Hi Shawn/All, Peter asked for a "scenario", and got more than that..dress, expression, setting, pose, lighting and other suggestions/critique, etc. This spirited exchange from 10 or so(at this time) interested participants. Shawn needed to position himself "over a bed" to shoot a model (maybe in pj's for a mattress ad.- maybe NOT).

I think the responses indicate (if it needs to be said) that such subject matter(call it what you will.. glamour/erotic/nude etc.) is very appropriately a part of any forum claiming to be oriented around "people" photography(unless we take the stand that models in such categories are not "people").

Is the forum willing to "pretend" there is no interest in such among "serious" photogs such as we, to avoid the inevitable/occasional tongue-clucking disapproval of some self-appinted censor? A trip to any bookstore/library of merit will find such material quite-rightly categorized in a forthright manner..acknowledging the inherent value of the subject matter(needless to say, of interest to the "cultured" and "not-so-cultured" alike).

Certainly there is a great amount of photographic activity "focused" on these topics. The subjects in each case(g./e./n.) are "people". Not babies, not "formal" portrait sitters, not "runway"fashion models. But, entirely as "deserving" of categorization on a forum such as this.I realize that these categories are subject to attention from "visitors" having little interest in the photographic methodology, but there are plenty of sites more suited to their interests, which I believe would soon have them on their way again. My point is that it would be more honest and helpful to those seriously interested in these types of photography, to have a defined category for them...rather than have them tucked away in the "uncategorized"(wink-wink!) category, as they become "dated". For those who are uncomfortable with mature subjects, I'm sure some reasonable level of "censorship" re. any posted images would be readily accepted by the group.

I have some background in sculpture, and have always found it interesting that the artistic depiction of the human form, if in a museum or coffee-table book, is "classic art"...but in your neighbor's house it is likely to be seen as evidence of perversity(unless, of course, your neighbor's house is a mansion). Discussion? Larry

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), February 08, 2000

Answers

I cannot even begin to become as eloquent as Larry here, but I have to admit I like his logic. Glamour photography (or photographing women nude, is one of the main reasons I got into photography. I've always wanted to work for Playboy or Penthouse magazine. True, when I was younger there were other "ulterior motives" but now I'm older and more wiser, I now understand the concept of Artistic expression and viewing the unclothed human form as classic art. No matter how well intentioned, glamour photography will always have the stima of the "lowly prudient interests of men" because of uman nature. Notwihstanding, I think that a Glamour photography category is justified. Censorship, well the world being what it is, maybe some type is justified. My recommendation is that a panel of judges review submissions to the category to ensure that decency standards that do not infringe on artistic expression are maintained. To those who would feel that the standards are stifling, they would be invited to take their toys and go home.

Marcus J.

-- Marcus J. Wilson (marcus.wilson@dtra.mil), February 08, 2000.

I cannot even begin to become as eloquent as Larry here, but I have to admit I like his logic. Glamour photography (or photographing women nude), is one of the main reasons I got into photography. I've always wanted to work for Playboy or Penthouse magazine. True, when I was younger there were other "ulterior motives" but now I'm older and more wiser, I now understand the concept of Artistic expression and viewing the unclothed human form as classic art. No matter how well intentioned, glamour photography will always have the stima of the "lowly prudient interests of men" because of human nature. Notwihstanding, I think that a Glamour photography category is justified. Censorship, well the world being what it is, maybe some type is justified. My recommendation is that a panel of judges review submissions to the category to ensure that decency standards that do not infringe on artistic expression are maintained. To those who would feel that the standards are stifling, they would be invited to take their toys and go home.

Marcus J.

-- Marcus J. Wilson (marcus.wilson@dtra.mil), February 08, 2000.

Hmmm, Somehow I very much doubt that political correctness is at the heart of the omission of a Glamour category. Shawn strikes me as being prudent, rather than a prude. Perhaps he thought the other categories encompassed Glamour, or maybe (as he stated up front) he doesn't want this to become a, uh, men's site.

Shawn did ask for additional categories we thought might be appropriate, so maybe this doesn't have to be an "issue". I don't think it's a big deal really, one way or the other. People should post the work they're doing and can probably figure out where to draw the line. I for one, promise to *very* closely review images of questionable content for appropriateness ;-).

-- Barry Schmetter (bschmett@my-deja.com), February 08, 2000.

I have had to address this issue for my own forums. Because of that, I won't suggest a solution for this forum. What is appropriate for my forum isn't neccesarily correct for Shawn's.

At some time, and probably sooner rather than later, Shawn will have to decide what to disallow. What rules will be followed? North American? British? Dutch? Asian? Modern Greek? Ancient Greek? How conservative or liberal? Are pretty girls OK, but pretty boys prohibited? Or discouraged? Do these decisions have any implications for the future content and accessability of the forum?

Where are the boundaries between non-glamour and glamour, and between glamour and banned? Personally, I loved the two photos recently posted here, and don't see them as 'glamour'. I don't want to categorise them.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), February 08, 2000.

Sorry about the italics.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), February 08, 2000.

To those following this thread who may not have read my next posting "My Mistake!", please do so to be aware of the "correction" therein. Larry

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryhS@webtv.net), February 08, 2000.

Shawn, perhaps a few "adult" type catagories would be appropriate. That would take care of any accidental exposure . Rest assured trib and I (amongst others) will be sure to make it hot for any misogynists masquerading as Arteests.

The politics and psychology of the human figure in art is one of my favorite topics of discussion and favorite forms of art. I am continually disappointed by the lack of a badly needed forum to address this important subject; the rendering of the human form in the twenty first century.

A friend has a show opening at the Blue Milk Gallery in Atlanta that is all B&W figure studies of women with eating disorders, I'd like to be able to encourage her to post an image here for discussion, but current rules disallow that possibility. In particular I'd like you to participate in that discussion. Working in the fashion industry puts you squarely in the middle of these issues. (take that!) see ya... t

Suggested catagories might be lifted from William Ewings excellent book "The Body": Fragments, Figures, Probes, Flesh, Prowess, Eros, Estrangement, Mirrors, Politics, Metamorphosis, and Mind. You would enjoy the book... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 08, 2000.

I chose to decide on no nudes, etc. based on prudence. Personally, I love nudes, and the make up probably about 10% of my work. My underlying plan with the rule (apart from keeping away, well, perverts) was not to deny nudes, but to establish a certain type of poster--a typical, serious photo.net/PoP/BW Film (Printing) type of crowd.

-- shawn gibson (shawn.gibson@utoronto.ca), February 08, 2000.

...didn't mean to post, sorry. To continue: I had planned on letting the clothed fashion/glamour photos be as powerful as they could be, with the mere exception that I would delete anything I myself deemed pornographic (which is obviously risky business, judging something oneself...). As these posts continued, I was planning on letting up on the nude prohibition.

But I am very happy with the way things have been going, and so for the time being (until I start getting death threats) I really have NO PROBLEM with nudes. post away unclothed...

ANY PORNOGRAPHY WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. AND IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY AND BLATENTLY PORNOGRAPHIC, THE POSTER WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST PHOTOS AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTENT. THIS IS MY ONLY RULE. IT IS MY SITE AND I HATE PORNOGRAPHY.

Any questions?

-- shawn gibson (shawn.gibson@utoronto.ca), February 08, 2000.

Yikes. A Trib and Tom Force. That would scare the jinkers outta Shaggy Mary J or no. You may have biten off more than you can chew with that one Tom, given the new rules...

I think I'll start with just one, well-marked "Adult" category. Please post all nudes in there.

Please everyone remember this is a TRIAL, and if it goes awry I'll probably have to say "no more". It is OUR site, so it is up to US to keep it from falling apart...shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 08, 2000.

So is it ok to post serious amateur artistic pornography?

(with tongue planted firmly in cheek :)

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 09, 2000.