howard r wrote:
oh please - stop elevating him to the level of a profound artist. that’s giving him way, way too much credit. it’s also an insult to the genuinely brilliant artists who do use their art to challenge us with their explorations into the darker side of life (scorsese, lou reed, etc).

this guy’s justification is just muddled headed nonsense by an intellectual lightweight. it reminds me of the really-wish-they-had-something-important-to-say photographers who use swastikas as props. When the predicable outrage begins, they say things like “as an artist - i feel it’s my duty to explore the nature of, you know, man’s inhumanity to man, and i’m contrasting that with society’s obsession with, like, you know, strippers with giant breasts and stuff - and i will not be silenced by those uptight fascist puritans who seek to censor my right to speak my truth.”

blah blah blah . . .

Yes, it's straightforward Zoolander territory. Shiny, empty-headed people with all the depth of a sheet of paper looking to do concepts.

Tim Griffiths wrote:

Yes, it's straightforward Zoolander territory. Shiny, empty-headed people with all the depth of a sheet of paper looking to do concepts.

exactly. if only it were that easy to be profound - lol

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

That does not equal "bringing attention."

I know it's really hard but try reading the actual article. Saves a whole lot of time of having to point out the obvious over and over

"It's just a way of throwing light on it,"

That means he was using the photos as a way to bring attention to it. I know he didn't say exactly those words, but that's the meaning.

GER Photography wrote:

Huh?? I think you need to read that again, that's exactly what I meant. Let's not cut this with too fine a line, shall we.

That's not what you meant at all. A reasonable person test is applied to an existing situation and law. It's not for making laws in the first place.

that if a reasonable man believes that something should be considered legal or illegal that that should be the only test necessary.

That is not what a reasonable person test is at all.

London Fog wrote:

What glorified way, one guy has his arm on her leg and around her ankle, the other has his around her upper arm and below her boob. There's nothing even remotely being suggested, in fact the whole thing looks like a bunch of stills from a 'bollywood music video'. 

Big fucking deal!

Thats what it looks like to me too...

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

GER Photography wrote:
Huh?? I think you need to read that again, that's exactly what I meant. Let's not cut this with too fine a line, shall we.

That's not what you meant at all. A reasonable person test is applied to an existing situation and law. It's not for making laws in the first place.


That is not what a reasonable person test is at all.

OMG!! really dude?? Picking nits much!!! It's an existing situation that there are sick little f¥€K's who want to shock and disgust people with their "art" and get their jolly's doing it, well, bugger them. My last response to you, have a nice day.

GER Photography wrote:

OMG!! really dude?? Picking nits much!!! It's an existing situation that there are sick little f¥€K's who want to shock and disgust people with their "art" and get their jolly's doing it, well, bugger them. My last response to you, have a nice day.

They're not "nits", the entire premise of what you're saying is completely and utterly false. That's not some small thing. You specifically said that if a reasonable person thought something should be illegal it should be. A reasonable person test is applied to people's behaviours to make sure they act like a reasonable person in a given situation. For example, in taking care of another individual or offering assistance to an injured person or something of that nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything you are carrying on about.