Renderosity Forums / Photography
Welcome to the Photography Forum
Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Photography F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 13 3:04 pm)
Subject: A Difficult Question
- 1
- 2
I really don't expect this to accomplish anything except to allow me to say my piece. I'm not really interested in the other forums and felt this was the appropriate place for this since it involved photography. I fully realize any changes made will be for the benefit of R'osity and not the users. At least my thoughts on the subject are known and they can't be censored. Btw, I got the impression from your email that you thought I might be "blaming" Chelle for this. Absolutely not. Without her, this place would be lost. She does a superb job...especially considering there's people like me here. ;-)
no, now i totally agree with you, can't believe it was pulled... there must be a reasonable explanation... but since you choose to voice it here i will reply here too... i know you're not blaming Michelle, just thought you should've asked her first... like i said, i've seen statues with woodys posted before, maybe it was the thumb, i don't know... hard to believe the reason was that it would cause arousal rolls eyes this subject has been debated over & over in the main forum... sigh
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193
"why was this image removed with all haste and the "figure studies" of nude men and women are allowed to reside in the galleries unmolested?" The short answer is: I removed the image after following the review process established by Renderosity management. After finding an image which seemed to violate the Terms of Service, I posted a query to the Coordinators Forum. Several Moderators then made the decision to remove the image, which I did. The applicable phrasing in the TOS is, "No Physical arousal, this includes but is not exclusive to images of an erect penis." The artist was politely notified. It is not appropriate here for me to voice my own opinions about this image, or the decision to remove it. Nor is it appropriate for me to repeat here any opinions of other coordinators or moderators. Suffice it to say, those of us familiar with this artist's work took every possible step to explain and not offend. The written policy was followed. For those who take issue with the TOS, contact information is provided in the encluded link. As for images of "nude men and women" or other subject matter which is not removed, the simple answer is that they do not violate the TOS, as determined by the established review process.
Oh, I see what you mean. Geneb19, it's not whether or not the image would "arouse" the viewer. It's whether or not the image shows a human figure in an obvious state of arousal. Simply put, it's not whether the image gives you a woody, it's whether the image depicts a woody. So, photo of Michaelangelo's David would be ok ... penis but no woody ... .
Could be worse, could be raining.
Hmmm I have seen erect nipples in this gallery! Wouldn't that also qualify under the "No Physical arousal" rule? I totally agree with you geneb19. But the censorship seems lopsided at best. Not saying that what you did was wrong Misha, you were just following orders, but I commented on the image in question and I think that the powers that be need to relax. My son who is 11 is a member of this gallery and I personally would not have had a problem with him viewing it. Matter of fact he did.
Okay! Okay My turn! What about all those people that post Poser Figures with their manhoods and stuff hanging loose? Are those images removed too? And Gene I know who's picture your talking about...he's my friend and I found nothing offensive about it. If people can't be mature enough to handle it--DON'T look at it! That simple! I'm sorry...I just think this whole TOS has gotten way out of hand. Now they are trying to control the art we post! Jinx
I've seen a lot of naked bodies around the site, both photographic and rendered, but I must say I haven't seen any full blown penile erections. I'll take your word for it, Hellmark, that they are out there floating around the galleries, but I am certainly unaware of them. I for one don't care one way or the other, but if the TOS prohibit the display of a male erection, then I don't see that it should bother the artist when the image of one is taken down. It's not the nudity that is at issue and if an artist has some problem with the Renderosity TOS, I'm sure they can display that image somewhere else.
Could be worse, could be raining.
Ricky...i don't really think it's an issue of having a problem with the TOS...it's an issue of how it's applied. thus far it's most definitely NOT being evenly applied. the question concerning erect nipples is an excellent one. Masters and Johnson define that as a sign of arousal. that being the case, why are they allowed to remain on R'osity and the erect penis of a statue isn't. ya see, my big problem is with what's being portrayed in that specific image. it's not a real, living, breathing person which is being shown. it's a statue. so not only is the image being censored but the original object is also being censored. the term escapes me right now but it's a classic case of giving human attributes to an object. doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, personally. and it seems rather "selective" and a tad bit childish. unfortunately, personal opinions obviously entered into the decision to remove the image in question. the TOS was just a nice excuse for doing so. and yes Misha, while your politeness was never brought into question, you objectivness as an impartial "moderator" IS being questioned. while i realize being a member of the Moral Patrol on R'osity must be very demanding, i'd at least appreciate it if the much vaunted TOS was applied equally to all concened. it's also obvious from the replies to this thread that i'm not the only one who feels this way.
The term is anthropomorphism. However, all art is an object depicting something. Photographs, paintings, sculpture ... all of it is objectification. The photograph is no more the person than the statue is the person. They are both depictions. If the artistic object - photograph of sculpture or photograph of a person - clearly violates the TOS, I have no arguement with the moderators removing it. A display of an erect penis, if that is specifically mentioned in the TOS, would be a clear violation. As to erect nipples, not all erections are created equal. Nipple erections can occur simply because of the cold or because of irritation from clothing. So, I would think that something more overt would have to appear in the artwork before it was considered to be a depiction or arousal. In addition, I can't think of any reason to depict a male form with a full erection unless that is intended to show the individual as sexually aroused. I have not seen the statue in question, so I can't comment on whether the thing showed male sexual arousal or not, but I suspect that it was clear enough to the moderators that it did, indeed, violate the TOS. So, take the work (by this I mean the original statue - not the photograph) into context. Technically, erect nipples would only "count" if the context of the artwork was a depiction of sexual arousal. If the erect penis on the statue that was photographed was a depiction of sexual arousal, then I don't think the moderators made a mistake in taking the photo down ... no matter how great a photograph it might have been. If that same artist took a photo of a male nude statue with a flacid penis (which brings me back to Michaelangelo's David), I doubt it would be questioned. If you all feel that the TOS are not being evenly applied, please point me to something that you consider to be an overt depiction of sexual arousal -- I'm not talking about nudes here, we're talking arousal not nudity -- that has made it past the moderators and is posted on Renderosity. I would be curious to see it. I've seen a lot of T&A, but I haven't seen anything like that. And, for the record, just so you all understand I'm not being salacious here, I am an old lady attorney who lives with her cats. I've seen it all, so nothing shocks me anymore, but I also understand that the staff of the site have certain standards they are supposed to maintain even if that means censoring artwork that you might consider to be worthy of view. There will always be galleries and web sites that won't have these particular TOS restrictions.
Could be worse, could be raining.
Geneb - While I understand you are upset, I think you need to step down off of the soapbox for a minute and realize where you are and who you are talking to. This is not a publicly owned forum and the moderators and helpers here are not paid employees but volunteers. There is nothing of Misha's in question ... neither his politeness or his impartiality. Who, by the way, told you that anyone here is impartial? As I understand it, Misha brought to the attention of the moderators an image that he thought was an obvious violation of the letter of the TOS (it's there in black and white as the primary example -- not some vaguery that had to be decided upon) and they made a decision based on that. Seems pretty simple to me. How this brings anything about Misha into question, I don't know.
That said, I will also say that I agree that I don't think the photo should have been pulled, but that is just my opinion.
Ricky - I think that you can always explain away many things like that. If you'll excuse my candor(sp?), as a man I have had an erection when I am not aroused. For many of us, we wake up in the morning this way. In fact, if I saw a statue like that I wouldn't be thinking sexual but the "morning ritual" -- especially if there was water coming out of it. I think that, while having nice tidy "don'ts" in the TOS, they need to be applied in context.
Would a photo of the Japanese penis festival (I forget the name) - where they have the huge 10 foot tall erect penises and statues with erect penises all over the place - be considered a violation? How far do you go when talking about arousal? Where is the line drawn. I think that's the main concern for me.
Oh yea, the link above is to an image that I believe fits your description. The depiction is obviously (at least to me) one of a woman in a state of arousal with erect nipples. It is one of the most viewed images on this site (think it's in the top 20 or 30 of all image). I find nothing what-so-ever offensive with this image. I believe to some, her actions would be considered overt. I find it to be a sensual photo and not a sexual one. But again, my opinion.
-=>Donald
Well I'm starting to wonder here. The point of erect nipples has been brought up and is very valid. And these are on live models. The picture in question was one of a statue, and of a religious one at that. Now I didnt get a chance to see this image and I think as a participating artist here, I had a right to see it and to evaluate it myself along with others. You know, censorship can start small, but then when it becomes lopsided, as noted here, then it must grow to encompass the things mentioned. "All things being fair", would be the argument I think. In chosing to remove this picture I think the governing body didnt look at it properly. Was it a sexual act? Was it a living person with an erection? Was it in a cheap hotel room? A public statue!!! You're trying to censor something which exists in public. Will you tell the people of renderosity not to go visit the statue? I agree, standards should be kept. I think we all know the effects of censorship and its historical reprocussions. Plato and others were the victims of censorship. Question: Misha, you've mentioned that the artist was notified, and the situation explained, what was his response? Is he still posting? I for one would leave if what I thought was art had been removed. Was he upset? Did you give him opportunity to reason his decision to post that picture? A small group determining the morality of the whole can be a burden, however, I think sometimes, the question should have been put to the whole first. I for one would have liked an opportunity to see the image and have a vote. Ricky, I agree, some erections are different. Nipples get erect for a lot of reasons, including mens. However, if thats the case, why photograph them that way, or render them hard as I've seen in some of the artwork? Why not wait until the nipple relaxes? Because it enhances the breast, gives it that extra aura of erotisism dont you think? Anyway, I'd still like to know what the artist thought.
Donald...that's even more frightening then. for that reason alone we should all be "on our soapboxes". if the moderators/coordinators openly admit to being partial then what use are they? i realize this is an opinion of yours and not a direct statement on the part of Misha or Michelle or any of the others. for that matter, i happen to believe that Michelle is very impartial when it comes to doing her job. (it seems to me she has to be if she's going to maintain her sanity.) while this is not a publically owned forum, it IS one whose success is driven by the money generated from sales to the surfers. since the posters are the one "supplying the product" being sold, it would appear a group of impartial "administrators" would be essential to the success of r'osity. @ Identguy: i couldn't agree with you more my friend. publically owned or privately held, a business has an implied obligation to it's "customers" and "suppliers". IMO part of that obligation in this specific instance is to evenly apply the rules across the board. i'm the last person on earth to suggest that all of the images mentioned thus far should be removed. but if one is censored, then the others should be as well. as far as the artist concerned, he didn't ask for, nor does he know i've taken on this "crusade". hehe i also would like to make it clear that i'm the one being an ass about things and he. (while i consider him a very good friend, i would also have started this for someone i don't even know.)
I just wanted to clarify that I do not want images pulled because of erect nipples, nor do I want images of a public statues removed. This is an Art site, sorry if some of you feel the need to censor, but the powers that be should be ashamed of themselves in this case. Donald case in point, I think that image you linked us to is very erotic, and very sensual. Do I think it should be removed? NO! "Would a photo of the Japanese penis festival (I forget the name) - where they have the huge 10 foot tall erect penises and statues with erect penises all over the place - be considered a violation?" Seems the way things work around here, the answer would be a yes Donald. Let's all go to that festival and take pix for our friends here at RR. I love the artists response to this action, seems there is now a statue with nothing but a bloody stump. When I commented on it last night, I had no idea what had happened to the "other" image that was there. Now I totally understand why he posted it, for that image in my mind is symbollic of the censorship he received. This tells me that I am not free to express myself on this site and that SUCKS! Don't appologize Gene, you have every reason to be upset IMHO.
Donald, I'm not necessarily in favor of having these images removed either. I think the image you linked us to is lovely. I also think it is just as much in violation of the TOS as the picture of the statue under discussion. If I were a moderator and trying to enforce the TOS, that image would no longer be on the site. Not because I personally find it offensive, but because I think it's in violation of the TOS. And, not because her nipples are erect, but because the context is one of sexual arousal. Of course it is possible to have a penile erection without arousal, although what you are describing probably has more to do with sexual arousal in a dream state than anything else. But, for example, strangulation can cause an erection, and I'm not talking about autoerotic strangulation here, just regular someone is trying to kill you strangulation. However, unless the picture (or statue) depicted a murder of a nude man, I would say the image was one of a state of sexual arousal and violated the TOS. My point was that it is common as dirt to have erect nipples without arousal ... all you need to do is walk outside on a reasonably cool day. A nude in a studio setting is likely to have erect nipples simply because the room is cool and they are (after all) nude. The nude in the image you linked to is probably not a person who is actually aroused, but posing, and the nipple erection is likely due to prior friction or the cool air. However, since the image does depict arousal, again, I submit it does depict arousal and violates the TOS. So, although no one linked me to any men in a state of obvious arousal, I will agree with you that when it comes to depictions of female sexual arousal, the TOS are not evenly applied. My guess would be that this has a lot to do with the societal biases. Between all the girlie mags and MTV, we are so used to seeing images of women in states of sexual arousal, we no longer react to them as such. If not that, then the moderators are not doing their job fairly and that image should be yanked as well. Nilla, Would a photo of a Japanese penis festival be in violation? I honestly don't know. I'm not certain that a disembodied penis, even if it is 10 feet high, is a depiction of a man in a state of sexual arousal. I rather think the TOS envision a penis actually attached to the man. I forget in which forum it was, but someone posted an image that they questioned putting in their gallery because it might be offensive to certain religious groups. That brought on a discussion of freedom of expression (on this site and in general) ... and the general consensus was that, no, you are not absolutely free to express yourself on this site. I'm sorry if you all feel that sucks, but that is life. Some people's idea of freedom of expression is posting photos of child-rape. Should that be posted here? I think the answer is obviously not. So, there are limitations on freedom of expression .... figure out where the limits are and either (1) push the envelope and see what you can get away with; (2) live within the limits; or (3) find a site with very loose TOS and post the images there. In conclusion: A) photo of pretty lady in state of arousal, just as much a violation of TOS and should be taken down, TOS not being fairly applied; B) 10 foot disembodied penises, probably not a violation because they aren't attached to (doing the math here) 120 foot tall man in state of sexual arousal. C) Renderosity not a site of absolute and unfettered freedom of expression. No site with restrictive TOS, no matter how evenly or unevenly applied, could ever be considered as such.
Could be worse, could be raining.
Oh, and Nilla ... the guy posted the picture of the statue with a bloody stump where the penis should be because the statue had been vandalized in the park. As he mentioned, there was no post work done. That's the way the statue is -- defaced by someone -- and that's sad. Was the man depicted in a state of arousal? No, it's a classical style statue of a nude man an child. Even if the statue was whole and not defaced, I think the photo would be allowed. I have no idea why the guy posted it. I don't see anything from his comment that tells me he is protesting his lack of freedom of expression. I do see a protest that this sort of vandalism should occur. But then, that takes me back to the whole "freedom of expression" arguement. The person who created the statue was expressing his or herself. But then, so was the person who vandalized it and hacked the penis off. If we're going for real freedom of expression (and I mean in the world -- not here at Renderosity) then the vandalism should not be considered a criminal act. It is simply because there are limits on self expression all over the place.
Could be worse, could be raining.
I may have to make it my new mission to seek out all the "arousal" images I have seen on here...and in the female variety they are numerous. This censored artist has impeccable taste and immense talent. I know he would not have posted anything that he felt would be offensive to others. Ricky, Your observations are about as right on as they can get! Well said. And R'osity, this is one mighty fat can of worms you're going to have to deal with now... hope you are ready for it!
I may have to make it my new mission to seek out all the "arousal" images I have seen on here...and in the female variety they are numerous. This censored artist has impeccable taste and immense talent. I know he would not have posted anything that he felt would be offensive to others. Ricky, Your observations are about as right on as they can get! Well said. And R'osity, this is one mighty fat can of worms you're going to have to deal with now... hope you are ready for it!
ok, its realy hard with my english, but i try it to say anything. this picture was removed from Renderosity from my gallery.this african art statue was standing in Paris at the world art annual and now it is standing in Freiberg " Africa House " in Germany near Luwigsburg. the statue is standing in the garden and everybody can see it, all people in all age.i posted this picture and i didnt know that problems, because i didnt understand all of the TOS and i forgott some. for us european and other nation people there is no problem. in african or other tribal art ( indian usw. ) there are always erected penis or other stuff, sorry i dont know the words. I agree with Gene and i am happy for this. i think this are not pornographic pictures, but by the hell art is art and sometimes you have in art such things, when it is art then it will be allways serious. now its hard to think about this, but i made a picture the active brain of a voodoo master for a joke, i didnt made it without this problem and now i am happy to have so a wonderful picture in my gallery.so in every thing is always a essence to do new art. thanks to you all and sorry to Renderosity. Gerhard #:O)
Attached Link: http://www.mapplethorpe.org/
look for the photography art from Robert Mapplthorpe. this realy helps for a solution for this question.regards
Gerhard
This bit from the TOS seems to explain any images in the galleries that might be questionable: "Conversely there may be some images which, whilst in apparent violation of the rules, will be permitted to stay in the interests of free speech and religious tolerance." Basically, the way I read the TOS, the moderators and admins keep or dismiss whatever images they want to. My assumption, which I think is probably a fair one, is that they don't do this without some discussion first. Personally, I'm not big on censorship. When it comes down to it though, we all censor in some form or another. I won't allow my seven year-old daughter to watch horror movies. Is that censorship? She knows all the words to Rocky Horror Picture Show though (okay, it might not be a horror movie, but Meatloaf does get chopped up and eaten). I guess it's a fine line. Remember that the moderators are human. They make decisions based on what they know and believe at the time, just as we all do. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. Also remember that by being members, we all in theory agreed to the TOS. We shouldn't make a huge fuss when the moderators apply it. They are just applying it the way that they read it at the time. By the way (since I'm too lazy to search for it right now) what are the steps for becoming a moderator? Maybe more of us should volunteer so that there is a larger group of people to discuss the merits of questionable images? -Taltos
Three Cheers for the Mods and Coordinators! Another Cheer for Logi....another for the Pens* Making a Mountain out of a Mole Hill...sigh...this Thread is more arousing than the Image in Question....sigh....blush...what with the mention of Pens and Niples....I can't get any Housework done....I keep rushing back to this thread....it is soooooo....err....arousing...sigh....it would not get a mention in New Zealand....this is laughable, and so much of NZ Art (Maori) depicts the grandness of the Pens....but...Rosity is not in NZ....and the Moral standards may be different...and TOS must be adhered to....that is what We agreed to...when We Enlisted in the Renders Army. I also have had a "word in the Ear" about one of My Images....which, I removed "Voluntry".....as I respect the difficult task, that a Moderator faces...so ...no fuss.....and, in reflection...the Mod was right....and, I thanked that Mod for His/Her foresight. Displaying a Cigarette, in My Country....would cause about as much fuss as this Pens...sorry...I can't write it in full....for it excites Me too much....so....let's just get on with our stuff...Logi appears happy, We don't need to Nail someone to a Cross...(was I allowed to say that?)..lets just accept....that Rosity....wherever it may be....has a Censorship Code, and We have agreed to abide by it. group hugz.....and...I will not return....because, these sort of "threads" invite "in fighting"{ for all those that want a scrap.) Ta ta for now...back to My Housework! Muuuuuuah! I wish You all HapPenis!
sigh and sigh again Guess it's time for me to say something? My first point is how very hard it is to remain neutral in these discussions. Yes, I have to remain impartial, and sometimes it kills me, especially when it's involving people and artists who I respect and whose art I admire and look to for inspiration. In this instance the removal was simply a matter of an "erect penis"... sigh It's there written plain as day for anyone who wants to read it. As someone who is being trained in the fine arts I understand and accept that sexuality and eroticism is a part of the art world. There is nothing more beautiful than the human body and the way we use it.... FWIW I enjoyed the image, laughed at it, and even commented on it.... However this site does have rules written that are there as guidelines, and as staff members, we are here to make sure that the guidelines are followed.... Misha has already explained quite well the reasons why action was taken, not sure I need to repeat it. These sorts of decisions are not easily made. I sometimes get the feeling that the general membership seems to think we gleefully rip images down just for the fun or because we're sadistic and like to see an artist get upset. :~/ Quite the opposite, for the most part there are usually debates, arguments and disagreements when talking these images over. But.... majority decision wins.... What follows is usually an angry artist verbally abusing the moderator who removed the work.... and this my dear friends is IMHO, very sad, and makes doing the job very hard indeed.... sometimes I think I must be insane to have been here as moderator as long as I have, either that or I have a teflon heart. Logiloglu is someone who I admire, someone who inspires me, and he has been nothing but a gentleman in this debate here. My esteem of him is even more now, for the respect he has shown. Now onto other another point..... the image that Donald called into question has come up in the past, and was indeed reviewed by administration, at that time it was accepted as not breaking the TOS.... it is my understanding that for the most part breasts are not considered genitalia, but milk glands (guess when you think of them that way they're not very erotic). Maybe I'm wrong? For those who proclaim themselves arousal hunters.... by all means, knock yourself out. Having a life outside of Renderosity, means not always catching every violation that might be in the gallery. If you find something, report it to a moderator or coordinator. It will go up for review, and then either allowed to stay or be removed if it does violate the Terms Of Service.... And no I wouldn't say this a new can of worms Vik. :~) More like a stinky one that's been around too long.... Kind of like that dead horse that's been beaten to death, yet people are still clubbing the poor thing. :~( There will always be images getting removed, for one reason or another and there will always be artists upset by it.... It's just been a while since the photography forum has had a debate such as this one. Now I believe I am done talking... I've had a long day at school, and now I have to take my limping dog to the vets to find out what he did to himself this time....
I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com
Well, looking at the photo of the artwork in question, I'll admit I have more of a problem with the fact that the character facing the man (god??) with the erection has his hands bound. That creeps me out no end -- looks like he's going to be sacraficed. Mapplethorpe's images are controversial in the extreme at least in this country. I'm not saying his stuff isn't art, but it is art that is offensive to a large segment of the population here (in the US). Would many of his images violate the TOS on Renderosity?? Oh, you betcha. Big time. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the idea behind Renderosity is to give artists the widest audience possible for their work. Not necessarily to foment controversy. Also, not everything that is on display at a public park in any individual country is automatically appropriate for world viewership. It might not even be appropriate for public viewers in that individual country, but somebody there made the decision that it was ... so there it is. Example ... and I'll make this a bit extreme only in trying to get the point across. Let's take a fictional Arabic country (a theocracy) where they hate and are actively persecuting non-Islamic people. That's the setting. Now, say that one is executed and mutilated under the laws of that country because he is actively practicing a religion other than Islam. OK, now imagine that his body is put on display for the public because that's what they do in that country. Does that mean that it's suddenly "ok" to stick bodies of execution victims out in public everywhere in the world? No. Would a photo of the body be something I would want to see posted here? No. It's certainly newsworthy, and could even be a commentary on brutality, the photo might even be artistic, but ... well, I wouldn't want anyone (especially a child) to accidentally run across something like that even in a thumbnail form. As noted above ... the moderators are human and have to make choices. If in deleting an image the viewer or the artist feels the moderators made the wrong choice ... by all means let them know. I would agree that this statue does not depict sexual arousal so much as it does cruelty to others in the name of religion. The Pretty Lady with her hands down her pants likely violates the letter of (as well as the spirit of) the TOS more than this statue.
Could be worse, could be raining.
this is for ricky. clarification: the part about erection during strangulation still falls under autoerotic. i've investigated homicides and suicides where the person had an erection. its the minds near death experience that releases the hormones, regardless of the situation. Just thought i'd add me experteeeese
Well, yes and no. The intent is what makes the difference. If a person is indulging in autoerotic asphyxiation their intent is to produce the erection. If someone is murdered by strangulation, the strangulation may produce an erection, but it is unlikely that this was the person being strangled's intent. The physical effect of the strangulation is the same in both cases, but the intentions of the acting parties in the two situations are very different. This is probably why all homicides by stangulation are not classified as "autoerotic strangulations" simply based on whether or not the deceased had an erection. An autoerotic strangulation, whether committed by the deceased or another party is generally intended to produce the erection, while with the strangulation of an individual in order to kill that person, if an erection is produced, it is merely a byproduct of the murder (which was the original intent of the acting party). Keep in mind, Identguy, that there are two components to sexual arousal, one is physical and the other mental. The person participating in autoerotic asphyxiation is obtaining an erection using both .... he is trying to get an erection and doing it through this method, and the physical release of hormones is helping his mind along with the process. This is not true of our poor murder victim .... his erection (unless he was a real sicko who got a mental sexual charge out of being murdered) would only consist of the physical component.
Could be worse, could be raining.
good response ricky, but you missed the intent of my comment. Your talking to a forensic investigator and a vet at that. I'm well aware of the differences, i've worked enough homicides and i've been to almost 1500 autopsies and that number keeps climbing. just making a bit of trivia as to the autoerotic part. like i said, it doesnt matter the intent, its the brains reaction to it is all im saying.
oh my , i think the philosophical aspect in this scene is a symbolism and not a horror scene. it`s a voodoo sculpture and voodoo is a religious. if you read the bible and than paint some picture of it, you will have many of horror scenes.we should think about the symbolism.this slave i think is a symbol for the normal people with all there problems, this is why the hands are bound. the master is some like a pope or a god or a joker what ever you want.the animals are our instinct. please stop sometimes to have a opinion,we have to learn things we never known before. regards Gerhard
Now I would like to make a general comment about this thread. I'm impressed as hell at the arguments expressed by both sides. Well done. Everyone has pretty much spoke their thoughts in an intelligent form, good arguments made, well behaved and well articulated responses all around. this is a great site.
Yes it is, Identguy, yes it is. Also, I should make clear that before I was an attorney, I worked in the pathology departments of many hospitals for something like 15 years, and also participated in many autopsies -- forensic as well as the usual pathology exam. Interestingly, while erections are very common in strangulation victims, they are not there 100% of the time. The intent part of my arguement has more to do with the context of the artwork ... what is being depicted ... rather than the fact of an erection, and that a dipiction of autoerotic strangulation would - by the very intent of the artist and the person being depicted - be one of sexual arousal. The image of a person being murdered by strangulation - even if that person had an erection - would not be a depiction of sexual arousal ... it would be a depiction of a murder of which the erect penis was nothing more than a physiologically correct addendum. So the part about strangulation during a murder does not fall under the term autoerotic. That is a specific term of law and forensics and does not apply in that instance. Logiloglu (wow, that's hard to type), I understand that you think the philosophy of the scene is one thing and I see it another way. That's part of what makes it art. Voodoo is a religion, absolutely. It is a religion that has been known to participate in human and animal sacrifice. I'm not certain what you mean by "please stop sometimes to have a opinion,we have to learn things we never known before," but I think that's just your English. But, let me say this, my opinions have never stopped me from learning things. I have opinions on many things, religious, historic, medical, artistic ... and yet, I still expose myself to (and learn a lot about) the things on which I have opinions. I do this, in part, because I for one don't put much faith into the opinions of people who don't take the time to learn about the thing on which they are expressing their opinion. To me, those people are mere bigots, and not worthy of my time. That's what I like about this discussion ... people are expressing opinions based on what they know or on what they have experienced. That's a good thing. Now, if what you learned about that particular statue is based on something that was displayed along with the work of art, great ... the good thing would be to share that with the viewers before they come up with their own interpretation. Another example .... not so extreme, but a little weird. A space alien comes to Earth and the first place he walks into is a Catholic Church. Old church .... old depiction of Christ on the Cross ... crown of thorns ... lots of blood. Is he supposed to immediately grasp the complex symbolism behind the bloody image?? Heck, I can show you people who've considered themselves Christian their whole lives who don't understand half the symbolism embodied in that image. I'm not a Christian, but because I enjoy Christian art (got a lot of exposure to it in college), it's key for me to have studied the religion in order to understand the nature of what is being depicted. (Without understanding the slaughter of the innocents in the larger context, it becomes nothing more than a horrible image of soldiers sticking babies on pikes.) You know, getting back to that image that I discussed earlier where I mentioned that the person posting it was worried she (I think it was a she) would offend other religions ... the moderator made a great suggestion, which was to use the commentary space reserved to the artist to explain the symbolism behind the image such that the viewer would understand that the image was not intended as an insult, but (as in this case) created as a metaphor for the marital union of people of different religions. Photo of Voodoo statue without full explanation of the symbology just ends up looking like a bound captive being fed to the lions by a guy with a woody. (Sounds like a really warped fortune cookie ... doesn't it?)
Could be worse, could be raining.
My point is .... (and there is no such thing as a "dumb cop" by the way) -- Don't throw the term "autoerotic" around willy-nilly. A murder by strangulation may be but is not necessarily autoerotic ... no matter how many of the players end up with erections. (I know ... I know "willy-nilly" isn't monosylabic ... but geeze man!!)
Could be worse, could be raining.
You said you would not be returning oh HC ... are you not a high commander of your word or were you just yanking our communal chain? Got a Websters, and a HUGE legal dictionary, any number of medical reference books, hundreds of books on art, and a crapload on cats -- ask me a question and I'll act like a typical pain in the rear know-it-all. It's what I'm good at.
Could be worse, could be raining.
of course my english is not good enough to say it right rickymaveety. i have maybe 100 words ,please have patience with me. i will post a short biographie of the artist, his name is Cyprien Tokoudagba Notes on a conversation, by AndrMagnin Abomey, Benin, April 1995 I am Cyprien Tokoudagba, an artist from Benin. I am 58 years old. I used to say that I was born in 1954, but to tell the truth I was born in 1939. I had to lie about my age to be accepted by the public service. I started to work as a restorer for the Abomey Museum in 1987. I started my work as an artist about 35 years ago. I started molding clay and later on started to work with cement and sand. This was due to my determination. My father, Toha, was a weaver. I was also born with talent for art. At school I used to draw passionately and my teachers often praised my work. To be able to do with your hands everything you wish is a great gift. When I was in my teens I already earned some money selling paintings. My grandfathers grandfather moved from Mono, an area near the border with Togo to Adja-Tado. He was a great warrior. This is why king Uegbadjlet his family move to Abomey and made him his prime minister. The father of my grandfather, Adedji, was prime minister of king Ghezo. My grandfather was prime minister of king Glel After the death of the king, his son and successor, king Banzin, kept him in the same post and gave him our family name: Tokoudagba. When I was young I asked my father to send me to a kind of temple. In other words, I was sent to a voodoo priest, an initiation master. This initiation lasted six months, a period in which you cannot leave the priest. Once there, there is no going back. It was hard because there are rules, laws and a severe discipline to be followed. The secrets that are passed to us can never be revealed. We must resist all attempts. It is an initiation. We learn how to make magic, to use the force of words, to make formulas work and the secrets of the plants. It is the quality of his knowledge that gives strength to the sorcerer. These secrets can only be revealed when we ourselves become sorcerers and we are asked to initiate someone. Everything has to be memorized and we have to be able to transmit everything to the initiate. Today I am just a student. In two years I will surely be a great initiate. In voodoo each family of initiates pray to one or more gods. In the time of the slaves each one of us used to travel accompanied by his respective voodoo gods. They were the only ones able to transmit strength to them. In 1989 I left Benin for the first time. This was due to the exhibition Magiciens de la Terre, in Paris. It was the first time my art was shown abroad. To have the chance to show our culture abroad was an important event for me. For many weeks I was in contact with artists from the whole world. For me art is something that emerges from my inner self. Art is the representation of thoughts and knowledge. It is an elevated sphere, a castle for philosophers. An artists value is much too great to be explained. Art is inside my head. Chronology Born in Benin in 1939. Lives and works in Abomey, Benin regards Gerhard
Yeah, I know .... "it's what I'm good at" is not grammatically correct, but people ... really, I'm supposed to be working today. I have an affidavit to prepare, two petitions due in the court, a dissertation I'm supposed to be preparing on "Severe Hemolytic Transfusion Reactions" (still have my lab work in progress), and the house is a MESS!!!
Could be worse, could be raining.
Gerhard ... thanks for the bio info on the artist. I will add that to my general knowledge of world religions. I do wish, however, that the artist had taken the time to explain the different symbols used in the piece (for example ... why does the god have an erection?, why the bound hands? You have your ideas about that, I've got mine ... I'd like to hear the artist's straight from the horse's mouth (as we say here). The bio is nice, but it doesn't tell me as much as I would like to know about that particular piece of artwork. (Kind of like getting a bio on Michaelangelo .... doesn't help with the understanding of Christian symbology in his work ...... bit of trivia, does anyone realize that his self portrait is visible in the flayed skin of one of the saints in the Sistine Chapel?) Told you .... I can be a real know it all. But really, it's an art at which I excell. Primary reason I have no friends. :)
Could be worse, could be raining.
- 1
- 2
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Attached Link: http://www.photo-genesis.net
I've debated about whether to start this thread. Debated if it would make a bit of difference. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if it will make a difference as long as an "opposing view" is presented. So here goes. A couple of days ago one of the images in the photography gallery was removed because it would cause the viewer to become "aroused". It was a statue of a voodoo guy that sits in a park in Paris. The image showed the *statue's* penis. Has R'osity started taking itself so seriously that there's no longer room for humor on the site? Can it no longer laugh with the rest of us when a humorous image is posted? I could *almost* agree if it were an image of a real person. Ok...there's kids that possibly come online and that wouldn't be cool. But for Christ's sake...this was a freakin' *STATUE* people! And one that's in a *public* park. To make matters worse, this was an image posted by a photograher who has to be one of the most talented individuals I've ever had the honor of knowing. His work could easily reside in any gallery in the world. Any *real* gallery...brick and mortar...where people walk in and view works of *art*. Where it wouldn't be *censored* because of some imagined "arousal factor" it might possess. Maybe someone can answer this: why was this image removed with all haste and the "figure studies" of nude men and women are allowed to reside in the galleries unmolested? While these don't bother me personally, some of them actually border on pornographic. (I hesitate to even bring that up...for fear that they'll also be removed. Which certainly isn't my intention.) Why is it that any of the computer generated images can basically be of what the program user wants them to be of? An example of this is a very fine work showing a nude woman from behind. As far as I know, it's still on R'osity. I'll let ya in on a little secret folks...if I'm gonna sport wood it's gonna be over something like that rather than a damned *statue* in a park! Everyone has a right to decide *for themselves* what they will and will not view. I didn't see the thumb for the "offending image" but i'm sure it followed the photographer's normal pattern...it showed the complete image. If someone is offended by the thumb...well then DUH!...don't load the damned full sized image. Problem resolved and no "aroused viewers" in the pristine world of R'osity. I, for one, don't appreciate having my moral values decided for me by R'osity or its agents. It's 20 years after "1984" R'osity...catch a freakin' hint! Are you concerned about the flap Janet Jackson's tit caused? Believe me...in addition to *that* being stupid as hell, R'osity doesn't have quite the "viewership" the NFL has. I hardly think the FCC will come down on ya. Or are you just taking yourselves too seriously? Lighten up some and I'll bet ya have a much better time. Start by putting the image with the "significant arousal factor" back online and I for one won't feel quite as soiled or manipulated and you won't be the laughing stock of real galleries. Or do the French just look at things differently than the residents of Nashville?