Inner Jesus. WARNING: Probably Offensive.

245

Comments

  • LuckyBobLuckyBob Registered Users Posts: 273 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    If we opposed controversy, this thread would have been deleted immediately. Instead, we actively seek more of this kind of photography. It's opinionated, crafted and thought provoking. We'd like more of this, not less.

    Honestly, thank you. That's something rarely found in the online world where anonymity shields you from opinion.
    Not a single one of you would let me away with it if I climbed up upon a soap box and started preaching what I hold to be sacred; so what's good for this goose MUST be good for the rest of you ganders.
    Bob

    Not to be offensive or anything, but keep in mind that by taking an agressive stance against his photos and/or statement, there's another soapbox setting up right next door. If it doesn't suit you well, so be it. It's still his art and opinion; is it worth it?

    Now I'll grant that the prose may or may not have been necessary, but you do have to admit that it lends quite a bit of weight to the photographs. They're *that* much stronger for me having read his thoughts and feelings on his art, which helps me to understand why they're so strong for him.
    LuckyBobGallery"You are correct, sir!"
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited February 16, 2007
    The Photographs are OK. And by themselves they can be interpreted any way a viewer pleases. But Mr. Weber has not left it up to the viewer's interpretation. He has put his own personal bias on them by expressing his views in writing.

    I try to not read explanations to images. If they need an explanation there is something inherently wrong with them. For the record i never read what was above these images and now I know I won't.
    Not a single one of you would let me away with it if I climbed up upon a soap box and started preaching what I hold to be sacred; so what's good for this goose MUST be good for the rest of you ganders.
    Bob

    We'd only tolerate it if we agreed with you. Do we?
  • saurorasaurora Registered Users Posts: 4,320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Andy wrote:
    Actually untrue - we just want to avoid nasty flame wars.

    How about the discussion related to using art to convey beliefs? To tell a story? I'd love to find out how these photos make you feel when you view them - what you think and feel.

    Now don't take this last part the wrong way: I don't care how you feel about the poster's views, nor he about yours.

    Does this make sense?

    This get's tricky, doesn't it? I find Cody's body of work very exciting and edgy, sometimes disturbing and shocking, but always thought-provoking. I would rather not even know in advance his reasons for any of the work that he posts. I prefer viewing his work and coming to my own conclusions as to what the work might, or might not, represent. It's like walking into an art gallery and never having met the artist. One can certainly read a lot into an image that might not even have been the artist's intent. We never know for sure what the artist was feeling or thinking. I think for a lot of artists, "stirring the pot" (to quote Chad) and making people 'think' is a big part of creating such art, and must bring a tremendous amount of satisfaction to the artist. As for your photographic skills, I really enjoy the way you choreograph your shots and the angles and use of DOF. You also do a tremendous job in your choice of processing. A lot of thought goes into your work....so much to soak in as a viewer. thumb.gif
  • Bob&GlennieBob&Glennie Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    I don't understand why it's so hard for some of you to figure out that I have NO objection to the photographs nor do I give a rat's ass for Mr. Weber's beliefs. Rather, what I object to is using this forum to express a belief system in ADDITION to his photographs. How hard is that to understand???

    Bob
    See with your Heart
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited February 16, 2007
    I don't understand why it's so hard for some of you to figure out that I have NO objection to the photographs nor do I give a rat's ass for Mr. Weber's beliefs. Rather, what I object to is using this forum to express a belief system in ADDITION to his photographs. How hard is that to understand???

    Bob

    Could you explain it one more time? rolleyes1.gif
  • Bob&GlennieBob&Glennie Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    saurora wrote:
    This get's tricky, doesn't it? I find Cody's body of work very exciting and edgy, sometimes disturbing and shocking, but always thought-provoking. I would rather not even know in advance his reasons for any of the work that he posts. I prefer viewing his work and coming to my own conclusions as to what the work might, or might not, represent. It's like walking into an art gallery and never having met the artist. One can certainly read a lot into an image that might not even have been the artist's intent. We never know for sure what the artist was feeling or thinking. I think for a lot of artists, "stirring the pot" (to quote Chad) and making people 'think' is a big part of creating such art, and must bring a tremendous amount of satisfaction to the artist. As for your photographic skills, I really enjoy the way you choreograph your shots and the angles and use of DOF. You also do a tremendous job in your choice of processing. A lot of thought goes into your work....so much to soak in as a viewer. thumb.gif


    thumb.gifthumb.gifthumb.gif Well said!!! Exactly my point

    Bob
    See with your Heart
  • Bob&GlennieBob&Glennie Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    truth wrote:
    Could you explain it one more time? rolleyes1.gif

    Smarty pantsrolleyes1.gifrolleyes1.gifrolleyes1.gif
    See with your Heart
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    There has been a lot of reference to a rats bottom in this thread & i wish to advise every poster that this phrase is in fact under licence to me.

    If you wish to use

    1/ I dont give a brown rats arse (original)
    2/ I dont give a rats
    3/ I couldnt give a rats butt

    .............then please PM me & we will make arrangements for a short release after payment.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    no place for him to be pedaling what he thinks

    ne_nau.gif
    CodyWeber wrote:
    For the record; I have nothing against spirituality.

    I think it is healthy to have a belief in God if you need it.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    I don't understand why it's so hard for some of you to figure out that I have NO objection to the photographs nor do I give a rat's ass for Mr. Weber's beliefs. Rather, what I object to is using this forum to express a belief system in ADDITION to his photographs. How hard is that to understand???

    Bob
    Dunno who you are referencing because you did not quote anyone...
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    gus wrote:
    There has been a lot of reference to a rats bottom in this thread

    i for one am waiting to see the thread on rats pooping, it's so EASY to get birds pooping, more vermin please!
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • Bob&GlennieBob&Glennie Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Andy wrote:
    ne_nau.gif

    Why do you assume that I'm refering to a belief in God. I don't recall telling anyone what I believe and that's exactly where Mr. Weber should keep it! Come on Andy, Read what he said. Like get a grip, man. Let the Photos stand but keep the bias out of it!

    Here it is ... read it again.

    "I have been wanting to do a shoot showcasing the flaws on fundamentalist Christianity.
    For the record; I have nothing against spirituality. In fact, I think it can be a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, a lot of peoples spirituality affects people like me.
    I live in a town where there are more Churches than there are businesses. I'm constantly battered down and told how I'm destined for hell and I live a sin-filled life. From the outset, this set me in a really weird, bitter position.
    Personally, I believe that religion hinders society.
    I believe religion is a prime reason for war and death and murder.
    People kill in the name of their religion more than on any other premise.
    I think it is healthy to have a belief in God if you need it.
    I don't believe there is a need to be specific about it.
    And I wanted to showcase that. This is one set.
    I want to clear up and tell you the meaning of the photos.
    That is something I rarely do.

    The photos represent the blind-eyes of religion. The way people will flock to anything if they're accepted. How people can be more like sheep than human. I wanted to showcase those elements.

    In future sets, I plan to showcase the flaws of fundamentalist Christian views on homosexuality; Catholic priests, and the idealistic view on heaven.

    I am sorry if you get offended by these photos. That was not my intention.
    I'm not attacking you for being religious. I'm attacking the principles. Sorry if that upsets you."
    See with your Heart
  • Bob&GlennieBob&Glennie Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    You know what? It occurs to me that this guy is playing us for a bunch of chumps. After all, he clearly states in the title of his thread "WARNING, Probalby Offensive" . So if he was looking to stir up the pot, he surely succeeded didn't he?

    Bob
    See with your Heart
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Why do you assume

    I don't assume anything, sorry. By repeating in my post above, something from the OPs first post, I was pointing out that the OP seems to not only be very strongly opinionated, but at the same time, open minded.

    I think that's cool, that's all. It wasn't about you, I'm sorry to say. Not in the least.
  • Bob&GlennieBob&Glennie Registered Users Posts: 320 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Andy wrote:
    I don't assume anything, sorry. By repeating in my post above, something from the OPs first post, I was pointing out that the OP seems to not only be very strongly opinionated, but at the same time, open minded.

    I think that's cool, that's all. It wasn't about you, I'm sorry to say. Not in the least.

    Fair enough; I shan't be-labor my point any more. I think I have made my position perfectly clear and I shall be fair minded enough to to graciously back out now and let it go.

    Bob
    See with your Heart
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited February 16, 2007
    Why do you assume that I'm refering to a belief in God. I don't recall telling anyone what I believe and that's exactly where Mr. Weber should keep it! Come on Andy, Read what he said. Like get a grip, man. Let the Photos stand but keep the bias out of it!

    Here it is ... read it again.

    "I have been wanting to do a shoot showcasing the flaws on fundamentalist Christianity.
    For the record; I have nothing against spirituality. In fact, I think it can be a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, a lot of peoples spirituality affects people like me.
    I live in a town where there are more Churches than there are businesses. I'm constantly battered down and told how I'm destined for hell and I live a sin-filled life. From the outset, this set me in a really weird, bitter position.
    Personally, I believe that religion hinders society.
    I believe religion is a prime reason for war and death and murder.
    People kill in the name of their religion more than on any other premise.
    I think it is healthy to have a belief in God if you need it.
    I don't believe there is a need to be specific about it.
    And I wanted to showcase that. This is one set.
    I want to clear up and tell you the meaning of the photos.
    That is something I rarely do.

    The photos represent the blind-eyes of religion. The way people will flock to anything if they're accepted. How people can be more like sheep than human. I wanted to showcase those elements.

    In future sets, I plan to showcase the flaws of fundamentalist Christian views on homosexuality; Catholic priests, and the idealistic view on heaven.

    I am sorry if you get offended by these photos. That was not my intention.
    I'm not attacking you for being religious. I'm attacking the principles. Sorry if that upsets you."

    Ya see, here I was, totally ignorant of the prose that explain the images and you go ahead and quote them. Having now read them I can't find anything in them that is in the least bit soap box preaching. The only way you can take offense to the explanation is that if you sir, are one of the aforementioned sheep blindly following a path of closed minded self-righteousness (Now that would be ironic because the images are intended to depict just that). In which case your response here is nothing more than an attempt to turn this thread into your own personal soap box, which I resent.

    If the explanation was intended to be a soap box diatribe attacking christian zealots I can assure you it would easily have been far more inflammatory. I really can't find any issues with the author's depiction of his own personal experience in his town. In fact I think he was quite gracious in his explanation.

    I have no idea why you are even posting in this thread for as you stated earlier in regards to the images, "they don't turn my crank." What crank would you be speaking of? How am I supposed to interpret that? Would I really want my kids reading about your crank here on dgrin? Maybe you should have just posted a picture of you crank and let the image speak for itself.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited February 16, 2007
    Bob, sorry but I think the only person really stirring the pot is you.

    In my opinion Cody simply and respectfully layed out the creative spark for his idea as a means of preventing the very thing that you've done... take him to task for his views.

    You have a valid point and I understand it but to impose a restriction on his right to outline his vision is just wrong.

    Cody, these are absolutely powerful, terrific images! Congratulations thumb.gif
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    truth wrote:
    Would I really want my kids reading about your crank here on dgrin?

    rolleyes1.gif

    lynne
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • LiquidAirLiquidAir Registered Users Posts: 1,751 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    I am not a mod here, but if I ran the zoo, here is how I would draw the line about ideas in photos:

    Posts can speculate on what a photo means.
    Posts can discuss whether a photo communicates what the photographer intended.
    Posts can not discuss the merits of the expressed ideas.
    It is soley the responsibility of the moderator to decide if a photograph has stepped outside the bounds of good taste.
    If you think a photo should be taken down don't post in the thread. PM the moderator.
    If an OP wants to state an idea with a photograph, it should be expressed with in the form of question: "Do you think I succeeded in expressing this idea?" Evangelizing a non-photographical ideas is out.

    On to the photos:

    The photos are technically well done and visually distrubing (as, I expect was their intent). To me they express both anger and guilt; emotionally they are intense, personal and complicated.

    However, I do not find the photos to be particularly critical. IMO, criticism whether written or photographic needs to be part of a discourse. It should bring up specific ideas and explore aspects of them which are good or bad. Burning things, whether they be books, photos, flags or bridges is rarely an effective form of discourse or criticism. Rather it tends to close off discourse by alienating people and at an idea level has little more effect than preaching to the converted.

    Cody, you effectively expressed an emotional reaction to a situation; from your opening statment I assume that both the situation and the reaction are yours. By itself that is a perfectly valid artistic goal and you follow in a rich tradition. However, if you intend to be critical of religious ideas I think you have work to do. Try to get more specific and explore the reasons for your feelings. When you find something that makes you angry, document the event or idea that made you angry rather than your reaction to it.
  • mr peasmr peas Registered Users Posts: 1,369 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    In terms of art, the fotos, I liked them a lot. I like the way you kept the colors subtle, leaving almost an ethereal feeling in the photos. That Sigma 10-20mm you're using looks nice and sharp too, what F-stops were you using?

    In terms of religion, I believe one must educate him or herself in their ideals and have an open mind towards others religions. One religion is not better than another, even though we were taught that way. Althought I disapprove the burning of a Bible, this is their practice. Who are we or anyone to tell them what they should do or not do, you know?

    Like Awais said, literacy/education is a big concern among people. The less educated a person is, the more likely that he or she will believe something without question.

    Its shameful the way our government or any government for that matter can and will impose their religious beliefs onto others.

    Anyway, I like this set of fotos, I hope you can share more. Thanks!
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    urbanaries wrote:
    i for one am waiting to see the thread on rats pooping, it's so EASY to get birds pooping, more vermin please!

    Never!!!!!!

    We do have some standards you know and it ain't all that easy to get a shot of a bird pooping either. biggrinbounce2.gif
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited February 16, 2007
    Harryb wrote:
    it ain't all that easy to get a shot of a bird pooping either.

    If I can do it anyone can.
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    truth wrote:
    If I can do it anyone can.

    nah, you just got lucky.

    :lol4
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited February 16, 2007
    Harryb wrote:
    nah, you just got lucky.

    :lol4

    I'd rather be lucky than good.
  • Scott MacKenzieScott MacKenzie Registered Users Posts: 24 Big grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    2dlj6sl.jpg
    I think that the concept is extremely important.
    The first image is my favorite, because it says so many things...
    The pronounced hands, as if to focus on The Act of Praying rather than any sort of thought behind the Act of Praying...And the out-of-focus ranting going on behind...
    This really is a fascinating piece of work!
    I like images that feel like I am the Walrus sounds.
  • slapshotslapshot Registered Users Posts: 104 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Now I'll grant that the prose may or may not have been necessary, but you do have to admit that it lends quite a bit of weight to the photographs. They're *that* much stronger for me having read his thoughts and feelings on his art, which helps me to understand why they're so strong for him.[/quote]

    To me, the point here is not that the photo's were offensive or inflammatory, it is the comments with them. If the photo's were posted with no comments, I find it unlikely that anyone would have concluded that they were a statement against "fundamentalist christianity" or that they were even offensive. I think most people would have been confused.

    And that was my point in my original comment. The photo's don't serve the artist's stated purpose.

    If you have to explain what your photo means, then it probably isn't a very good photo.
  • Scott MacKenzieScott MacKenzie Registered Users Posts: 24 Big grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    slapshot wrote:
    Now I'll grant that the prose may or may not have been necessary, but you do have to admit that it lends quite a bit of weight to the photographs. They're *that* much stronger for me having read his thoughts and feelings on his art, which helps me to understand why they're so strong for him.


    Ah, mate; it's all good.
    And besides, it never really IS up to the Artist, is it?
    And then again, as a Wise Man once said, "If it can be mis-interpreted, it will be".
    Hats off, and Good Work.
    I like images that feel like I am the Walrus sounds.
  • CarnalSighCarnalSigh Registered Users Posts: 152 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Cody...I took a look at your myspace photos. I have determined that you have entirely too much time and talent on your hands. I wish I had half the skill you do with the camera and photoshop. My 2 cents.
    I use only Canon cameras and glass
    www.portraitwhisperer.com
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    Folks, thanks for keeping the discussion between the lines and polite. thumb.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • CodyWeberCodyWeber Registered Users Posts: 83 Big grins
    edited February 16, 2007
    QUOTE:
    Now I'll grant that the prose may or may not have been necessary, but you do have to admit that it lends quite a bit of weight to the photographs. They're *that* much stronger for me having read his thoughts and feelings on his art, which helps me to understand why they're so strong for him.[/quote]
    To me, the point here is not that the photo's were offensive or inflammatory, it is the comments with them. If the photo's were posted with no comments, I find it unlikely that anyone would have concluded that they were a statement against "fundamentalist Christianity" or that they were even offensive. I think most people would have been confused.

    And that was my point in my original comment. The photo's don't serve the artist's stated purpose.

    If you have to explain what your photo means, then it probably isn't a very good photo.





    *Confused.

    The first photo especially shows a person praying with someone holding a book and preaching. I think that's pretty self explanatory as far as confusion goes. It shouldn't be that hard to noticed what the set is about. I prefer to have a lot of mystique and conception in my photos, so different people can get different emotions through them. I chose to write the paragraph about my experiences, not for explanation of the photos at hand, but rather my outlet on the photos. It was a conscious decision to write it. I wasn't justifying the photos, because unlike you, I do think they are pretty self-evident.

    And I put the warning there out of respect.
    I knew it would offend Christians, so I wanted to let them know what they were walking into. I only target (not attack, there is a difference) the hypocrisy shared throughout SOME of the Christian community. The same can be said about a lot of other religious sanctities, and I plan to showcase that as well. This just happened to be the first of the crop.

    Again, hopefully for the last time, I didn't shoot these for shock factor.
    I shot them because I have experiences around it and a belief. And I like to showcase my beliefs for what they are. It's too bad you think otherwise dude. I'm not a dick just to be one.
    There Was This Big Bang Once, But The Clergyman Doesn't Agree.
    Cody Weber Photography.
    Gallery -- Journal
Sign In or Register to comment.