charlesk wrote:
You may not have read through the whole thread, but the above is not a fair depiction of what happened here.
The first time he posted one of these images by itself, nobody said boo about them being inappropriate. Then he posted this thread, which he prefaced up front as follows:
... and then goes on to talk about a famous portrayal of a teenaged girl as a whore in a movie.
When the photographer flatly says that HE finds the images sexually suggestive, how is it a knock on the viewers to come to the same conclusion -- especially when they so obviously are?...Show more →
I'm not knocking viewers, I'm pointing out that the interpretation of art is subject to the perspective of the viewer and it's not always aligned with the artist. If he intended them to be sexually provocative (not just provocative, which doesn't necessitate sexuality) then he failed in my opinion.
I flatly disagree that they are so obviously suggestive because I, for one, don't find them sexual. If she were gazing at the camera with a sultry look, I would feel otherwise, but the forlorn look she has on her face does not imply any sort of erotica to me. We could discuss ad nauseum all the various scenarios where something would be obvious to one person but not to everybody and then end up in a discussion about absolute truth and end up forgetting the original question, which was asking people for their opinion. It is apparent your opinion is different than mine and that's a hakuna matata.
For dmacmillan, my psychiatrist said there's no reason to see my physician, but thanks for your suggestion.
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
For dmacmillan, my psychiatrist said there's no reason to see my physician, but thanks for your suggestion.
Just trying to lighten the mood.
There is a visual language used to convey emotion, sensuality and sexuality. Refer to the Sue Lyon "Lolita" photo to which I referred.I can walk you through it if you'd like. I posit that the OP intentially used visual language (tousled hair, implication of nudity) that say "sexual". Most of the viewers here picked up on it, as I imagine most non-virgin males would as well. Just because you didn't get the signal doesn't mean the signal wasn't there.
Meh, I didn't find the images that compelling. 1 was pretty neat, I liked the pattern of the blinds, but 2 and 3 didn't work for me (mainly the hair and the lookaways). 4 was ok, but not really engaging.
dmacmillan wrote:
There is a visual language used to convey emotion, sensuality and sexuality. Refer to the Sue Lyon "Lolita" photo to which I referred.I can walk you through it if you'd like. I posit that the OP intentially used visual language (tousled hair, implication of nudity) that say "sexual". Most of the viewers here picked up on it, as I imagine most non-virgin males would as well. Just because you didn't get the signal doesn't mean the signal wasn't there.
I think it's a matter of saturation. When something is seen often, or overdone, it loses it's meaning. To some modern observers, Sue Lyon's photo just looks tacky, overdone, contrived, or purely superficial. The OPs photos send a mixed message so that factor ends up being ignored (the modern threshold for this kind of thing is pretty high).
Flowers have a language too (which can also be sexual, or not), but it would likely be lost on most people on this forum.
Access wrote:
I think it's a matter of saturation. When something is seen often, or overdone, it loses it's meaning. To some modern observers, Sue Lyon's photo just looks tacky, overdone, contrived, or purely superficial. The OPs photos send a mixed message so that factor ends up being ignored (the modern threshold for this kind of thing is pretty high).
Flowers have a language too (which can also be sexual, or not), but it would likely be lost on most people on this forum.
Interesting thoughts on saturation and how it relates to perspective. For the Lolita poster, it surely was more controversial when it was created than it is today, probably mostly due to desensitization. FWIW I find that poster more sexually provocative than the OP's pictures.
Back in the day a bikini was considered too extreme, lewd, and sexual yet today they are accepted as a normal offering in women's swimwear.
If the OP merely presented those images with no suggestive title or words to go along with them, would your interpretation still be the same? I would also say just because you got the message doesn't mean it was there.
dangod wrote:
My problem is not the photos themselves, my problem is the way in which you're trying to gather views for those photos. Rather than posting them and simply asking viewers to critique them, you went ahead and prefaced your post with a rather long winded commentary with keywords/suggestions of under age sexual exploitation thrown in to stir the pot.
Had you left well enough alone and posted the photos without the commentary, I really don't think there would have been such 'controversy' as you're so keen on having. You purposely set the tone in a very negative and disturbing manner. The only reason for setting such a tone is because you knew very well others would run to see what all the fuss is about, and in turn see your pictures. For you to reference sexual exploitation in the same breath as showing off your little girl, is quite disturbing and comes across as sleazy. Come on man, your job is to protect her, don't use her in this context just to generate views for your "work" - let your photos stand on there own merit. If they're good, people will let you know - they don't need disturbing commentary to get their attention.
You had no reason to 'justify your work' or 'tell your side of the story' to begin with - I think you do now....Show more →
This +1.
I'm confused as to why the OP decided to approach it this way. Why not post the pictures and address the controversy *if* it erupted? To me this is a form of trolling (needlessly getting people arguing for no real reason).
Much ado about nothing really though, pictures are average in my opinion with the first being the best of the bunch. Lisa's pictures on the other hand are SPECTACULAR: well thought out, great composition love the BW conversion and treatment and the posing is first rate. That those were controversial is beyond me, I think they are a lovely keepsake for the kids and Lisa.
canerino wrote:
STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET ARE DISCUSSING THE TECHNICALITIES ON WHETHER OR NOT IT IS/SHOULD BE LEGAL TO HAVE SEX WITH A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD BECAUSE A FATHER POSTED SEXUALIZED IMAGES OF HIS FIFTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
I'll go back to my initial response on this thread (5th response in the thread): "For the life of me, I cannot figure out any benefit to posting photos of your fifteen year old daughter, in a sexualized fashion, on a public internet forum."
lol - can I +100 your initial post or is it too late?
rhawara wrote:
I'm confused as to why the OP decided to approach it this way. Why not post the pictures and address the controversy *if* it erupted? To me this is a form of trolling (needlessly getting people arguing for no real reason).
I'm not confused, I'd just say the OP is just narcissistic and wanted attention. If you look at the way he responded, and which posts he responded to, he didn't really seem to care about the photo critique or photo commentary. It's doubtful that he posted wanting either, as he only tried to encourage and extend the controversy with his replies. He had also posted a photo from this set before and didn't get many replies.
One reason this forum is dying lately is that a good number of people post photos and get little to no commentary, while threads like this get a lot of people posting about something that is actually of little import (contrived or manufactured).
Access wrote:
I'm not confused, I'd just say the OP is just narcissistic and wanted attention. If you look at the way he responded, and which posts he responded to, he didn't really seem to care about the photo critique or photo commentary. It's doubtful that he posted wanting either, as he only tried to encourage and extend the controversy with his replies. He had also posted a photo from this set before and didn't get many replies.
One reason this forum is dying lately is that a good number of people post photos and get little to no commentary, while threads like this get a lot of people posting about something that is actually of little import (contrived or manufactured)....Show more →
Agreed
canerino wrote:
I'm no prude. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out any benefit to posting photos of your fifteen year old daughter, in a sexualized fashion, on a public internet forum.
exposedme wrote:
There is the possibility that these are not pics of this guys daughter, and she may not even be 15. A person craving this kind of attention will do all sorts of things to get attention.
I said I was going to refrain from any further comment a while ago but, against my better judgment, I'll sum up with some responses:
Here is what happened at a high level with this thread:
1) I posted pics of my 15 year old daughter that were admittedly provocative in nature and detailed a situation where I was scrutinized elsewhere for doing so. I asked for comments and opinions about what I had done, and I offered up some reasoning as to why it wasn't a big deal for me. I did not ever ask about opinions on the pictures themselves...
2) From my initial post, here is the cliff notes version of where it went:
A. People liked the photos
B. People did not like the photos
C. People had no issue with what I had done
D. People had great issue with what I had done
E. Someone comes up with another brilliant idea that it is not my daughter, I am a troll, and I did this for further attention. None of which I initially responded to because I thought it was silly and did not want to take the discussion away from my initial request for comments.
You caught me! Yes, I went out and bought a $6000 camera set up, arranged a photo shoot with a model, edited the photos, posted them here on FM as my daughter with a controversial question all as an active attempt as a troll! Never mind that I have been a member here for years with several hundreds posts and over 100 positive feedback on the sales forum - I must be a troll. That's some serious detective work there chief.
Folks, don't make this more than it needs to be. I asked for comments about a controversial issue to which I received a wide range of responses. I was called sleazy and other insults having never launched an attack against anyone else. I was called out for errors I made in statements which I subsequently apologized for and corrected but some knucklehead who didn't read the entire thread threw me under the bus anyway.
That is my daughter. I am not a troll. I am a well established member here. I asked a question, and I had no idea this was going to go off the charts with the responses. Yes, I knew it would be a touchy subject. Of course, I knew I would get a wide range of responses.
For the record, she was not naked, we had fun during the photo shoot like we always do, and her mother was there and assisted with the shoot. We would most assuredly do it all over again. I feel it is some of my best work thus far, and I have no reservations about displaying it. I respect the opinions of those who disagree and thank you for your perspective.
I am sorry if anyone was offended by what I have done.
This is most assuredly my last post on this thread.
you know what the worst thing about all this is... since FM is indexed in google, because of keywords used in this thread, this image is probably being passed around child pornography sites on the interwebz....
Josh Evilsizor wrote:
you know what the worst thing about all this is... since FM is indexed in google, because of keywords used in this thread, this image is probably being passed around child pornography sites on the interwebz....
It doesn't bother you that there would be guys of all ages out there seeing your daughter in a sexualized way because of the way you have portrayed her in these images.
I have seen Sally Mann's images and I believe that she has made many great images that involve her children being nude. In fact I believe that people tend to over react to nudity in general. However...This isn't about nudity because she clearly isn't nude and is completely covered in every image. In my opinion, and it's only an opinion, Sally Mann's images and even Lisa's images were more about the innocence of the children. There are no sexual connotations in their images. It seems that you went out of your way to make these overtly sexual through the posing and even the styling of the hair.
What is the point? Was it just to stir up controversy? I certainly wouldn't want suggestive photos of my daughter for any reason. I wouldn't want them hanging in my house and I wouldn't want to post them on the internet, therefore I don't see any reason to take them. They don't offend me, I just think it's a matter of poor judgement.
