« He's Baaa-aaack | Main | Come Back Later! »

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Comments

Excellent post, Mike. Thank you.

A 1997 film 'selfie'…been around longer than most appreciate.

So much nude photography is complete bollocks - photographers caught in the headlights of the nude figure.

Hi
with regard to the final ->love aspect of photography -- do you know the wonderful Rene Groebli book The Eye of Love? 1954.
I say no more
Danny, UK

Crap, by any other name, is still crap!

Our spouses are not the most available subject for a variety of reasons. I get more chances to photograph my wife when we're travelling together. But that's also when there are many competing photo-ops.


She likes this one. Me, too. But maybe for different reasons.

Could never quite get a handle on Martin Schoeller until today when I looked at the portrait he took of Chris Rock on the inside of New York magazine- a uniquely flattering photo of the comedian. And then I realized his portraits have a way of drawing you in- but they don't go anywhere. He's very much interested in the topography of people's faces, and presents them in a fairly interesting perspective. But that's it- he doesn't even attempt to go for what's underneath. They're purely surface, perfect for celebrities!

Mike,
Take a look at today's Imaging Resource…..

Maybe if your company wants to censor what you read on the internet, you could use your smartphone, or even wait till you get home?

I (thankfully) grew up in the sixties, when women were beautiful, desirable, and photographable. Now in my sixties,they still are. What's your objection..religion? Whichever Almighty you worship supposedly created women ..... and made them to be desirable to the opposite sex (yes - Sex)Being desirable promotes procreation, which is a necessity of continuing life on Earth. Does a bathing suit require an NSFW warning these days? Because these pictures, (with the exception of the dreaded breast) show no more. And then that NIPPLE (Run, run, that baby feeding device is out in the open!)
Grow up folks - it's everywhere - and it's not "indecent" - it's more than decent. Adam & Eve were nekkid! I may have to continue perusing your blog twice as often, to make up for those who are going to stop .. for a while. "Isn't there any limit to how prudish we have to be?"
Thanks Mike.

"Isn't there any limit to how prudish we have to be?"

I have a good deal of sympathy for Ken (except for the part where he says he might stop reading the blog.) In the corporate world, the level of acceptable nudity is determined by the office's most extreme crank, who may be offended by passing your computer screen in 1/4 of second. A charge of sexual harassment is every corporation's nightmare, because there's always the threat of getting tangled up in the federal civil rights bureaucracy, etc. Ken isn't being a prude, he'd just trying to hang onto his job.

[The question isn't whether it's good to protect readers at their work (it is), the question is whether those book covers are actually enough to get anyone into trouble at work, anywhere. I have trouble believing it. Can anyone speak directly to that? A Human Resources director at an actual company, say? --Mike]

I was going to say pretty much what Gabe said...Thanks Gabe. We really need to be more rational and much less prudish. The attitudes I so frequently see expressed about nudes make me sad. We had very different attitudes about this in the 1960s when I was a teenager reading photo magazines that often included nudes. I don't understand how the US has regressed so much. As our European friends can attest, it's pretty much a sad phenomenon of the United States.

Sad reality.

From John Bergers "Ways of Seeing":

"Men act, and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. this determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of women in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly and object of vision: a sight"

Sad reality, especially for women.

On NSFW content, one of the Internet's most popular blogs ran into the problem and mostly solved it by limiting such content to Saturdays:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/12/the-dishs-nsfw-saturday-night/

Roger Ebert dealt with the problem back in 2010:

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/to-nsfw-or-not-to-nsfw-now-sfw

There's little any of us can do about workplace rules, even if we think they are silly. Their enforcement can have serious consequences.

Thanks.

I would like to echo John Camp's comment. I'm not offended by the displayed book covers, but I (like many others, I suspect) read TOP at work and I can't choose what my co-workers will find offensive or not. I could forgo reading TOP at work altogether, true, but... I'd really like to continue reading at work and I would like to think that Mike would like me to as well.

Andrew Sullivan, founder of The Dish, ran into a similar conundrum in 2013 when he posted an anatomical (i.e. non-titillating) photograph of a scrotum on his blog. He didn't post a NSFW warning and his readers got upset. You can read about it here:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/12/the-dishs-nsfw-saturday-night/

I wholeheartedly agree with the second letter writer in the post. Key quote: "It’s not a matter of Puritianism; it’s a matter of Internet etiquette."

I personally would have appreciated a NSFW warning, but it's still your blog and your rules.

I want to clarify a couple of things about my earlier comment. As Mr. Camp kindly pointed out (and correctly understood), I am simply interested in hanging on to my job, especially considering the paucity of opportunities in my (legal-related) field.

Anyone who doesn't get that this is not about prudishness is lucky enough to not work in corporate America, especially in the legal fields.

Whether it is the cover of a book is irrelevant, a bottomless woman partially covering her crotch with her hands, a side view of a naked woman doubled over herself and the profile of a naked breast are still … nudes. (And of course, now you added a naked man, even if it's discreetly posed.)

I did not mean I never want to read your blog again - just that I can't risk opening it from work again. I'll just try to follow it from home, but it does change my routine!

Finally, I did not imply that you shouldn't run nudes - if that's what your readers want (or what you want, since it is YOUR blog, after all). I just meant that it would be nice to have some warning for those, like me, who work in cube farms in the corporate world and need to be careful about not offending co-workers (or HR types). Others' mileage will undoubtedly vary. Thanks!

Ken

Mike, working in the Australian public service I'd definitely be in a lot of trouble if the wrong person walking past saw a tasteful black and white nipple. My cries of "but art" would fall on deaf ears.

Regarding Sally Mann, I only, just, like his early work and family pictures. To me her current work is only gimmick, stained and scratched prints (negatives perhaps). I know she is trying to give a connotation to her work, but if you have to resort to that craftiness, mmmm I think the original photo is just worthless. I went to an exhibit of her and I only spent a few seconds in front of each of her prints and at the end I was quite cold and bored. I think it is so much hipe around her work, same as with Chuck Close. Our University in Santiago was very proud to offer an exhibit of his work. I went, and again I got quite bored, yes very large prints of faces closeups, some of them self portraits, with every single pore resolved. Sorry, but I can do the same with a Nikon D810 and an 85mm f1.2. Large pictures in a large exhibit room look impressive, that's why every artist today wants to prints large. I made a couple of prints of one of my pictures, one 11x14" and the other 22x29". I mounted them exactly the same using Westminster mat boards and 117 matte black Nielsen frames. I hanged for one month the small print in my office, which is a large office (17x17') where is my desk and a large meeting table and other furnitures. Nobody, really nobody that went to my office during that month said anything about my picture. Then, I replaced the picture with the large one and everybody that visited my office from then on expressed how extraordinary was my picture.
Anyway, I like much more Jock Sturges work than Sally Mann work

I'm just a little surprised at some readers' reaction to an employer restricting what you can do at work on a computer owned by the employer, using the employers network, while you're supposed to be, well, working.

In a similar vein, as a gay man who discovered his sexuality all too many years ago when even the mention of the subject was taboo.
hve found for the most part our outlook on nudity and hence who we are is compromised by our upbringing and
assumed morals. As I age the existence of the human body in imagery becomes less negative and more beautiful as I understand we too shall never return to the perfection we once thought ourselves and others to be. Best let those who interpret using photography do their thing unhindered for the body beautiful is as we once were.

As someone who lives in Germany, I see two reasons why 'NSFW' posts would be a problem here. No.1 is that you don't use work computers for personal use. I think most German office types would be astounded (erstaunt) that American bosses put up with it. The second reason everyone knows: they're not so prudish here. I find it astounding (erstaunlich) that someone could lose their job for having these pictures show up on their screen. However, if they should be working...

The comments to this entry are closed.