Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

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

Aww, now I'm embarrassed.   I'm not THAT prudish.

model emily  wrote:

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:


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.

Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I know I could've looked up the rules, but it's been a lazy morning...

I certainly welcome thoughtful and insightful comments on my pics, and knowing this place, if just any comment were allowed, I can only imagine what would happen... O_o

Ben Hinman wrote:
Not really. Actually, i would have preferred no comment from you at all.

There's this recent thread about arrogance that comes to mind...

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.

Who decided what 'should be' for everyone?

Save us from the 'should be' police!!

Lazyi Photography wrote:
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?

+1
I don't see anything wrong with people trying to shock those who are viewing their work. If they try to push boundaries with something that doesn't go along with the norm well then good on them! If no one did that then every port would look the same.

Personally I wouldn't do a "look I can lick something weird" image but others may like doing that sort of work, it isn't for us to judge! Can you really judge something someone else views as creative/artistic/etc? Everyone has different tastes... if we lose sight of that then everything we do becomes pointless!

Also, I tend to post more comments on photos that inspire/shock me. I enjoy viewing images that aren't the same as everything else... Although I've also gotten more comments on one of my 'gothic culture' images rather then my topless/nude work, as I said it depends on the viewers taste.

Just my opinion,
Kayz

Select Models wrote:
Has Sensationalism Gone Too Far?


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

Shock value is nice in moderation. But what happens when everyone for the past 400 years has just tried to do the next "shocking" thing. Maybe naked women licking disgusting things isn't shocking to some people, but thats just proof of how desensitized everyone has become. Remember when andre serrano's 'piss christ' caused a whole bunch of commotion? Now people are like, "what, a crucifix in a vat of urine? BO-RING." Personally i dont respect serrano or anything he stood for, but at least he stood for something. The shock value was linked to a philosophy and the reaction he was looking for was the art, but nowadays its not even that. The only motivating factors are attention, money, and popularity and the line is constantly being crossed, pushed further into the gutter. And its not just photography either. The mainstream music industry, movies, pop culture... I can't even go to the store without seeing 10 magazines making a whole bunch of drama about how Tom Cruise is a wifebeating monster. Its not that we've lowered the bar, its that we've completely ignored what it means to create good art, for the sake of selling art.

Sirensong wrote:

Who decided what 'should be' for everyone?

Save us from the 'should be' police!!

Oh right, yeah. So lets not have any aspirations for a better world and just let our faults consume us completely. And we will avoid the word should because it will give us something to strive for and things to strive for are bad. -_- smh...

Ben Hinman wrote:
Oh right, yeah. So lets not have any aspirations for a better world and just let our faults consume us completely. And we will avoid the word should because it will give us something to strive for and things to strive for are bad. -_- smh...

Oh please..
You will try and have us hold hands and sing kumbayah next..
Why is making 'shock' images such a fault for you, why do you choose to be offended by what someone else feels is art?
The whole point of art (imo) is expression..and we dont and wont always like what others have to say, but thats fine, that is part of what makes us human, makes us who we are.

No-one has said anything about faults consuming us completely, in fact I would hazard a good guess that many artists use their art to work through their own and others faults, confront them at times using their work..and in doing so others may do the same.

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?

If by "in public" you mean outside, I hardly think that's sensationalism.  And, I'm not sure exactly what "licking things normal people wouldn't lick" means, but not everyone is normal, and some things in that category are against site rules.  If you feel that is the case with an image, report it.

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.

No, I don't think it has gone too far.

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?

What is it exactly "normal woman" wouldn't lick?

Wasn't that you that started the extended thread about weed?

intense_puppy wrote:
I opened this thread because I thought the title of "Has Sensationalism Gone Too Far?" was pretty sensationalist.

OP - people like tits and weirdness.
Get over it.
Or take up needlepoint.
Or form a pressure group called "PAWNO" ("Photographers Against Weird Naked Objectification") and try and change the world.

Chuckles.

As a side note, I have more artistic leanings and don't 'get' 80% of the photos here.  I'm a european trapped in America for now, so mayhem doesn't faze me.  I just keep creating what I believe in.  I've had brief moments where I made a living doing what I love - be it creating fashion or photos, just keep your chin up!

Ben Hinman wrote:

Oh right, yeah. So lets not have any aspirations for a better world and just let our faults consume us completely. And we will avoid the word should because it will give us something to strive for and things to strive for are bad. -_- smh...

I am glad you are here to show us the path to a better way.. and I was about to follow until I read your profile write up... Nah

Ben Hinman wrote:
Oh right, yeah. So lets not have any aspirations for a better world and just let our faults consume us completely. And we will avoid the word should because it will give us something to strive for and things to strive for are bad. -_- smh...

Actually I have aspirations for a better world; they don't include imposing arbitrary limitations on others just because I feel like imposing them. (In other words, I'm not going to let your faults consume us completely.)

KonstantKarma wrote:
I never can decide if I'm amused or full of pity when I see models do silly things in the attempt to look 'sexy', and just...look silly.

Yeah - silly, slutty, skanky. LOL
Most of the eye candy glamour bores me to tears.

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.

This.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Actually I have aspirations for a better world; they don't include imposing arbitrary limitations on others just because I feel like imposing them. (In other words, I'm not going to let your faults consume us completely.)

and i dont believe on imposing arbitrary limitations on murderers. their choice to spend their time killing people is equally valid. -_- *rolls eyes*

Small Fruit Pits wrote:
What is it exactly "normal woman" wouldn't lick?

Wasn't that you that started the extended thread about weed?

Squids, feet, the floor, dirty things, cigarette butts, the bottom of heels, and pack of wild hyenas. Only one i have not seen

yes.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
I am glad you are here to show us the path to a better way.. and I was about to follow until I read your profile write up... Nah

Jesus said to listen to me or you're going to hell.

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Art is in the eyes of the beholder and many may have art taste that that differs from your taste OP......jmho and 2 cents worth

I really am not trying to impose my views on art or perfection on people. Sexuality has its place in photography, though i do think we can easily dilute it with cliches and stereotypically obscene shots

Leo Howard wrote:
Not only is this thread about sensationalism but the OP is creating his own form of sensationalism by starting this thread.

"Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers."

It was not my intention for this to be a hot topic, just a topic. So i dont think that qualifies as sensationalist. I think some people may be confused about the definition.

Mainstream hip hop is sensationalist. Yellow journalism is sensationalist. Pornography is sensationalist. Any kind of artistic medium that squanders content to maximize viewership is considered sensationalist.

Dorola wrote:
I have a model licking a chainsaw chain. You can/t see her tits, but her legs are wide open and you can see everything there. Having shock value is making a message. Any comments that you make say as much about you as they say about the image.

I dont think your photos classify as sensationalist. Some of your photos are a bit borderline pornographic but overall i get a sense of artistry that just isnt there with someone only appealing to trends or mass appeal.  The difference is, is the shock value a single element in the bigger picture, or is it all your picture consists of?

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.

+1000!

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Is there anyone who objects seeing a nice piece of ass even if it's not as art.

My friend said the same thing about a raunchy ass music video. I told him if i want to watch porn, i will watch porn, and if i want to listen to music, i will listen to music.

Imagine going to see a film you were looking forward to and instead of what you thought it was going to be, it was just a bunch of hot naked girls getting frisky. You might enjoy it, but you went to see a movie, not a porno. There is no action, there is no plot, only boobies. This is how i feel about modelmayhem.

Ben Hinman wrote:
Imagine going to see a film you were looking forward to and instead of what you thought it was going to be, it was just a bunch of hot naked girls getting frisky. You might enjoy it, but you went to see a movie, not a porno. There is no action, there is no plot, only boobies. This is how i feel about modelmayhem.

That's a shame, and reflects not only on your judgement, but on the portions of MM that you choose to visit.

I believe that, in spite of the nudity, or maybe partly because of it, what I do is artistic, and not sensationalistic.  But, more to the point, there are dozens, perhaps thousands, of people who create images that are far more impressive than mine, and put them on MM.  If you never find them, it reflects at least as much on you, as the site.

I rarely see cheezy glamour, and I've probably seen less than 20 explicit male nudes in five years on this site.  I HAVE seen large amounts of beautiful art.

Ben Hinman wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Actually I have aspirations for a better world; they don't include imposing arbitrary limitations on others just because I feel like imposing them. (In other words, I'm not going to let your faults consume us completely.)

and i dont believe on imposing arbitrary limitations on murderers. their choice to spend their time killing people is equally valid. -_- *rolls eyes*

Yes, an eye-roll is certainly deserved.

Your failure to recognize the difference between the viewpoints makes it difficult to communicate. It certainly reduces the desire to spend the time necessary to provide the basic foundation for that communication. You've made it clear that you believe that your viewpoint is the right one, and that you have the right--if not the obligation--to impose it on others. I find that distasteful. (I also find it amusing that this stance is wrapped in a counter-claim that you're not trying to impose your views, when other statements in the thread clearly do so.)

Comparing that difference of opinion to murderers is simply a poor excuse for Godwin's law: your argument cannot stand on it's own merits, but requires ludicrous (false) comparisons.

Ben Hinman wrote:
My friend said the same thing about a raunchy ass music video. I told him if i want to watch porn, i will watch porn, and if i want to listen to music, i will listen to music.

Ah, yes. The classic implied 'real' claim. If it's music you don't like, it's not real music. That's a particularly inane stance too many One True Way-ers use. Whether it's "Photography isn't 'real' art", "Rap isn't 'real' music", or some other bizarre closed view of the world,  it's laughable.

Feh.

Ben Hinman wrote:
Imagine going to see a film you were looking forward to and instead of what you thought it was going to be, it was just a bunch of hot naked girls getting frisky. You might enjoy it, but you went to see a movie, not a porno. There is no action, there is no plot, only boobies. This is how i feel about modelmayhem.

So...why are you here?

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?

Of course there's a "line."  There wouldn't be a point to sensationalism if there wasn't a line to cross.

Also, "degraded from an artistic form with countless standards to a complete joke?"  For one thing, those two conditions have always run parallel in any medium.  For another, you're essentially judging the whole of artistic photography based on the limited amount of work you've chosen to focus on.  Apparently, you should get out more if this is really what you think.

Beyond that, you are aware that photography as an artistic form is by no means the most prevalent use of the medium, and never has been, aren't you?  Because Model Mayhem is a very small corner of the art world, let alone anything else in photography.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Ah, yes. The classic implied 'real' claim. If it's music you don't like, it's not real music. That's a particularly inane stance too many One True Way-ers use. Whether it's "Photography isn't 'real' art", "Rap isn't 'real' music", or some other bizarre closed view of the world,  it's laughable.

Feh.

You can make assertions as to what i believe or what i meant by it, but the fact of the matter is, i dont really care. You're putting way too much effort into this, and i still believe in what i'm saying but i have NO reason to believe it as strongly as you apparently do. You want me to stop forcing my beliefs on people, fine. I'll stop trying to convince you i'm not what you say i am. Believe what you want.