Photographer
Ben Hinman
Posts: 596
Westwood, California, US
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?
Model
angel emily
Posts: 1020
Boston, Massachusetts, US
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.
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
So you're looking at the images too...just not commenting? Is that the gist of the thread?
Photographer
Ben Hinman
Posts: 596
Westwood, California, US
emily, i'm not interested in any "thats life, deal with it" speeches. thats like, 90% of posts on this forum. michael, yes, obviously i am looking at the photos. otherwise the photos i would be talking about are imaginary. -_-
Model
angel emily
Posts: 1020
Boston, Massachusetts, US
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.
Photographer
Ben Hinman
Posts: 596
Westwood, California, US
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.
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
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?
Photographer
Lazyi Photography
Posts: 1224
Columbus, Ohio, US
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?
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4861
Asheville, North Carolina, US
You find licking slightly unusual objects and mildly risque toplessness shocking?
Photographer
R L P
Posts: 1971
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
if it is well-commented and popular ... the people have spoken. many different styles, many different audiences.
Body Painter
Monad Studios
Posts: 10131
Santa Rosa, California, US
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.
Photographer
my_other_profile
Posts: 666
Ankeny, Iowa, US
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: You find licking slightly unusual objects and mildly risque toplessness shocking? You don't? :p
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4861
Asheville, North Carolina, US
my_other_profile wrote: You don't? :p No, not at all.
Photographer
my_other_profile
Posts: 666
Ankeny, Iowa, US
Choosing to assume you knew I was kidding.
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4861
Asheville, North Carolina, US
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.
Photographer
Worlds Of Water
Posts: 37732
Rancho Cucamonga, California, US
Has Sensationalism Gone Too Far? Ben Hinman wrote: And i mean, i'm all for shock value, Well then didn't you just answer your own question?... ...
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
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.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Sorry if this is bursting your nostalgic bubble, but there has always been shitty art.
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
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.
Photographer
SPRINGHEEL
Posts: 38224
Detroit, Michigan, US
Yeah, its terrible and they should all be burned at the stake
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6985
Fairbanks, Alaska, US
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 ....
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
Of it bothers you OP, don't look at it! TROLL!
Photographer
Peach Jones
Posts: 6906
Champaign, Illinois, US
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).
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
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
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
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.
Photographer
Solas
Posts: 10390
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Photographer
kitty_empire
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
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.
Photographer
DCP Glamour
Posts: 629
Dunwoody, Georgia, US
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?
Photographer
Drew Smith Photography
Posts: 5214
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom
Of course it's gone too far. For those people that choose to be bothered by it. There's a difference between 'crappy' photography going to far and anti-social behaviour, for example, going to far. I'm not concerned about the former but will actively get involved to help combat the latter. So, what is the question you are really asking? I console myself in the knowledge that the number of people creating beautiful, inspiring art has not diminished and has probably increased too. Try fixating on the positive and not the negative where it doesn't really matter.
Photographer
Coogan Photo
Posts: 821
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Just so you know, the model is not actually licking the wall here:
Photographer
Amul La La
Posts: 885
London, England, United Kingdom
Photographer
SPRINGHEEL
Posts: 38224
Detroit, Michigan, US
They get rid of all the tits and naked women licking things yet?
Photographer
Moonlight Romance Photo
Posts: 18
Gaylord, Michigan, US
The sad thing is that only positive comments are given when some critique might help these photographers and models to improve their craft. I am constantly amazed at the crap that gets praised.
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
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...
Photographer
KonstantKarma
Posts: 2513
Campobello, South Carolina, US
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.
Model
angel emily
Posts: 1020
Boston, Massachusetts, US
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.
Photographer
MN camera
Posts: 1862
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US
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.
|