MMDesign wrote:
Should make for an interesting discussion.

Not here it won't. The same rabble-rousers ignorant of the law and full of emotion will chime in with no frame of reference as to where they're coming from except that so-and-so heard that it was illegal or immoral or whatever.

ESPECIALLY since the article deals with the State of New York and pictures that were taken in Paris (if I read the article right). Those two facts will be conveniently ignored, as they usually are in other MM threads of this nature. Folks barely know the law in their OWN jurisdiction, yet they steadily chime in about what others should be doing in theirs.

ward wrote:
Roversi is a genius with a camera.

Her mother stated quite clearly she felt the photos were beautiful, and her daughter quite comfortable with them.

I can't see them with the news article link that was attached to The Times story, but any good art will always create discussion and controversy.

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/12/ … e=02galler

controversial... yeah, probably.

pornographic? exploitive? no

the image had the effect it was going for.

Shiggily Weebonk McGee wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/12/02/style/t/index.html#pageName=02galler

controversial... yeah, probably.

pornographic? exploitive? no

the image had the effect it was going for.

Must be my browser having issues. I still can't open that link. Thanks though.

If this is the photo...they need to relax.

http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 … kerfuffle/

ward wrote:
If this is the photo...they need to relax.

it is, and if people were relaxed about it the photo would have lost its intended purpose, which is to rile people up

Shiggily Weebonk McGee wrote:

it is, and if people were relaxed about it the photo would have lost its intended purpose, which is to rile people up

ward wrote:

you don't take a girl who is months away from 18 and shoot a blurry, camera shaken, implied nude shot with just a hit of side boobage if you are not wanting to ruffle a few feathers and push a few boundaries. (of course, shot in Paris, but intended for US publishing)

but hey, the picture is well done.

ward wrote:
Roversi is a genius with a camera.

Her mother stated quite clearly she felt the photos were beautiful, and her daughter quite comfortable with them.

I can't see them with the news article link that was attached to The Times story, but any good art will always create discussion and controversy.

I think the contraversy is the best advertising gimik out there for artists

Shiggily Weebonk McGee wrote:

you don't take a girl who is months away from 18 and shoot a blurry, camera shaken, implied nude shot with just a hit of side boobage if you are not wanting to ruffle a few feathers and push a few boundaries. (of course, shot in Paris, but intended for US publishing)

but hey, the picture is well done.

I love Roversi's work. He's one of the rare few who still shoots 8x10 polaroid.

Phil Haley wrote:
I think the contraversy is the best advertising gimik out there for artists

I enjoy things that are controversial.

Phil Haley wrote:

I think the contraversy is the best advertising gimik out there for artists

If this were in Paris, or Milan, or many other European countries, there wouldn't be an issue at all. Paolo Roversi hardly needs controversy. Did the people at the NY Times think so? Who knows. The sad thing, is if we as Americans never learn the difference between art and sex, then shame on us.

The photos are not sexual in nature at all. Nude does not mean sexual.

-Asylum- wrote:
Real models don't do nudes, or implied nudes.

She's obviously a slut.

And he's obviously a sexual deviant.

i lol-ed

Chip Willis wrote:

If this were in Paris, or Milan, or many other European countries, there wouldn't be an issue at all. Paolo Roversi hardly needs controversy. Did the people at the NY Times think so? Who knows. The sad thing, is if we as Americans never learn the difference between art and sex, then shame on us.

The photos are not sexual in nature at all. Nude does not mean sexual.

Yes, here in the US, people cannot seem to seperate nudity from sex.

-Asylum- wrote:
Real models don't do nudes, or implied nudes.

She's obviously a slut.

And he's obviously a sexual deviant.

Hmmmm.... never looked at it that way

Daniel Cuthbert wrote:
Paolo's approach is very tastefully done, i still don't see why the uproar to be honest..

Nor do I.  If there hadn't been an article about it the fact that the model was under 18 would not have occurred to me.

May 25, 2007
One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally True
High inverse correlation between education and belief in a literal Bible

Americans can not; will not; choose not to; examine these [e.g. the concept of the literal Bible] things critically or do they take the time for a real critical examination of such as the images being discussed, and likely do not even want to.

As a consequence American society is both highly moralistic [publicly] and, at the same time, quite the opposite [privately]. There is no other explanation for a country being both rabidly anti-porn and anti-nudity [publicly] and at the same time creating and consuming more porn [privately], and condemning it in the next breath, than any other country on earth.

There is a studied lack of both intellectual honesty and critical intellectual thought that permeates the whole of America. It is an intentional, wilful and self-inflicted ignorance.

In the UK, by contrast, there was a widely broadcast and even repeated serious mainstream series titled "Who Wrote the Bible?". The conclusion, on the actual evidence, is that damn near anyone who could write between the first and 15th Century got their two cents in to it in one way or another, either by contribution; translation; commentary; interpretation; or otherwise by exclusion of ancient texts that might otherwise have been present except for objection and intervention. A point has nee arrived at where one might even take, as literal truth, the Lolcat Bible translation when compared to the doubious sources of any other translation...

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Studio36

MMDesign wrote:
The response was much the same as the response would be on MM. Some believe it is perfectly fine, some believe it is porn. Should make for an interesting discussion.

I am far too dense to understand what makes nudity (at any age) so dangerous that it invites controversy.  The only down side I can see to modeling nude is the shame and persecution that people will heap upon you if you do it.  And to me, that says nothing about nude person and everything about the people doing the persecuting.

studio36uk wrote:
As a consequence American society is both highly moralistic [publicly] and, at the same time, quite the opposite [privately]. There is no other explanation for a country being both rabidly anti-porn and anti-nudity [publicly] and at the same time creating and consuming more porn [privately], and condemning it in the next breath, than any other country on earth.

Porn is evil and dangerous.  I know, because I've made it my life's work to research the subject and look what it's done to me.

-Asylum- wrote:
Real models don't do nudes, or implied nudes.

She's obviously a slut.

And he's obviously a sexual deviant.

WOW, you are right!....look at this bunch of "sluts" and Herb Ritts is a "sexual deviant" i always knew it!


“Stephanie Seymour, Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlignton, Tatjana" Naomi Campbell"

Dave Krueger wrote:
I am far too dense to understand what makes nudity (at any age) so dangerous that it invites controversy.  The only down side I can see to modeling nude is the shame and persecution that people will heap upon you if you do it.  And to me, that says nothing about nude person and everything about the people doing the persecuting.

Dave, it goes far beyond mere controversy as you no doubt realise... it goes as far as violent condemnation, up to and including murder, and often, in other scenarios played out in the [in]justice system, involving incarceration of the players for, literally, years.

I find it bizarre in the extreme that a murderer can serve less time in prison than someone convicted of having a couple of photographs not even depicting an actual sex act involving a minor.

There's an old philosophical refrain that seems to describe it: "Some endeavour to instil fear in others of that which they fear most in themselves"

Studio36

-Asylum- wrote:
Real models don't do nudes, or implied nudes.

She's obviously a slut.

And he's obviously a sexual deviant.

Bless...

Chip Willis wrote:

If this were in Paris, or Milan, or many other European countries, there wouldn't be an issue at all.

I don't know about that really: Kate Moss' first shoot showed her topless as a 15 year old in a British fashion magazine, but in their last ever issue (which included a rundown of the mag's history) they said "of course, our lawyers would never let us do the same these days...").

MrTim wrote:

Chip Willis wrote:
If this were in Paris, or Milan, or many other European countries, there wouldn't be an issue at all.

I don't know about that really: Kate Moss' first shoot showed her topless as a 15 year old in a British fashion magazine, but in their last ever issue (which included a rundown of the mag's history) they said "of course, our lawyers would never let us do the same these days...").

That's what happens when lawyers run magazines instead of editors.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Dave, it goes far beyond mere controversy as you no doubt realise... it goes as far as violent condemnation, up to and including murder, and often, in other scenarios played out in the [in]justice system, involving incarceration of the players for, literally, years.

I find it bizarre in the extreme that a murderer can serve less time in prison than someone convicted of having a couple of photographs not even depicting an actual sex act involving a minor.

There's an old philosophical refrain that seems to describe it: "Some endeavour to instil fear in others of that which they fear most in themselves"

Studio36

Yeah, I was trying to sound measured and thoughtful.  I don't know the answer to this kind of behavior, but I sometimes think that the desire to persecute others is a natural human drive that is almost impossible to control when people get together in a mob.   Any crusade that justifies its behavior by leveraging off the theme of protecting the most vulnerable of the population is going to be popular.  After all, who could possibly be "against children"?    One only has to look at the preposterous satanic ritual abuse accusations made against so many preschools back in the 80s to get an idea of how utterly irrational and viciously cruel people can be toward others if only given a vague justification under the guise of protecting children.  I haven't a clue why this type of behavior is so common in the U.S. versus Europe.  I certainly don't think Europe is immune from the mob mentality, but I think the U.S. has a much more fervent religious element that can act as a catalyst for moral crusades.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Yeah, I was trying to sound measured and thoughtful.  I don't know the answer to this kind of behavior, but I sometimes think that the desire to persecute others is a natural human drive that is almost impossible to control when people get together in a mob.   Any crusade that justifies its behavior by leveraging off the theme of protecting the most vulnerable of the population is going to be popular.  After all, who could possibly be "against children"?    One only has to look at the preposterous satanic ritual abuse accusations made against so many preschools back in the 80s to get an idea of how utterly irrational and viciously cruel people can be toward others if only given a vague justification under the guise of protecting children.  I haven't a clue why this type of behavior is so common in the U.S. versus Europe.  I certainly don't think Europe is immune from the mob mentality, but I think the U.S. has a much more fervent religious element that can act as a catalyst for moral crusades.

The majority of American's, in my estimation, all are standing poised with a stone in their hand looking for a place to cast it.