Discussion from Random Photos XXIX

Promac

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I believe in free speech/expression.

So why criticise him in the first place, leading to the need for this thread? Couldn't you have respected his expression and scrolled on? At the very most you should've hit the report button and said nothing in public.

kelly1

Promac wrote: »

So why criticise him in the first place, leading to the need for this thread? Couldn't you have respected his expression and scrolled on? At the very most you should've hit the report button and said nothing in public.

I thought you were all for free speech?

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

So why criticise him in the first place, leading to the need for this thread? Couldn't you have respected his expression and scrolled on?

thus removing the need for any comment on anything unless solicited?
you're asking her to suppress her right to free speech in order to guarantee his.

the concept of free speech means you're free to express your opinions, *not* that you cannot be called on them.

Promac

Criticising someone's opinion in public isn't much different from saying they aren't entitled to it.

Kelly objected to being shown something he found offensive - I pointed out his signature which I find offensive. If he wants someone to be more sensitive to his religious beliefs then he should be more sensitive to others' as well. I'm just pointing out a double standard.

I've never criticised his signature before this because I believe he's free to believe any ould ****e he pleases and even run around spewing as much as he wants to anyone he likes - me included.

kelly1

Promac wrote: »

Criticising someone's opinion in public isn't much different from saying they aren't entitled to it.

I didn't demand that xshayx remove the image, did I?

Promac wrote: »

I've never criticised his signature before this because I believe he's free to believe any ould ****e he pleases and even run around spewing as much as he wants to anyone he likes - me included.

I'd love to know how you find my sig (extremely?) offensive? :eek:

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

Criticising someone's opinion in public isn't much different from saying they aren't entitled to it.

what planet are you from? seriously, that's the greatest load of guff i've ever heard.

CabanSail

The actual image was not reported but the discussion was. The Random Thread os not a place for such a discussion. It would have been a shame to have just deleted them, so instead they were moved here. Please feel free to discuss the issue of this, or similar, photographic images. Discussion off that topic may result in this thread being closed.

Promac

kelly1 wrote: »

I didn't demand that xshayx remove the image, did I?

That's irrelevant - there's a very good reason for the existance of the report button and your post was in direct violation of the rules of the random thread "* If you have a disagreement with a photo, use the report post feature - don't go abusing the poster."

kelly1 wrote: »

I'd love to know how you find my sig (extremely?) offensive? :eek:

I find the bible itself extremely offensive - feel free to start a thread over in the religion section if you really want to get into why but I think it's probably best left out of this forum.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

what planet are you from? seriously, that's the greatest load of guff i've ever heard.

by your logic, my post above implies i don't think you should be allowed express your opinion.

do you really think that's what i mean?

Promac

magicbastarder wrote: »

by your logic, my post above implies i don't think you should be allowed express your opinion.

do you really think that's what i mean?

Of course not - and I'm not suggesting Kelly's not free to express his either.

What I am saying is that Kelly's original post isn't an expression of opinion - he's clearly implying that Shay was wrong for expressing his.

KarmaGarda

Personally I think it's a great shot! I love the awkward composition in that you're drawn to the main subject. I.e. the gesture and person who's the recipient of the gesture.

Now if only I could recognise that dude in the photo on said fake jacks. He looks awfully familiar. It's not Christian Bale by any chance?

Ah I kid . Anyway, I'm a lover of provocative photography. I love this for example by Rankin: here, or even better, the heaven to hell one by David La Chapelle here. If it creates a debate then it's good for photography. I can't be doing with the same old photos of flowers and bleedin dogs day in day out. Something a bit different is always good!

I say keep up the good work Shay!

CabanSail

This particular shot is more along the lines of the YMCA photo from a few years back. It has an Easter theme but is more humorous while still being irreverent.

FoxT

PDuffy wrote: »

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?

First off, thanks PD for a very helpful post!

This thread has me thinking about the different experiences the photographer, the model, and the viewer might have about the shot.

On my first look, I thought it was not a very appealing photo. As Cabansail has said, it looks like a photo that was meant to be provocative for the sake of it, and was a bit tasteless.

Having read PD's description, it comes across in a completely different way. It was a simple fun, ironic shot taken during a break in a gig.

Looking at it again, it is clear that the smile is spontaneous, but the Jesus picture does look like somebody put it there for the purposes of the shot. ( Not denying PD's post here, just saying what it looks like)

I think that the human mind is quite good at examining pictures critically. We are so attuned to advertising photography in particular that we can be very critical of spontaneous shots. Pros like Annie Leibowitz will travel with a small army of assistants etc to make staged shots look real - and it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do well.

see here, for example:

http://www.louisvuittonjourneys.com/africa/


When I look at this Luis Vuitton shoot, I know it is completely unreal - but I can't put my finger on why that is so. It is a perfectly natural looking image , yet I know that every single aspect of it has been choreographed in some way - so while it is an attractive image, part of my brain just writes it off.
Similarly when I see shots like the one above, I tend to suspect it is choreographed - that the photographer is trying to make some point about - I don't know - Jesus or the joys of urination or something - and it all gets lost for me.

Bottom line I guess is that it can be difficult to see how your images are going to be interpreted, especially if there are props present. From that viewpoint, it would have been more attractive & understandable w/o the presence of Jesus...

-FoxT

PDuffy

Just to clear it up, nothing in that shot was a "prop". There was nothing moved to make it a better photo or anything. The Jesus pic was exactly as it appeared before and after we took the pic. It seemed to be a semi permanent fixture. Nobody else batted an eyelid at it, it seemed the locals were used to it.

magicbastarder

i'm not sure if PDuffy's explanation changes the shot; the shot should stand on its own.

FoxT

Hi PDuffy, I understand the picture just happened to be there & was not placed there for the photograph. But the point I was trying to make is that as a viewer, I have no way of knowing this.

Having seen so many contrived photographs, as we all have, I have a tendency to assume that if I see something incongruous in a photo that it was placed there specifically for a purpose.

Knowing that the picture (of Jesus) just happened to be there, leads to my interpreting the photo very differently.

Thanks,
FoxT

PDuffy

Cool, I was just making sure people knew. I know nothing about photography, although I am seriously surprised at how off topic things went in here. I still cannot get my head around why people find this offensive. Like are people actually “offended”? I mean, morally offended? Because that’s really sad.

TelePaul

Am I the only one who found this photo laugh-out-loud funny? There are so many incongruous elements at play here, and the juxtaposition has me grinning at the awkward randomness of it all. Even without the model, I'd find the presence of such a picture above a toilet very, very strange - I think I'd have to move any such image before making use of the facilities. The rocker-type grinning maniacally and flipping the big-man the bird seals it for me, it's like Major Kong riding the bomb in Dr Strangelove! So yeah, for me the photo evokes an emotion, and that emotion is humour. And then possibly a little guilt given a Catholic upbringing. But mostly humour

jpb1974

Like are people actually “offended”? I mean, morally offended? Because that’s really sad.

No, it's not sad.. it just might be in your opinion, in the same way that the photo might be offensive in theirs... and if you can't understand that then that's sad... in my opinion

PDuffy

jpb1974 wrote: »

No, it's not sad.. it just might be in your opinion, in the same way that the photo might be offensive in theirs... and if you can't understand that then that's sad... in my opinion

No it's not the same. Their "religious morals" are offended at this photo. That is sad, no matter what way you paint it. Hundreds of thousands of children have been abused by employees of the Roman Catholic Church, now that IS morally offensive. A ****ing photo? Seriously guys? Anyway, that's all I'm saying on it, I've said too much already. This is a photography forum apparently.

jpb1974

That is sad, no matter what way you paint it.

Well it isn't to me so who is right and who is wrong?

People have the right to an opinion and whether you agree or disagree with it you should try to respect it.

If someone finds the photo offensive then that is their entitlement. Simple as.

PDuffy

jpb1974 wrote: »

Well it isn't to me so who is right and who is wrong?

I'm right. You're wrong. Glad I could help.

TelePaul

PDuffy wrote: »

No it's not the same. Their "religious morals" are offended at this photo. That is sad, no matter what way you paint it. Hundreds of thousands of children have been abused by employees of the Roman Catholic Church, now that IS morally offensive. A ****ing photo? Seriously guys? Anyway, that's all I'm saying on it, I've said too much already. This is a photography forum apparently.

I know what you're saying, but chill bro, you put a smile on my face today!

jpb1974

I'm right. You're wrong.

Seems as if you'd rather píss on other people's opinions rather than respect them

PDuffy

TelePaul wrote: »

I know what you're saying, but chill bro, you put a smile on my face today!

Cheers! Glad I could help!!
2 last points and then I'm out

1 - if you find this image offensive then you shouldn't be on the internet.

2 - if you find this image offensive then stop looking at it.

jpb1974

1 - if you find this image offensive then you shouldn't be on the internet.

Strong candidate for the "2011 - Boards.ie Photography Forum - Sweeping Statement of the Year" award

xshayx

I'm so surprised at how this photo has been given its own thread and how this thread has gone. I'm not going to get into my views on religion because this is a photography forum.

If something like this really offends then maybe you shouldn't be on the internet where there may be such photos, and far far worse. Would this thread exist if it had been a picture of a devil, Cowen, Gadaffi, Bush?

Its a silly snapshot that I forgot I had taken and on finding it again I liked it, and I'm glad some people are getting amusement out of it.

But I can't believe this thread is still going, and it would prob be better if it was locked by the mods as it seems to be going nowhere.

Fajitas!

Send it to the humanties forum!

CabanSail

I too think that all aspects have now been covered. That was the point of splitting it out of the Random Thread but it now seems to be going way beyond the scope of this humble foruum.

Some interesting points made and thank you all for keeping it generally polite while discussing this image. As suggested above, the time has come to close this thread.