Are these Gallery images OK?

[mike goldberg]

First, to be very clear, I'm NOT picking on anyone.
Here are the images in question from 24 Feb 07:

HH-3 by Sostler... self-portrait with his penis & balls hanging out

FS: OM 24/28 (kit) 3 views, For Sale in Gallery

Comments by Moderator or anyone are invited.
mike

[freeranger]

First, to be very clear, I'm NOT picking on anyone.
Here are the images in question from 24 Feb 07:

HH-3 by Sostler... self-portrait with his penis & balls hanging out

FS: OM 24/28 (kit) 3 views, For Sale in Gallery

Comments by Moderator or anyone are invited.
mike

Not bad. Slightly over exposed.

[Todd.Hanz]

I'm not a moderator soooooo, as far as I'm concerned Sostler's "self porty" is a little revealing yes. ;)

Todd

[ClaremontPhoto]

When a mod looks at those photos maybe they could also look at the three recently uploaded photos of kids with guns?

[Screwy]

Rather interesting self portrait :rolleyes: , at least he used an RF camera .
Might have been best to PM a Moderator though as the pic in question has probably had more views since this thread was posted than it was probably ever going to get .



Paul

[schaubild]

I find this image and the ones with guns simply disgusting. What do these people think when posting?

[Pherdinand]

ok ok but what's wrong with scottgee's om for sale lenses??

[Jocko]

When a mod looks at those photos maybe they could also look at the three recently uploaded photos of kids with guns?

I completely agree, not least on aesthetic and technical grounds. My assumption has always been that the Gallery is not simply a dumping ground for snapshots.

However, I would like to defend HH-3. Firstly because there is nothing objectionable in the human body, only in a purient understanding of nudity. Secondly because the picture is entirely non-sensational and makes clear reference to two distinct traditions of German art, A) that in which the body is de-idealised and made a symbol of human frailty (look at the paintings of Cranach or Grunwalde) and B) the brutally frank mirror self-portrait. It is a wholly legitimate image.

But there is another reason, perhaps more powerful than either. We can all easily imagine the ape-like glee that would greeted a female member posting a similar picture. So why is this so bad? Lets grow up gentleman.

Cheers, Ian

[Pherdinand]

yeah i wanted to ask, what's wrong with a male nude if nothing is wrong with a female nude. However, i noticed then the actual image and i did not like it so i decided not to defend it. :)

[back alley]

from the rules...
"You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of any local or international laws."

while not my cup of tea the photos in question don't break any rules.
we have had female nudes here without objection.
as for posting snapshots - i am not about to set myself up as a critic.

when stephen comes back from holiday, i'll see if he has a different take on things from what has been established previously.

joe

[arbib]

I think maybe a bit more thought on a nude self portrait. such as a pose and surrounding area that would make a bit less like he was just curious how he would look to others if he was nude while taking a picture.

I have no issue with the nudity, but only with the lack of imagination in creating a nude self portrait.

Gutsy, anyway.

[Sparrow]

from the rules...
"You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of any local or international laws."

while not my cup of tea the photos in question don't break any rules.
we have had female nudes here without objection.
as for posting snapshots - i am not about to set myself up as a critic.

when stephen comes back from holiday, i'll see if he has a different take on things from what has been established previously.

joe
Joe; this world need more like you

regards

[FrankS]

I find myself agreeing with Ian (jocko) yet again.

[darkkavenger]

And I do agree with Ian as well... although the nude evokes for me the man/machine dichotomy... the human with his machine companion, here the RF. The male nudes often convey a feeling of frailness, or loneliness... the acceptance of one's self, in a way.

[mike goldberg]

Hi... First, thanks for moving the post to the 'Provide Your Feedback' place.
Re: the images:

- scottgee1's four shots of his OM-1 24/2.8 are actually quite good. Given that we have Classifieds, and members often attach a few keywords of FS or WTB in their signatures, my only question is: Is it OK to have FS [for sale] in a Gallery post?
- If a Moderator has determined that sostler's nude self-portrait does not break any forum rules, then so be it. The Gallery IS available to minors, thus there's an open ended question here, about good taste.
- I find schow's 'Mark 'n Justin posts with automatic weapons, real or dummy's, the most objectionable.

So, where am I coming from? I'm a former Bostonian in the mid-East... in Jerusalem, Israel, and have been here for 35 years. Yes, I'm an American in Israel, and I see a lot of weapons in the streets. These are carried by 19 year old soldiers, and civilians who need them, carry licensed sidearms. And, proudly I can claim, that we have fewer crimes with guns than many a Western country.

Return, if you will, to Mark 'n Justin in the Gallery. In one shot the boy in blue is aiming his weapon. In another, he casually has the weapon at the chest of the T-shirted fellow in red. Now obviously, with the eye patch and false mustache,
this is some kind of costume party in jest .

Even though these images may break no forum rules, for me they are extremely distasteful. In my early years in Israel, I was associated with a community in which the 18 year old son of immigrants from Florida was killed
in a military training accident. In other words, he caught a bullet.

When I did basic training in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] at the age of 38, we were taught:
- The first thing you do when given a weapon is to examine it. Is it loaded? And, a visual inspection was not enough. We had to put our little finger in the breech to make sure.
- You NEVER point a weapon at anyone, unless you intend to shoot him. In most of my military career here, I pulled boring guard duty. When confronting someone suspicious or threatening, first you shout a verbal warning, then, only if absolutely necessary, do you shoot in the air. If attacked and fired upon, you shoot first at the attacker's legs.

It is NOT my intention here to give a treatise on weaponry. Many RFF members are far more knowledgable in small arms then I am.

My point is: Weapons are serious business. For me, at least, the Mark 'n Justin shots do NOT belong here.

Thanks for listening,
mike

[Bike Tourist]

As long as it's a photograph (and the definition keeps changing) it's OK by me to post it. I don't have to like it. I don't have to look at it, I just wouldn't want to force my standards on someone else.

Let's see what you've got. (Pun intended.)

[Gabriel M.A.]

yeah i wanted to ask, what's wrong with a male nude if nothing is wrong with a female nude.
Not all bipeds are kangaroos.

How many photos have you seen taken by a female herself of herself and posted on the gallery? The nudity itself is not the question; the taste (or lack thereof) and craving for attention is.

There's only one thing this shows: often, photography is not about photography when it grabs RFF's attention.

On the other side of the argument, it's "Free Speech", and actually that's fine.

It is incongruent with how threads have been effectively err...moderated... in the past, and how we've been persistently asked to "keep it clean -- there are kids browsing the forum".

I gotta hand it to the mods, it's no walk on cake, or piece of the beach...did I say that imcorrectlee? ;)

[back alley]

ok, you got me brian.
i went to the faq for the rules and copied/pasted from there.

so it seems i have some editing to do.

joe

[Marc-A.]

However, I would like to defend HH-3. Firstly because there is nothing objectionable in the human body, only in a purient understanding of nudity. Secondly because the picture is entirely non-sensational and makes clear reference to two distinct traditions of German art, A) that in which the body is de-idealised and made a symbol of human frailty (look at the paintings of Cranach or Grunwalde) and B) the brutally frank mirror self-portrait. It is a wholly legitimate image.

But there is another reason, perhaps more powerful than either. We can all easily imagine the ape-like glee that would greeted a female member posting a similar picture. So why is this so bad? Lets grow up gentleman.

I second that. I don't see any problem, though I admit it's not my cup of tea. Since it's not pornographic, nudity is a legitmate artistic subject.

[mike goldberg]

According to the rules cited by Brian Sweeney above, HH-3 is breaking the rules. I'll leave it at that.

As for the forum owner, he's on vacation.

Yes, there is some wisdom to the comment above, "If an mage is distasteful, don't look at it." Still and all, freedom of expression is best, when balanced by good taste.

And, what is good taste? Well, maybe there's one for another poll ;-)
It's 1:11 AM in Jerusalem.
Laila tov u'mazal tov... Good night and good luck.
mike

[einolu]

to answer the question, yes

[schow]

To all RFF members,
It took me a while to find this thread. I would have actually appreciated a personal message on the matter, but now that an issue has been made publicly I have no choice but to defend myself against a potential mob.


Here is my original response to Jon Claremont's comment on my picture.

"Hello Jon,
I'm not aware of any posting requirements on subject matter. I was under the assumption that photos need only be taken with a rangefinder.

However, let me elaborate my position.
1. The photo is in fact taken with a rangefinder
2. The photo is all in good fun. Many photos in the gallery are.
3. That is not a real rifle. It is an airsoft rifle. All three of my "rifle" snaps all have airsoft rifles. In fact, you can even see the red tip on the barrel in one of the photos, obviously indicating that it is not a real rifle.

I'm not sure what your experience is with firearms, but is the fact that there is a "rifle" in the photo your main gripe? They may look young, but the subjects are men, who are fully aware of gun safety, not that the rifles are real.


Honestly, I think it would help if you would elaborate your position. Please, do me that courtesy.


Regards,
Sherman"


I stand by my pictures as good natured fun, albiet perhaps one skewed by certain American values. The subjects are not "kids". They are 20 something year old adults. Those are not real rifles nor are they loaded. Those are not real mustaches or eye patches. Both of them have actual pairs of eyes.

If the moderators deem them inappropriate than I will remove them. If there are any real objections by members, than please present them in a rational, non confrontational and non-emotionally explosive arguement. Otherwise, please, save the value judgements on my personal character off the forum.


Respectfully yours,
Sherman

[jaapv]

Sherman. I don't have any objection to these photographs at all- but I don't see the point - would you care to elaborate on what you meant with them?

[schow]

Hello jaapv,
Well, I don't really have a point with those 3 pictures other than capturing their playfulness. There is no meaning inherent in them other than the ones people give it.

And, I know I'm sounding a bit defensive here (with good reason, I'm sure some of you would agree), but I wasn't under the impression that photos needed a point or intrinsic meaning. If indeed, photos are required to have a point or meaning, than every single member here needs to be willing and ready to defend their photos. "Cowboy up," as President Bush likes to say.

This certainly has been a learning experience for me in regards to the interpretation of meanings. While many of my friends and associates see them as funny and good natured, some here see them as distasteful and one member even called them "disgusting". It's all very academic sometimes.


Regards,
Sherman

[Matthew Runkel]

I expected my comment to the first poster was going to be "what concern is it of yours?" But I'm deprived of the opportunity to make an intelligent comment because the image had disappeared by the time I read this thread. It's mildly annoying. I doubt the image in question was hurting anyone.

How about this shot from Bill Owens? Does he need to "elaborate" on "what he meant", or can we just look at it?

http://www.gregkucera.com/_images/owens/owens_playwar.jpg

[jaapv]

Nah=just interested...

[Pherdinand]

gabriel: with respect to those kangaroos, pls also read the second sentence i wrote, right after the first one :)

[Todd.Hanz]

the image is gone? that is a shame.


Todd

[mike goldberg]

Sherman,
I want to publicly regret that I went public on the mock rifle pix...
rather than sending you a PM. There was NOTHING personal
intended. Sincerely, mike

[einolu]

if we learned one thing here its that breasts and vaginas are ok, but penises are truly shocking. keep this in mind. and keep posting in the camera and coffee thread. shouldnt this thread have been deleted a long time ago?

[mike goldberg]

Hi einolu in Boston,
Mike, former Bostonian here.

Yes, with the Forum owner on vacation, we have to monitor ourselves.
Perhaps, the moderators observing this entire dialog, are just letting
it run its course. I've long since moved on from post HH-3 in the Gallery
[self-portrait] and have apologized to schow for not sending him a PM
first re: the boys with toy rifles.

Shall we move on to an enjoyable Sunday and a cuppa?
Cheers, mike

[back alley]

mike, yours was the first post in this thread. if you delete IT, the entire thread will follow.

it's your call.

with or without stephen being here, it is best to always monitor/moderate oneself anyway. then there would be no need for outside moderation.

and if you had followed this thread which you started then you would be aware of what actions i have already taken.

joe

[ClaremontPhoto]

If anything it hightlights our cultural differences. As a European I do not have the right to bear arms, I cannot buy a gun, and photos depicting people playing with guns do not exist.

For you, schow, your values are somewhat different and I imagine we will always differ over these photos. I look forward to seeing some more of your photos as I have just enjoyed looking through your gallery.

[mike goldberg]

Thanks jon, and joe... not, I'm NOT deleting it.

Given some afterthought, I'd approach those
questionable pix [ALL of them]... from the place
of Dale Carnegie wisdom, "Don't condemn, criticize
or complain." Tho' the toy rifle shots irked me,
anyone can see it's a gag.

Time for a cuppa fresh brewed, Irish Cream flavored coffee.
Ahh :D mike

[ClaremontPhoto]

I agree with mike about not deleting this thread.

It is very educational in showing how we view our gallery.

Perhaps if a mod locked the thread that would be a better solution?

[wlewisiii]

I've been following this one all along. A mod lock about now would be good. I don't want this to disappear but there is nothing to be gainied by it continuing.

William

[Gabriel M.A.]

"If an mage is distasteful, don't look at it." Still and all, freedom of expression is best, when balanced by good taste.

And, what is good taste? Well, maybe there's one for another poll ;-)
Precisely. Bad taste also needs to express itself; it's just that some cultures don't have as much capacity to handle it as much as others. On the flip side, there are cultures that are so repressed, that they reciprocally output stuff in very poor taste. Funny how that works. Let's not forget censorship. Etc. etc. etc.

Again, somebody succeeded in getting the attention they wanted. Good job! :rolleyes:

[Gabriel M.A.]

gabriel: with respect to those kangaroos, pls also read the second sentence i wrote, right after the first one :)

You mean:However, i noticed then the actual image and i did not like it so i decided not to defend it.?

I respect that point of view. 95% of the time, the stance I take, though, is: "I may not agree with it, but I'll fight for your right to..."oh, Marc A., why did you have to debunk the quote? :p

[Gabriel M.A.]

if we learned one thing here its that breasts and vaginas are ok, but penises are truly shocking. keep this in mind. and keep posting in the camera and coffee thread. shouldnt this thread have been deleted a long time ago?
No no no. Not all bipeds are kangaroos! :bang:

[lushd]

I've followed the debate about pictures of guns/penises (no you don't have to be Dr. Freud to know some nerves have been touched ...) with huge interest. It seems to have run its course but I want to talk more about the issues raised. What was wrong - should guns (or whatever) never appear? Why not?

An example picture to stir debate by Philipe Chancel:

http://www.philippechancel.com/port-dprk-01.html

[mike goldberg]

Donald,
Of course you're right; guns will appear.
And, raw nerves were touched.
Do you remember that shot by Robert Capa of the soldier falling the
instant he was shot?

Here's some ancient wisdom from the shtetl or small towns of
Eastern Europe:
Two men with a dispute went to the local rebbe [rabbi]. The rabbi
thought it over and said to one, "You're right." And then, to the other,
"You're right."

As you've observed, it has run its course. The best we can hope for
is freedom of expression, tempered by good taste. And, if there are
disturbing images that do not break the rules... there's a choice.
Just, don't look at them.
Ciao, mike

[emraphoto]

i'm glad we are ending on a rather "enlightened" note. this thread was equally upsetting to me. in fact my nerves were "touched". if indeed the photograph's in question were "deleted" or somehow "sanctioned" that would have been the end of my tenure at rff. censorship is a truly ugly beast. far more disconcerting than the photograph's in question in my humble opinion.
one could certainly have put forth their distaste of said work, however that was not the case. i understood a definative "remove offending material" undercurrent. which i find distasteful myself.

http://www.ncac.org/home.cfm

[Keith]

The subject material of a photograph has importance for me if there is a message being conveyed. There was really no message being conveyed in those gallery pics and they were described by the poster as just fun shots ... on that basis I can't see the point in having them there ... but that's his choice I guess. The guns didn't bother me to be honest ... the photos just seem insignificant to me!

Years ago I went to a Robert Maplethorpe exhibition and had seen enough of his work to take the shock value away, that some people obviously experienced as they viewed his photographs for the first time. I think that was about fifteen years ago and that exhibiton is still with me clearly today ... as if I had just seen it. I still think about it often and marvel at the man's photographic skills in combination with such controversial subject material ... whatever the entry ticket price was ... and I don't remember ... it was worth every cent! Judging by the amount of Australian cities and states that banned that exhibition ... it was obviously not for everyone! :)

[rover]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3409&highlight=rules+nudity

Did the rules change under the new management?

They still show up in a search.

Brian help us remember and the rules are simple, equally apply, and aptly ask for things to be done in good taste.

[Pherdinand]

shouldnt this thread have been deleted a long time ago?

i agree w you.

[rover]

Then we get yelled.....

Mike can delete it if he likes, though he has decided not to. Not posting to it will effectively lock it.

[FrankS]

I think everone's done a good job at staying calm and discussing this issue like grown-ups.

Big Picture: One of the purposes of art is to stimulate thought and debate, both on a personal level and at the societal level. Not all art needs to be, or even should be, pretty pictures.

Small picture: This is RFF, a privately owned web space with rules we must follow. If we don't like the rules, we can discuss them and perhaps modify them, but this web space is not the society/culture we live in. It would be much more important to fight for freedoms in the real world.

just my $0.02

[schow]

Thank you to all who have meaningfully contributed to this thread. You know who you are.

A special thanks to Mike Goldberg, Jon Claremont, and FrankS for showing strength of character.


Please, keep this thread available.


Respectfully,
Sherman