a good response to about 90% of posts, too -- yours included.

model emily  wrote:

It's a good response to about 90% of posts, too -- yours included.

Not really. Actually, i would have preferred no comment from you at all.

This is less of a matter of what IS and more of a matter of what SHOULD BE. When i ask if sensationalism has gone too far, i am not asking how far it has gone, i am asking if you think that is too far. If i wanted to hear another cynic tell me to buckle up and deal with the big bad hard world, i would have posted in the 'serious critique' section.

Ben Hinman wrote:
lately i've been seeing images on modelmayhem that have hundreds of comments and show up in countless lists with everyone commenting "WOW! PERFECT!" or "oh so very sexy" but all i see is naked women licking things normal people wouldn't lick, or taking their tits out in public. And i mean, i'm all for shock value, but isn't there a line? Has photography really degraded from an artistic form with countless standards of excellence to a complete joke, with only one standard--the amount of perverts it turns on or the amount of people it shocks?

Have you been under a rock for the last 10 years?

Ben Hinman wrote:
lately i've been seeing images on modelmayhem that have hundreds of comments and show up in countless lists with everyone commenting "WOW! PERFECT!" or "oh so very sexy" but all i see is naked women licking things normal people wouldn't lick, or taking their tits out in public. And i mean, i'm all for shock value, but isn't there a line? Has photography really degraded from an artistic form with countless standards of excellence to a complete joke, with only one standard--the amount of perverts it turns on or the amount of people it shocks?

so you see people licking strange objects and suddenly think "turn-on" and "pervert"? Might say something here.
No, I don't think it turns photography into a joke, rather I see it as people expressing themselves in pictures or comments. Why spend so much time judging others?

Ben Hinman wrote:
lately i've been seeing images on modelmayhem that have hundreds of comments and show up in countless lists with everyone commenting "WOW! PERFECT!" or "oh so very sexy" but all i see is naked women licking things normal people wouldn't lick, or taking their tits out in public. And i mean, i'm all for shock value, but isn't there a line? Has photography really degraded from an artistic form with countless standards of excellence to a complete joke, with only one standard--the amount of perverts it turns on or the amount of people it shocks?

Yes, there's a line.  It's just that the line is in a different place for each person. 

Photography hasn't degraded from art into perverse eroticism and shock; it has expanded into perverse eroticism and shock.  The art continues unabated.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
You find licking slightly unusual objects and mildly risque toplessness shocking?

You don't?

:p

my_other_profile wrote:

You don't?

:p

No, not at all.

my_other_profile wrote:
Choosing to assume you knew I was kidding.

I didn't refresh my memory by checking your port before answering, so no, I was playing it straight and stupid.

Ben Hinman wrote:
And i mean, i'm all for shock value,

Well then didn't you just answer your own question?... ...

Ben Hinman wrote:
all i see is naked women licking things normal people wouldn't lick, or taking their tits out in public...

i'm all for shock value, but isn't there a line?

Has photography really degraded from an artistic form with countless standards of excellence to a complete joke, with only one standard--the amount of perverts it turns on or the amount of people it shocks?

We see what we want to see.

Judge less, create more.

Make Art, not assumptions.

Ben Hinman wrote:

Not really. Actually, i would have preferred no comment from you at all.

This is less of a matter of what IS and more of a matter of what SHOULD BE. When i ask if sensationalism has gone too far, i am not asking how far it has gone, i am asking if you think that is too far. If i wanted to hear another cynic tell me to buckle up and deal with the big bad hard world, i would have posted in the 'serious critique' section.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, most of us here are grounded in the here and now of what is.  We are really not qualified to discuss what should be.  If you want to discuss what should be, you'll probably be more satisfied with the results if you post in the forums of the Tea Party or possibly the religious right.

IMHO, as always.

Ben Hinman wrote:

Not really. Actually, i would have preferred no comment from you at all.

This is less of a matter of what IS and more of a matter of what SHOULD BE. When i ask if sensationalism has gone too far, i am not asking how far it has gone, i am asking if you think that is too far. If i wanted to hear another cynic tell me to buckle up and deal with the big bad hard world, i would have posted in the 'serious critique' section.

When you start telling other people what SHOULD BE, you've crossed a much more important line than people giving positive comments to mediocre images have.  You've started attempting to dictate other peoples' behavior.  Now, let's talk about the definition of offensive ....

Ben Hinman wrote:
lately i've been seeing images on modelmayhem that have hundreds of comments and show up in countless lists with everyone commenting "WOW! PERFECT!" or "oh so very sexy" but all i see is naked women licking things normal people wouldn't lick, or taking their tits out in public. And i mean, i'm all for shock value, but isn't there a line? Has photography really degraded from an artistic form with countless standards of excellence to a complete joke, with only one standard--the amount of perverts it turns on or the amount of people it shocks?

I think sensationalism has gone to far in every aspect of life, and not just on MM. I almost always hate movie sequels, because the story line in almost always horrid, yet the sensationalism goes up by 400%. Everything has to be brighter, quicker, stronger, faster, louder......you get the idea. No, by saying "just deal with it" is probably not the way to go. However, I doubt you can change all of society, so instead of just "dealing with it", I have learned to appreciate the things that don't go for the louder, faster, brighter crowd.

Now, on to your point of MM. I think many different methods of art affect people differently. There are probably works on MM that 95% of the people will say "OH MY" when they see them. And the other 5% says......."boring". But there are some works that only a few people really appreciate. I have listed some works on here that some people would probably regard as total crap. But I say a glimmer of beauty, creativity and openness in the work. Therefore to me it is amazing. And I am sure there are works on here that you think the same of that I may not care for.

I could easily go on for pages, but I don't think that is what you want (you should have seen my papers in Fine Art Appreciation.....other people had just a few  paragraphs, and I had  a novel).

model emily  wrote:
This is MM, pretty much anyone can pick up a camera, take a few photos of their friends, and start an account.

Many may be on here to do little more than gawk and comment at the things you mention. 

Just ignore it and move on if it's not to your taste. 
The world is full of creeps, and MM is full of porn disguised as art.

I tend to agree

Ben Hinman wrote:
This is less of a matter of what IS and more of a matter of what SHOULD BE.

"SHOULD BE" according to whom? Vivid Entertainment? The Taliban? Wendy Hleta, who wants to ban miniskirts and low-rise jeans as causing rape? Westboro Baptist Church? Porn stars?

Ben Hinman wrote:
When i ask if sensationalism has gone too far, i am not asking how far it has gone, i am asking if you think that is too far.

By definition, sensationalism is at or near the 'too far' limit; if it's not there, it's not sensationalism.

But it goes back to your belief in what "SHOULD BE", and how that belief relates to what the cultural mores of the larger communities you belong to--and how you express your belief in your definition over that of the community.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
If you want to discuss what should be, you'll probably be more satisfied with the results if you post in the forums of the Tea Party or possibly the religious right.

IMHO, as always.

Why, oh why, does someone always have to make it about politics and religion?

salvatori. wrote:
I actually couldn't agree with the OP less if I tried (okay, I could try a little...), but isn't actually against site rules to leave a random negative comment on a photo?

Only sensational answers accepted...

From the rule book:

- No unsolicited critiques. If someone has not asked for your critical opinion of their work, please do not give one.

- Do not post anything on the Site that degrades or insults other users or their work.

So, you are correct - unless asked, it would be considered against the rules here to post a random unsolicited critique, and it would appear that any negative comment is forbidden.

And it's little surprise that many of the most highly commented photos are nude, suggestive, or glamorous -- yet state little more than "NICE ASS!" -- as I stated above, and as the OP clearly already seems to understand......

But, who places so much importance on comments...?   If want real opinions, I ask in Critique.  Or, you know, the real world - where such "play nice" rules don't exist.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
If you want to discuss what should be, you'll probably be more satisfied with the results if you post in the forums of the Tea Party or possibly the religious right.

IMHO, as always.

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Why, oh why, does someone always have to make it about politics and religion?

Generally speaking, those are representative examples of how "the way it should be" tends toward the dictatorial.

If I don't like something, depending on what it is, I (a) don't engage in it, or (b) leave it alone, presuming (c) that it is not directly and immediately harmful to someone, or illegal, either of which would likely prompt a different response.