No Nudes
Nov 29, 2014 12:14:05 #
Grandpa wrote:
I have requested guidance from ADMIN on there definition pertaining to nudity.
Grandpa, We are all adults here ( I presume ). As any photographer should understand, we are a group of people who are attuned to light, dark, shape, color, and subject matter. Just as an artist of any other genre is. Does anyone here walk into an are gallery and point at a nude painting or statue and start screaming "PORNOGRAPHY"? If you feel showing nude images is Porn... I am sincerely sorry. As a photographer, personally, I shoot nature, architecture, still life, and people. I shoot candidly in public, I shoot portraits and fashion, I also shoot sexy glamour and "implied" nudes, were everything shows except those 3 little "naughty bits" (if you wish to call them that). However, if you look back at ALL art in history, there has always been fully nude images in either classic statues or oil paintings. To capture the nude form in all its beauty, whether it's a male of female, skinny or reubenesque, and to do it with some taste (not vulgar) has been mans struggle for centuries. If anyone on this site considers nudity as vulgar: 1) they don't have to look; 2) they don't have to stay if they are not tolerant of all art forms. I used to work in a Family Studio: our policy was nudity for babies was ok up until the age of 6 months. In the state of Maine: the law says you can photograph ANY age fully naked as long as two criteria are met... that being that that then genitals are not showing (in women there is a legal issue as to genitalia... if the legs are closed and only the pubic area is showing then legally the genitals are not visible, that being said I'm sure some DA would love to send you to prison based on his/her personal interpretation of that physical term... the other part that can not be shown is the anus... the butt is ok... as long as the cheeks are not spread. That being said, it is legal to photograph bare breasts at any age.... the legal caveat to this law is as long as the images are done for artistic reasons and NOT done for a salacious act or to be traded or sold as "porn". In some respects it goes along with the Supreme Courts rather vague ruling, "I'll know it when I see it"... which is totally unsatisfactory because I could take a nude photo (18+) and have a formal oil painting done of the same image... I will guarantee you that 8 out of 10 people will see the photo as porn and the painting as art. I once saw an advertisement in a local tourist magazine showing places to go, things to see... one was a full half page adv. for a well known art gallery with a picture of a painting from a well known artist. The painting was of a stylized female form, reclining on a rug on the floor with her legs open and her .... painted as a big red splotch. If I took the same image as a photo, all hell would have broken loose if I had it posted in the same magazine. I'm guessing by now, if anyone is still reading this that I have great issues with censorship of any art form. I do have standards: I shoot artistic nudes, with the intent on showing some form or creativity and beauty in the pose. I "do not" shoot naked photos of woman just standing there with everything hanging out. Art is art... I could shoot a glamour shot of a nude woman laying on a bed (tastefully) in a $1,000 dollar a night hotel room... and it would be beautifully sensual... I could do the same image/pose in a $65 dollar a night motel and it would still be telling a legitimate "story" but again, 8 or even 9 out of 10 would classify it as "porn". We need to be adult here.
I have 3 suggestions: first, if you want to post nude photos, try to think if it's artistically tasteful... second, don't put some cute-sy title on it to "make" people look, like some of the titles I've seen today, and put "Mature Material" in the title... then if anyone looks it's on them to take the responsibility.... and finally, and maybe the easiest is to contact Admin and ask them if a Mature section could be added, so that those who are immature would be afraid to enter... or, they may enter only to cause trouble by posting bad comments... then those people should be barred from UH for life.
Just my opinion from running into these types of immature people all the time.
If anyone feels these two images are pornographic (that is if they are still posted)... then you'd better stay out or art galleries and museums.
Nov 29, 2014 12:37:40 #
Fractured_Lens wrote:
Grandpa, We are all adults here ( I presume ). As ... (show quote)
The rules for the site say No Nudity so these will be removed if they are still posted.
Nov 29, 2014 12:43:47 #
Nov 29, 2014 14:13:19 #
About 3 months between posts. Is this the geriatric section?
See you next year, about February? Ooops insensitive? some will have passed.
See you next year, about February? Ooops insensitive? some will have passed.
Nov 29, 2014 14:23:12 #
hey... I just found it and it's a topic, as you might have seen, is something of a sore spot with me... and like you... others may still be keeping an eye on it...
Nov 29, 2014 15:18:10 #
Fractured_Lens wrote:
hey... I just found it and it's a topic, as you might have seen, is something of a sore spot with me... and like you... others may still be keeping an eye on it...
Jumping the line there partner. 1 commend every 3 months now. You hear?
Dec 1, 2014 16:12:15 #
Grandpa wrote:
I have requested guidance from ADMIN on there definition pertaining to nudity.
So, what IS "nudity"?
Dec 1, 2014 17:17:27 #
Dec 2, 2014 20:53:08 #
Very, VERY, well said, sir. A tip of the hat to you.
ote=jonsommer]Oy! I can't believe a group of supposed adults over the age of 18 is having this kind of exchange about this topic - it's like we're trying to see how close to a yet to be defined line we can get before we get swatted by the father figure.
So, let's draw the line in the sand, be clear, be specific, quit hedging and let's get back to the fun we're supposed to be having here.
I think it was a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that said something like he couldn't exactly define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Skin is not nudity, pubic hair is inappropriate, showing reproductive bits and pieces is likewise inappropriate, showing a mother breast feeding an infant, it's hard to imagine anyone thinking that is pornographic. Showing cleavage . . . look at the academy awards pre-show on public television, and you'll see yards of cleavage, so is that pornographic, so now we move into a broad gray area - personal taste and common sense.
Personally, I have learned from the posts that some may be objecting to. Does that mean I would want prints for my living room wall? Nope, it doesn't. But it seems that we are dealing with a confused minority of members who would rather say that seeing the exposed abdomen of a reclining female figure is showing nudity, when it's really just showing skin, and try to censure those that posted it, than look for a real and worthwhile cause to champion, where violence on our streets is a nightly occurrence, where millions of children go to bed hungry every night, where an international pandemic of eboli (sic?) is being discussed, and ISIS is beheading journalists and posting videos to a horrified world - and we're wasting our time on something as pedantic and unimportant as discussing the family friendliness of showing cleavage, tattoos, midriffs, bathing suits, bare feet, butt cracks etc. and how much skin is too much to show.
I probably lean as far to the right on the political spectrum, without being reactionary, as I can get. But from my perspective, this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot, brought up by a few misguided individuals, where there is a really simple solution . . . If you don't like Big Macs, don't go to McDonalds - there are enough sections to his forum that even the religious fanatics, the conspiracy theorists and the anarchists have a place to go. I think those folks are crazy, so I don't frequent the chit-chat section, if you don't like what is posted in the People Section, unsubscribe, and don't go there.[/quote]
ote=jonsommer]Oy! I can't believe a group of supposed adults over the age of 18 is having this kind of exchange about this topic - it's like we're trying to see how close to a yet to be defined line we can get before we get swatted by the father figure.
So, let's draw the line in the sand, be clear, be specific, quit hedging and let's get back to the fun we're supposed to be having here.
I think it was a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that said something like he couldn't exactly define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Skin is not nudity, pubic hair is inappropriate, showing reproductive bits and pieces is likewise inappropriate, showing a mother breast feeding an infant, it's hard to imagine anyone thinking that is pornographic. Showing cleavage . . . look at the academy awards pre-show on public television, and you'll see yards of cleavage, so is that pornographic, so now we move into a broad gray area - personal taste and common sense.
Personally, I have learned from the posts that some may be objecting to. Does that mean I would want prints for my living room wall? Nope, it doesn't. But it seems that we are dealing with a confused minority of members who would rather say that seeing the exposed abdomen of a reclining female figure is showing nudity, when it's really just showing skin, and try to censure those that posted it, than look for a real and worthwhile cause to champion, where violence on our streets is a nightly occurrence, where millions of children go to bed hungry every night, where an international pandemic of eboli (sic?) is being discussed, and ISIS is beheading journalists and posting videos to a horrified world - and we're wasting our time on something as pedantic and unimportant as discussing the family friendliness of showing cleavage, tattoos, midriffs, bathing suits, bare feet, butt cracks etc. and how much skin is too much to show.
I probably lean as far to the right on the political spectrum, without being reactionary, as I can get. But from my perspective, this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot, brought up by a few misguided individuals, where there is a really simple solution . . . If you don't like Big Macs, don't go to McDonalds - there are enough sections to his forum that even the religious fanatics, the conspiracy theorists and the anarchists have a place to go. I think those folks are crazy, so I don't frequent the chit-chat section, if you don't like what is posted in the People Section, unsubscribe, and don't go there.[/quote]
Dec 2, 2014 21:40:22 #
twindad wrote:
[/quote]Very, VERY, well said, sir. A tip of the hat to yo... (show quote)
You make a lot of sense except "probably lean as far to the right on the political spectrum" could have done without your demorat oath.
I do not want to see pornography on UHH but it boggles the mind that some old man is playing GOD and proclaims "NO NUDITY" etc. in a photography forum and the People photography section at that.
I took some pictures of nude marble sculptures and would not like to be sanctioned by a some lunatic branding and black listing me for posting NUDITY. For crying out loud.
Dec 3, 2014 21:28:57 #
Bret wrote:
Oh great....and here I was about to post some bikini shots from last weekend...yet another Hitler.
Yep, me too..
Now I feel like a Naughty Boy for getting in the shower with no clothes on...
Does this mean Censorship Rein's....Next thing You know, all prints must be burned and only SD Cards with cover's used to capture photos.
Hung around for Site for awhile now, never seen anything unacceptable...
A little more than confused with the Outer Space WARNING/LECTURE....
Guess I will go find my Webster and lookup the word NUDES if it hasn't already been Censored from Ole Webster..
Unreal....
Dec 3, 2014 21:29:59 #
Jackinthebox wrote:
You make a lot of sense except "probably lean... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.