Discussion from Random Photos XXIX

xshayx

The Jebus Toilet. Syracuse, New York.

kelly1

xshayx, that's in extremely poor taste! :mad:

Mountainsandh

kelly1 wrote: »

xshayx, that's in extremely poor taste! :mad:

... and a pic of the toilet on its own would probably have spoken more ? Anyone could have made what they wanted of it then.

tina turner

kelly1 wrote: »

xshayx, that's in extremely poor taste! :mad:

I was dying to say something, Thank you!

DaireQuinlan

kelly1 wrote: »

xshayx, that's in extremely poor taste! :mad:

I found your picture of a crucifex offensive so we can call it even-stephens

Seriously though, this is the photography forum, not the christianity forum. You can discus the photographic merits of a picture, but in much the same that AR (for example) isn't allowed to grandstand if someone has a bunch of pictures from a hunt or the greyhound races, whether or not you think the picture is 'tasteless' is neither here nor there.

5uspect

tina turner wrote: »

I was dying to say something, Thank you!

As opposed to this?

tina turner

5uspect wrote: »

As opposed to this?

What are you suggesting?

5uspect

I'm suggesting that you have no right to get up tight about someone's art because of your personal beliefs. If you want to censor xshayx or pour scorn on him because he posted an image you find offensive you're no better than the idiots who destroyed Piss Jesus. Why can't you simply ignore it? Either that or report the post and let the mods decide.

tina turner

5uspect wrote: »

I'm suggesting that you have no right to get up tight about someone's art because of your personal beliefs. If you want to censor xshayx or pour scorn on him because he posted an image you find offensive you're no better than the idiots who destroyed Piss Jesus. Why can't you simply ignore it? Either that or report the post and let the mods decide.

Will bite my tongue next time.

DaireQuinlan

5uspect wrote: »

I'm suggesting that you have no right to get up tight about someone's art because of your personal beliefs. If you want to censor xshayx or pour scorn on him because he posted an image you find offensive you're no better than the idiots who destroyed Piss Jesus. Why can't you simply ignore it? Either that or report the post and let the mods decide.

On the contrary, kelly1 and tina turner have EVERY right to get uptight about someones art because of their personal beliefs, what on earth makes you think otherwise ? They also have the right to express that up-tightedness by saying they find something tasteless, or protesting outside a gallery or through numerous other avenues. Naturally they don't have the right to interfere with OTHER peoples access to or enjoyment of the work through censorship or destruction, but no-one is suggesting they've gone quite far yet.
I was merely pointing out that the photographic forum isn't the place to express their distaste.

5uspect

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

On the contrary, kelly1 and tina turner have EVERY right to get uptight about someones art because of their personal beliefs, what on earth makes you think otherwise ? They also have the right to express that up-tightedness by saying they find something tasteless, or protesting outside a gallery or through numerous other avenues. Naturally they don't have the right to interfere with OTHER peoples access to or enjoyment of the work through censorship or destruction, but no-one is suggesting they've gone quite far yet.
I was merely pointing out that the photographic forum isn't the place to express their distaste.

I should have said that they have no right to get upset here. They can report the post if they feel strongly enough or open a discussion on the topic in another thread about perceived offensive imagery. Of course they can get as upset as much as they want, it should not prevent anyone from posting a picture they want to share.

Simplicius

Cameras, Photos, great captures, composition ... Can we get back on course folks. This is so off topic and totally missed the real issue is it was taken with a digital camera!!!

How can anyone using digital have the nerve to call themselves a real photographer? We should immediately ban anyone who thinks a take up spool was something on their granny's sewing machine. Hee hee ....

trooney

Its as offensive as it would be if the picture was of batman. Fictional characters can't be slandered.
Now, somebody pissing on a picture of the flying spaghetti monster...

serjical_strike

photo of the week.. im feeling it!! i think this is a great image, while i can see why people would find it offensive i think the general feel of the image shows that its a little tounge in cheek and not necessarily a blatant attack on christianity!!

Squidgy Black

I think it's a great way of expressing his own beliefs and feelings

I can see how some find it offensive, but it's art

5uspect

Photography isn't just about pretty pictures of flowers and stuff. It should make us experience a whole range of emotions. This includes images people find difficult, offensive, insensitive or in bad taste. For photography to be truly effective as a medium it must challenge peoples beliefs about the world and help us question the things we take for granted.

There is no doubt that religion is in steep decline and the Catholic Church in Ireland is no longer pulling the strings like it used to. For a long time many works of art, books, films etc were simply banned in this country because of a disturbing form of ultra Catholic conservatism which aimed to stamp out all forms of expression that did not toe the line. An image of the one above would be unthinkable and would possibly see the photographer in a lot of hot water.

There is a common misunderstanding that a person's religious beliefs should be respected. This is a wholly unsustainable position with so many contradiction religious groups. A person has the right to believe what ever they want but must not expect to see their views given any more merit than any others (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster). I'm sure we're all well aware of where demanding special treatment for one's own beliefs leads us.

The photo has a playful disrespect for a typically Caucasian Christ, an image that could be found hanging in a place of honour in almost every Irish home. It is now reduced to sitting beside the loo roll on a dingy bog.

Also adds new meaning to the phrase talking to God on the big white telephone!
We need to see more of this kind of imagery.

Jim

Does he have a Jesus tattoo on his back?

magicbastarder

i don't really like the photo. and his facial hair is stupid (the guy on the left, not jesus's facial hair).

i think the real issue here is the question of copyright surrounding that picture of jesus - i'd suggest it's possibly one of the most common images in the world. did the original artist manage to enforce his/her rights over the image?

Don't like the shadows from the flash. Otherwise couldn't care less about content.

pullandbang

I just want to know what the OP was doing lurking in a public toilet with a camera......:P

Mountainsandh

5uspect wrote: »

Photography isn't just about pretty pictures of flowers and stuff. It should make us experience a whole range of emotions. This includes images people find difficult, offensive, insensitive or in bad taste. For photography to be truly effective as a medium .....

....
We need to see more of this kind of imagery.

Meh. I like pretty pictures of flowers and stuff.

I don't like being annoyed looking at a picture, I'd rather be intrigued. If someone's aim was to make me think about something, they would be more successful by suggesting rather than presenting me with an explicit, potentially annoying image.
Now I think of it, this would have been twice as effective (with me) again, if the guy had been a) not giving the finger, b) staring mysterious-ly/mischievious-ly at the camera.

But I would prefer to just look at pretty pictures tbh.
Enough other things making me feel "bad emotions" in my life.
I'd rather photography just made me feel good.
Call me simple if you like

Of course anybody's entitled to post "deep" thought provoking pics on a forum, forgive me if I just scroll down quick then

Ghost Train

Wouldn't be too bothered about it, like the style of the shot but apart from a bit of surprise when I saw it wouldn't see it as offensive

spinandscribble

on the subject of offensive art in general, I only like it when its got something to say and makes me think, not when its cliched and pointless.

regarding this photo, i like it that its got a snap shot feel, if it felt "too" set up it would be off putting. I'm not religious and do not find it offensive.

Hugh_C

The guy's got stage fright, he's not actually pissing which renders the image flaccid for me. Good idea, but a bit of a cop out in the final analysis.

magicbastarder

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/24/david-mitchell-piss-christ-religion?INTCMP=SRCH

sNarah

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Meh. I like pretty pictures of flowers and stuff.

I don't like being annoyed looking at a picture, I'd rather be intrigued. If someone's aim was to make me think about something, they would be more successful by suggesting rather than presenting me with an explicit, potentially annoying image.
Now I think of it, this would have been twice as effective (with me) again, if the guy had been a) not giving the finger, b) staring mysterious-ly/mischievious-ly at the camera.

But I would prefer to just look at pretty pictures tbh.
Enough other things making me feel "bad emotions" in my life.
I'd rather photography just made me feel good.
Call me simple if you like

Of course anybody's entitled to post "deep" thought provoking pics on a forum, forgive me if I just scroll down quick then

I like your statement here: "I don't like getting annoyed when looking at a picture" for the simple reason that it evokes a reaction. IMO, a great photograph makes you feel something, be it bad or good... Is this one tasteless? Yes, perhaps it is. Is is amusing? I think it is, but that's also because I'm just not a fan of the Baby Cheeses. Will it piss off a lot of people? Hell yeah. Is it acceptable to post in the photography forum? I believe it is (non-mod hat on).

So, each to their own, but me, I prefer something like this over pwetty pwetty flowers...

reic

Well posed and well taken. Subject matter might depend on taste but surely nobody could deny that it's an above average photograph?

Adrian.Sadlier

I don't like the photo. Maybe its a legacy of my Catholic upbringing (indoctrintion?) but I instinctively disliked it. So what! That is a function of my upbringing and/or beliefs which colour (no pun intended) my evaluation of life. It has no impact on the rights (or wrongs) of the photographer to create and publish such images.

I have a simplistic view on peoples rights - they exist only insofar as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Being challenged to evaluate (or even defend) your beliefs is not an invasion of rights but an absolute necessity in an evolving society. If there were more of such challenges we might not be lumbered with this self rightious, self serving power base that has brought this counrty to its knees.

Well, that's my opinion anyway. And BTW - I like pretty pictures too!

EDIT: Actually, I don't find the photograph offensive or such at all, so I change my mind; I'll just stay out of this argument.

kelly1

My objection is this: The protagonist has made a "fu*k you" gesture towards the Person whom I adore as *our* Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of Heaven and Earth who died the most horrible death imaginable out of love for us. This God-man humbled Himself and came to earth to atone for the sins committed by man-kind, thereby gaining entrance to Heaven for those who are humble enough to acknowledge their sinfulness. Take it or leave it.

kelly1

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

I don't like the photo. Maybe its a legacy of my Catholic upbringing (indoctrintion?) but I instinctively disliked it....

You don't have to defend your view. If it's wrong, it's wrong, it's not indoctrination. Where's the courage to defend the truth!?

CabanSail

The photo was taken, I assume, to be provocative. That being the case, the Radom Thread was probably the wrong place to post it. Moving it to a thread on it's own has allowed that discussion.

For me the image is trying too hard and lacks any subtlety and does seem to be in poor taste. In that it has caused discussion it has been a success. Not sure if the colour balance is deliberate or not, but that is not to my taste.

DougL

kelly1 wrote: »

My objection is this: The protagonist has made a "fu*k you" gesture towards the Person whom I adore as *our* Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of Heaven and Earth who died the most horrible death imaginable out of love for us. This God-man humbled Himself and came to earth to atone for the sins committed by man-kind, thereby gaining entrance to Heaven for those who are humble enough to acknowledge their sinfulness. Take it or leave it.

If you truly believe that, then I can certainly understand why you're offended. However, just because it offends you doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, and in fairness to you, I don't believe you've suggested its removal.

I would equally defend your right to be offended, and this photographs right to exist and be displayed, although I am no particular fan of either this photograph, or your religion.

sineadw

It's hardly Piss Jesus (I can't believe it was destroyed! I hadn't heard. What a bunch of twats :mad: ), and IMHO it's a little puerile, but maybe that's what was meant? Whilst Jesus is most definitely NOT *my* lord Kelly1, I can see why you're offended. Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way though? I don't see this image as an insult to the man, but to the religion and the iconography that surrounds what he taught. There's a subtle but very important difference there. I'd actually like to hear what xShayx's reasoning behind it was.

Anyway, that's my opinion, and the photograph is the opinion of the photographer, and religion is opinion. And we're all entitled to one.

Adrian.Sadlier

kelly1 wrote: »

You don't have to defend your view. If it's wrong, it's wrong, it's not indoctrination. Where's the courage to defend the truth!?

I am not defending my view, I am merely stating it. As for having the courage to defend the truth may I ask whose truth should I defend - mine, yours or someone else's?

You are somewhat presumptious to assume that because I was brought up a RC that I agree with all of Christainity's dictats and beliefs. Most people, as they grow and mature realise that life (and morality) is more about shades of gray rather than black and white.

Only the young, inexperienced and fundamentalists see reality as the latter.

Which category do you fall into?

magicbastarder

probably not the best place to be discussing religious beliefs.

ThOnda

The only thing I find offensive in this picture is that I cannot see the guy's weener - it looks a bit too staged

Adrian.Sadlier

I agree. My points are not about the validity on any particular religous beliefs but about the rights of a photographer to question, even ridicule such beliefs.

PDuffy

Hello all. I am the model in Shay's photo. I use the term "model" in it's loosest possible sense! Just a few words.
I've been thinking a lot about this photo. I remember it well. This isn't a public toilet like someone else posted. I mean just look at it. It was a single toilet with a curtain rail around it in a basement where we were playing a gig. Th picture of Jesus was there, I can only assume, ironically. I thought it was funny, Jesus was getting to watch everyone piss at a hardcore gig. Shay was there with the camera so I got into this ridiculous pose and he took the shot. I don't get why so many people are getting offended. I didn't even have my fly open! I mean someone else put the picture of Jesus there, surely that's more offensive? No one is getting hurt, taken advantage of or being abused. If people's religious sentiments are being hurt here then maybe they need to take a long hard look at their own beliefs. If your religious beliefs can't stand up to something as innocuous as this photo then you may need to rethink why exactly you find this offensive.
I totally agree that the arguments here should be about the photo and it's artistic merits. If you find it offensive there is a fantastic solution - don't look at it. Close the window. Block Shay. Whatever. No one is forcing you to look at it.
When Shay showed me the photo on the camera to be honest I didn't think it made that interesting a photo, besides thinking it was funny and giggling at it. But looking at it now, it's obvious that Shay has put a lot of time and work into it and it looks great. Maybe that's what everyone needs to focus on?

xshayx

Paul has said it better than I could have.

spinandscribble

kelly1 wrote: »

You don't have to defend your view. If it's wrong, it's wrong, it's not indoctrination. Where's the courage to defend the truth!?

your truth. don't mix that up with something as solid as 'the truth'.

at the end of the day, its a picture, snap shot, a giggle for some. Whether you like it or not it is as justifiable as being shown in the forum as the many other pictures that typically offend posters (homeless shots anyone?).

CabanSail

One thing that has to be said for the RC's is that they are relatively tolerant to this sort of thing. A similar image but with an Islamic icon instead could be received in a much different way.

magicbastarder

it's quite simple; people have the right to take & post this sort of thing and people have the right to feel insulted by it.
and no-one has the right not to be insulted.

Teferi

If I was RC I think I would be more insulted that they painted Jesus as a white dude when he clearly wasn't.

As is, I kind of like the simple joking act within the picture.

Tallon

imo, the photo is just taking the piss, and meant no harm




*Yes, I put that pun in there in purpose!

charybdis

*waits for someone to post image of Mohammed*

Tallon

charybdis wrote: »

*waits for someone to post image of Mohammed*

Promac

kelly1 wrote: »

xshayx, that's in extremely poor taste! :mad:

I generally go out of my way to avoid religion as I find it to be in "extremely poor taste". You've got two quotes from the bible in your signature. I'm just as offended by the idea that the spirit of god is inside me as you seem to be at someone giving the finger to a fairly gaudy painting of a guy with long hair and a beard who is supposed to be the same god that sent himself to earth to attone for sins against himself by arranging for himself to be nailed to a tree by us in order to save us from him.

As the beardy guy himself (allegedly) said - remove the plank of wood from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in someone else's.

kelly1

Promac, have you got some issue with me expressing my opinion?

Promac

kelly1 wrote: »

Promac, have you got some issue with me expressing my opinion?

Not at all! Have you got some issue with me expressing mine? Or with Shay expressing his? I'd say his picture expresses the opinion that the picture in it is worthy of derision - I'd agree with that opinion.

Your signature is not your opinion - it's 2 direct quotations from a book I consider extremely offensive.

kelly1

Promac wrote: »

Have you got some issue with me expressing mine? Or with Shay expressing his?

No, I believe in free speech/expression.