Luckily, you are in no position to set the rules, but you do seem to
be saying that one form of subject matter is for some reason less
valid than others.
OK that was a thought.
I can not say anything absolute about this - but my idea was that
amateur photographers should also think . It does not harm (thinking
i mean). And it does not harm anyone if i do not share your opinions.
Not at all, but you choose to advise the OP that it might not be suitable for an amateur to take nude pictures. I have no problem with you having your opinions, but if you throw them in the ring, you might expect them to be argued with.
I sense that you're pussyfooting about the subject
here - if you think nude photography is morally wrong, then say so.
Moral is so strange thing that i ´d rather not talk about it - we
should have moral , but on the other hand people say that we should
not say there should be some moral .
I think that todays way using photographs of people and human bodies
does not perfectly fit MY personal idea of human dignity. And that
is exactly not same thing as just moral.
That is quite close. The line between a concern for 'human dignity' and 'morals' is thin. At least you acknowledge it's your personal idea of human dignity, different people have different ideas of human dignity, and many ways of compromising human dignity have nothing to do with nakedness or sexuality. Personally, I don't think that either nakedness or sexuality compromises human dignity per se.
And if nudity is according to you totally outside any moral concepts
because it is something pure , you should ask yourself why you are
having an age limit (for nude models).
I never said it was something 'pure', although nudity is in itself neutral, it is merely a state of having no cloths on. As I said in my previous post, I have no problems with images whose impact derives from sexuality, but I don't think sexuality is 'impure' ('purity' is in any case a ludicrous concept applied to people). I do have issues with sexualisation of children, and a simplistic link between that and nudity is responsible for the sort of legislation you're referring to.
However, the more you go on, the more I get convinced that you have a moral position on this, in which case, as I said, please be open and up front about it.
Obviously there are age limits
for moral - everything OK when the model is 18 and against your moral
a day before that. Moral just changes in one night. And you say nude
photography is morally unproblematic - perhaps it is.
That has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with the law. The law is a compromise between what is definable and enforcable and what is desirable.
As it is, you're hedging around, not trying to set rules but coming
up with circuitous arguments about why really might not ought to be
sort of making photographs which might be nudes, if they're female,
male ones might be alright, perhaps.
So , you mean that if it is morally (whatever that is - legal?) right
to you there is nothing to discuss.
I didn't say that at all, I was just asking you to stop pussyfooting around the subject and be open with your opinions.
To me it is not a moral problem , but i really do not see much point
in amateur nude photography. For pros it is a way to make a living -
that is not morally wrong IMO.
What point is there in any amateur photography, in that case, and why don't you apply the same arguments to landscapes, travel photography or whatever. You are making a special case for nudes, and I can't see what it's based on apart from your own morality - or maybe just a bit of priggishness.
And i have never seen any impressive nude images by amateurs . Often
the childish voyeuristic look or some adults entertaining themselves
(but why do they show images to others?) or boring semi porn
disguised as "art". Perhaps just bad luck.
I have no time for people who disguise things as art. Again, have the courage of your convictions. If you like making porn, make it and be proud of it.
If You like nude photography , your models like it and you have a
happy audience for you images, i really can not criticize that - why
should i ? What moral aspects against it could anyone have?
You have obviously very clear opinions and you think what i say has
no logic - and i am not saying this as a result of logic thinking .
And you are right - from your point of view.
Some people see human dignity and such things in a different light
and that is their way, and problem .
As a totally different nude picture idea, i would like to give an
example : I am sure You have seen W. Eugene Smiths photo of Tomoko
Uemura being bathed by her mother ( the girl mutilated by guicksilver
poisoning in Minamata). The image is artistic , a good photo and it
has been socially very important for certain things in Minamata. The
photo was sort of a moral problem to the photographer and he finally
thought it was wrong to use it against the will of that family.
My idea was to say that nothing is totally neutral. And what is
legally right is not just OK. And there is the human dignity...
perhaps just nonsense nowadays.
There was a guy here who posted an image of a weeping man with his just deceased baby in his arms. It was a good image, but I had a big problem with that. It's probably irrational, but it seemed to me an intrusion where it was unwarranted. Simple sexy pictures however... Here's one of mine, not a nude, somewhat cheesy and no claims to art. Couldn't have been made without the creativity of the model, Zoe, and I'll tell you what, the impact on a lot of people (male and female) has been very positive.
--
Bob
