Discriminatory practices aren't necessarily bad things, and I wouldn't
want to live in a world in which no one discriminates.
-- Walt
On 11/25/2013 12:26 PM, knarf wrote:
"Because they're different."
That could be an excuse for all manner of discriminatory practices...
Cheers,
frank
Walt <ldott...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's also the not-so-minor consideration of the fact that, at least
in my limited experience (albeit, all non-nude), women seem to be much
more apt to agree to be photographed.
The question seems to boil down to why women and men are treated
differently as photographic subjects. Well, it's because they're
different.
-- Walt
On 11/24/2013 8:55 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
As a footnote to this, female artists who portray the human body
choose to celebrate the female form by a wide margin. A woman friend
who works in oils once told me that she finds the curves of a woman's
body much more inspiring. She much prefers males for other purposes.
Your crusade is political correctness
run amok. Try to get free of the liberal leash.
Paul via phone
On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:35 PM, knarf <knarftheria...@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes you think I haven't protested museums and galleries?
Besides, just because another venue objectifies females doesn't mean
it should be done here.
And there are surely many reasons other than beauty to portray the
male form. Power, athleticism, eroticism, are they not valid reasons?
Not that I accept your statement that female forms are more
beautiful than male. That strikes as pure opinion not backed by any
facts whatsoever. How could it be anything other than opinion?
Keep in mind that the art world, from artists to curators to gallery
owners to purchasers is male-dominated.
Cheers,
frank
Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Mature male bodies simply aren't as attractive as female bodies.
Art
history weighs heavily in favor of the female form. Perhaps you
should
mount a protest at the Met.
Paul via phone
On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:14 PM, knarf <knarftheria...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The catalyst for this little missive, I must admit, is Bruce's
recent
series of NSFW semi-nudes. That being said, it's not directed
specifically to or at Bruce. It's more a comment on the whole
female
nude thing. Others have posted similar photos in the past and
likely
will do so again.
My problem, of course, is the objectification of women. And it's
not
because they're sexualized by showing "dirty parts". It's because
there's such a huge disparity between male nudes and female nudes.
As in: there has never been a male nude shown here (that I've seen
in
some thirteen years). I don't believe I've ever seen a penis here.
A couple of years ago someone posted a few photos that appeared to
have been semi-erotic (but not nude) gay pin-ups. The only comment
I
recall was something to the effect that, "all I see here is gay
soft-core porn".
No comments about the technical aspects of the shots, the nice
light,
nothing. I stand accused and guilty myself.
I only mention that because there seems to be a double standard
here:
it's okay to show female sexuality but not male. And I wonder why?
I understand that an individual photographer will say, "But I
don't
want to photograph male nudes. As a straight male I just don't
appreciate male nudity, erotic or otherwise. It's my right to
choose to
photograph only female nudes."
Fair enough.
And yes, the female nudes shown here have been tasteful and
relatively discreet. Nothing gratuitous.
But here's the rub: showing genitalia and breasts is sexual. It
sexualizes the women. Even if they consent to it they are being
portrayed in such a way that shows them as primarily sexual persons
which takes away from other aspects of their being.
I know that sexuality is a part of our adult lives.
However until there is some balance between portrayal of the
genders
I can't support female nudes. Because until that happens females
will
be sexualized and males won't be. And I just don't think that's
right.
I'm not trying to stop anyone from posting female nudes. But I
won't
encourage it by commenting (except in the rarest of circumstances).
In closing, I'm no prude. And I'm sure I'll be accused of spouting
the politically correct lefty party line. So be it.
What I'm really doing is expressing my personal opinion. Thanks
for
you indulgence.
Cheers,
frank
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and
follow the directions.
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
