Forum: Photography


Subject: Censorship v. Advertising v. Art? [nudity]

MGD opened this issue on Feb 11, 2008 ยท 45 posts


thundering1 posted Thu, 14 February 2008 at 6:27 AM

I agree that the ads are risque (spelling?) but it's nothing Earth-shattering. I actually have no trouble coupling the fact that these are models in a photo shoot - not how the people in the photos actually walk around (because they'd be laughed at in real life). It's to get people talking about their stores - which we are - job well done.

We as a country went completely ballistic over seeing a woman's breast at the Superbowl - giant fines imposed on the network, new rules, etc. Everyone in the WORLD has a breast - male and female. If I see something I've never seen before I'll throw a rock at it.

Someone in the last few years made the comment that we (Americans) are a Puritan-based society who just can't get over the fact that we're not pure.

We try and hide as much as possible, often very vocally terrified of seeing any body parts - and the only power behind the punch of the words I can hear is religion-based - which makes the guy RIGHT in my eyes, that we're a Puritan-based society and can't get past the fact that we're not pure.

We're animals - we disguise it as calling ourselves "humans" but we are animals nonetheless - with animal hormones and urges and desires.

Frankly, I'd rather see some ads of half-naked (or just plain naked) models than watch more up close footage of people being blown up in Iraq, or stabbings, or shootings.

Sorry if this rant ticks anyone off. And yeah, they need to turn the music down as well - their CEO even gloated (he thought this was a great thing) saying that their stores OFTEN get asked by neighbors to turn it down.
-Lew ;-)