Next time just post "WARNING: Probably Offensive" in the title, and then hit us with the images. I know you didn't mean to, but that first post was 5-course troll-bait.
Anywho - Great images, very energetic. I prefer the ones where the preacher is higher in the composition then the secondary object. I would like to see some of these with a shallower depth of feild to invite a little more speculation - I think it would be a nice touch.
A opion I agree with. And remember Shock and awe is art. everything else is wallstreet.
If you have to explain what your photo means, then it probably isn't a very good photo.
wow lots of feedback on this thread. i wish i could get this much from photos i post up, haha.
anyways, to follow up. cody, i think you shouldnt be afraid of what anyone says. it is your art. like any form of art some people will like it and some people wont. somtimes you have to explain it, sometimes you dont. but i think by explaining the reasoning in your photos, it helps us the viewer understand what you were going for. especially with the theme of religion, if there were no explanation of what was going on, then i would have to make my own assumptions and draw different conclusions. it probably would create more ruckus and more misunderstanding.
plus if it offends someone, then it does, oh well. its your art and they can put out their own opinion. a person shouldnt sensor oneself just because their art doesnt agree with another person's beliefs or opinion. what use would the first amendment hold if that was true.
anyways, to follow up. cody, i think you shouldnt be afraid of what anyone says. it is your art. like any form of art some people will like it and some people wont. somtimes you have to explain it, sometimes you dont. but i think by explaining the reasoning in your photos, it helps us the viewer understand what you were going for. especially with the theme of religion, if there were no explanation of what was going on, then i would have to make my own assumptions and draw different conclusions. it probably would create more ruckus and more misunderstanding.
plus if it offends someone, then it does, oh well. its your art and they can put out their own opinion. a person shouldnt sensor oneself just because their art doesnt agree with another person's beliefs or opinion. what use would the first amendment hold if that was true.
kudos.
Well said, Mr. Peas. I absolutely loved the photos and after reading through the thread I love them even more for the discussion they've caused. It's great to see photos that cause a stir, either based on the photos themselves, the reason behind them, or a combination of the two.
I've checked out Cody's Myspace page as well and love it love it love! I hope the mixed reviews don't prevent Cody from sharing more in the future. Awesome stuff!
Make a small loan, Make a big difference. Find out how at http://www.kiva.org
Wow what a thread! Speaking as a person who agrees with the anti-fundamentalist stance (I'm an atheist, so I go further than Cody does actually) I didn't necessarily catch on to the meaning of the photographs just by looking at the photographs themselves. Maybe I just had a "duh" when I looked at them, dunno. But it wasn't without the prose until I understood what the photo essay was really trying to say.
The photos are brilliant from a technical standpoint. But I guess, for me, the photos alone didn't convey the full intended meaning. That's not necessarily bad, unless the intent was for the photos to stand on their own w/o help from words.
I think I am going to do a photo shoot and have it show the problems with the flaws problems homosexuals and people of islam cause.
I will then post it here and see if it stays up or if it is immeaditly removed.
The photos are already done and I'll tell you what they consist of:
1-The first one has dog mess all over the pages of the koran.
2-The second one is of two men who were beaten bloody and someone spray painted the word fag across their chests.
I tried to ignore this reply but cannot.
1. This photo really wouldn't have any artistic, photo journalistic, or other wise worthy reason to even be shot. If posted it should be removed
2. If this second photo was shot and indeed happened or was a recreation of an event than it would have legitamacy. Though a photo may offend as long as it a photo that could be posted in a museum (remember family friendly site) than it could be posted for critique and evaluation.
If people think these photos are offensive than you really should stay in your house and not see current art. Cody is not unique in providing images like these just the first to post on dgrin.
I see art like this on the first Friday of every month in downtown Phoenix at 'First Friday'. 'First Friday' is a monthly event where artists pro/ up and coming/ and crap artists show their work- paintings, photography, sculpture, mixed media, music, and street performance to name a few. There is political, religous, and well as classic technique art, some of which is far more offesive and graphic than Cody's.
It is art- like it or not- agree or not-
As posted before I think some of the text could have been left out but the images themselves have merit both in today's society and in photographic technique.
"The Journey of life is as much in oneself as the roads one travels"
1. This photo really wouldn't have any artistic, photo journalistic, or other wise worthy reason to even be shot. If posted it should be removed
IMO
I think the pictures in this tread should be removed as well.
Why? Because they are not really suitable for a family site. They deplict Hate and intolerance. They are not a journalist shoot of something that happened but a staged diatribe of hate speech. This is the very type of thing that has caused this site to become banned in many places.
I too wonder if it was to target the so called religion of peace would this have been allowed to Stand? I mean the same photo with a Quran instead of a Bible? I really think not. I hope this in not the new direction of this site.
I think the pictures in this tread should be removed as well.
Why? Because they are not really suitable for a family site. They deplict Hate and intolerance.[...]
According to the mission statement, the yardstick isn't "family safe", it's "museum safe". The stuff posted on this forum is generally (to my slight dismay) nowhere near as edgy as what can be found in any modern museum. On paper, this forum is just the SmugMug support/lounge forum, but the community makes it much more artistically valuable than that. I feel this is, at its heart, an artist's forum, and it makes me proud to be an active member. IMO, censorship (of any kind) isn't kosher, unless it's smut.
[...]I too wonder if it was to target the so called religion of peace would this have been allowed to Stand? I mean the same photo with a Quran instead of a Bible? I really think not. I hope this in not the new direction of this site.
I seriously doubt that it would be deleted; the people on this forum are much more mature than that. Look at it from this prospective; if you did shoot the photo you mentioned and posted it here, it may offend quite a bit of people (with thin skin), but there would still be people who would relate to it in one way or another. There's an infinate number of prospectives out there and everybody feels differently - the trick is to be able to understand and accept differing opinions.
An example: any decent movie establishes an emotional link between the viewer and the character, and some of the most powerful movies show their suffering in vivid detail. Most of us aren't looking for box office results, but to express our wildly diverse opinions (and maybe make a few bucks along the way ). A lot of movies are sanitized for the general public, but we don't have to worry about that here. We're free to express ourselves within reason.
IMO, if a posted photo's intent is strictly to provoke and offend, leaving on the forum would be questionable, but if the poster personally experienced something that made them feel compelled to shoot said photo (as the OP has), they have every right to do so and post it on an artist's forum. I wouldn't be here if we weren't afforded that ability.
I understand that there are and should be limits, but exposure to slightly shocking but thought provoking imagry can do people some good. I think it's quite healthy for humans to expand their viewpoints from time to time; adults can definately handle it. If a child comes across something which their family or environment may deem offensive, they should be able to sit down with their loved ones and have a rational, level-headed discussion about it.
[...]The photos are already done and I'll tell you what they consist of[...]2-The second one is of two men who were beaten bloody and someone spray painted the word fag across their chests.
I can't quite tell what you were intending to say in your post; your first few sentences were quite confusing. I think the second image you proposed could be quite powerful if done right. Granted, a true journalistic shot would be better, but the message could still work. It could be a fantastic showcase of the end result of intollerance amongst humans.
Could I just take the opportunity to say I find the images interesting and anything that provokes debate has merit.
I would question the need to explain the images, surely the images should speak for themselves?
Congratulations to Dgrin for allowing this thread to remain, one would like to imagine that those of faith would be secure enough in that faith to be immune to any possible insult or criticism.
When I first looked at the first group, I didn't get that they are a series. This is more obvious in the second group and after I saw them I went back and reviewed the first group. Then I got it.
The fact that the images are a series is key to understanding their message. More important IMHO than all the description in the first post. So I'm thinking you should spend a little time thinking about how to present them to make that more clear without spelling it out. Here are a few ideas:
Combine into a single image, prehaps a grid with one signature. Think about how you would like them displayed in a magazine or on a gallery wall. Apply those thoughts to your web post.
Use captions creatively. You can number them. Goya did this often, e.g., Bullfight and Horrors of War prints.
Interleave with your comments in a creative way.
Here is another comment. You put a ton of work into these images and it shows. The idea is powerful and the execution is professional. But I don't think you put as much effort into the entire presentation. How many times did you rewrite your introduction from the first post? How much did you think about the layout of the words and pictures in that post?
A photoessay is more than just the pictures. A good photoessay can make use of images which are not strong enough to stand by themselves. Great shots (or series of shots as in this case) can be lost in a poorly thought out essay. Go back and look your shots and reread your words. Now try to imagine how you would most like to see these images and concepts presented. IMHO, these images and your passion are worth this additional effort.
Could I just take the opportunity to say I find the images interesting and anything that provokes debate has merit.
I would question the need to explain the images, surely the images should speak for themselves?
Congratulations to Dgrin for allowing this thread to remain, one would like to imagine that those of faith would be secure enough in that faith to be immune to any possible insult or criticism.
Charlie
Ok so anything that provokes debate has merit. We shall see.
We shall see if that is true.
According to the mission statement, the yardstick isn't "family safe", it's "museum safe". The stuff posted on this forum is generally (to my slight dismay) nowhere near as edgy as what can be found in any modern museum.
Are you saying that work here needs to be edgy? Is that your yardstick of good art?
I seriously doubt that it would be deleted; the people on this forum are much more mature than that. Look at it from this prospective; if you did shoot the photo you mentioned and posted it here, it may offend quite a bit of people (with thin skin), but there would still be people who would relate to it in one way or another. There's an infinate number of prospectives out there and everybody feels differently - the trick is to be able to understand and accept differing opinions.
I do not take issue with teh fact that art may be "edgy" but do we need to provoke peoples feelings in a negative way?
An example: any decent movie establishes an emotional link between the viewer and the character, and some of the most powerful movies show their suffering in vivid detail. Most of us aren't looking for box office results, but to express our wildly diverse opinions (and maybe make a few bucks along the way ). A lot of movies are sanitized for the general public, but we don't have to worry about that here. We're free to express ourselves within reason.
IMO, if a posted photo's intent is strictly to provoke and offend, leaving on the forum would be questionable, but if the poster personally experienced something that made them feel compelled to shoot said photo (as the OP has), they have every right to do so and post it on an artist's forum. I wouldn't be here if we weren't afforded that ability.
IMO the images were to provoke and to do so by offending.
I understand that there are and should be limits, but exposure to slightly shocking but thought provoking imagry can do people some good. I think it's quite healthy for humans to expand their viewpoints from time to time; adults can definately handle it. If a child comes across something which their family or environment may deem offensive, they should be able to sit down with their loved ones and have a rational, level-headed discussion about it.
I will be back to expand some of your view points. I expect to see the same level of understanding from you all.
I don't want to close the thread, it's been a good, on-topic discussion so far.
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!"
I've deleted a couple of posts that, without malice, strayed into a purely political/religious discussion.
Thanks.
Thanks for keeping us civil Sid.
That being said, I would imagine that it is hard for the conversation to not stray into a political/religious discussion given the text that accompanies the image in the original post which seems to be very political/religious.
Are you saying that work here needs to be edgy? Is that your yardstick of good art?
Never! None of my art is "edgy", but it sure inspires me, as I can see it has inspired you also (though not necessarily in the same way). I'd challenge everybody who feels strongly about this to shoot their own photos reflecting their opinion. We all have to admit that there'd be some fantastic art to come out of it.
I do not take issue with teh fact that art may be "edgy" but do we need to provoke peoples feelings in a negative way?
What if the image to many is infact slander?
IMO the images were to provoke and to do so by offending.
Some people may react negatively, some positively; as has been demonstrated here in this thread. It's not universally negative. If I staged photos of somebody killing a puppy, I think we would all agree that that was strictly to provoke and offend, and the photos should be pulled. From my prospective, Cody has successfully stated that he has had life experiences leading him to form very strong opinions regarding certain subjects, and has created art to reflect it. Not to mention, the art was intended to represent the extremist end of things.
If somebody grew up with an alcoholic parent and lived through it, only to become an artist, would we be right to stifle their work just because it might offend alcoholics, be the work for or against alcoholism? The photos could represent the lack of parental involvement (or other negative aspects), or represent an alcoholic who was still an OK parent; I know several dictionary-definition alcoholics who keep themselves under control. Just because something is viewed by the general public as positive (Christianity) and others as negative (alcoholism), doesn't mean we should try to snub out the minority viewpoint. People deserve more respect for their opinions than that.
Regarding the slander aspect; it'd be libel since it's written. Slander's verbal But anyway, libel by definition is somebody falsely stating something as a fact. Cody has been very clear that this is his opinion, so libel doesn't fly. Offensive to some, yes. But not libel.
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.
what a pile of hypocritical contradictory malarkey.
I too wonder if it was to target the so called religion of peace would this have been allowed to Stand? I mean the same photo with a Quran instead of a Bible?
amen. wax would have sprained his finger he'd have hit the delete button so fast. what a sham this is.
I have a Koran. I have a digicam. you wanna see creative?
Comments
wow lots of feedback on this thread. i wish i could get this much from photos i post up, haha.
anyways, to follow up. cody, i think you shouldnt be afraid of what anyone says. it is your art. like any form of art some people will like it and some people wont. somtimes you have to explain it, sometimes you dont. but i think by explaining the reasoning in your photos, it helps us the viewer understand what you were going for. especially with the theme of religion, if there were no explanation of what was going on, then i would have to make my own assumptions and draw different conclusions. it probably would create more ruckus and more misunderstanding.
plus if it offends someone, then it does, oh well. its your art and they can put out their own opinion. a person shouldnt sensor oneself just because their art doesnt agree with another person's beliefs or opinion. what use would the first amendment hold if that was true.
kudos.
I've checked out Cody's Myspace page as well and love it love it love!
I am shooting a set here with a friend in a couple hours, actually.
Cody Weber Photography.
Gallery -- Journal
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
The photos are brilliant from a technical standpoint. But I guess, for me, the photos alone didn't convey the full intended meaning. That's not necessarily bad, unless the intent was for the photos to stand on their own w/o help from words.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I tried to ignore this reply but cannot.
1. This photo really wouldn't have any artistic, photo journalistic, or other wise worthy reason to even be shot. If posted it should be removed
2. If this second photo was shot and indeed happened or was a recreation of an event than it would have legitamacy. Though a photo may offend as long as it a photo that could be posted in a museum (remember family friendly site) than it could be posted for critique and evaluation.
If people think these photos are offensive than you really should stay in your house and not see current art. Cody is not unique in providing images like these just the first to post on dgrin.
I see art like this on the first Friday of every month in downtown Phoenix at 'First Friday'. 'First Friday' is a monthly event where artists pro/ up and coming/ and crap artists show their work- paintings, photography, sculpture, mixed media, music, and street performance to name a few. There is political, religous, and well as classic technique art, some of which is far more offesive and graphic than Cody's.
It is art- like it or not- agree or not-
As posted before I think some of the text could have been left out but the images themselves have merit both in today's society and in photographic technique.
Aaron Newman
Website:www.CapturingLightandEmotion.com
Facebook: Capturing Light and Emotion
I think the pictures in this tread should be removed as well.
Why? Because they are not really suitable for a family site. They deplict Hate and intolerance. They are not a journalist shoot of something that happened but a staged diatribe of hate speech. This is the very type of thing that has caused this site to become banned in many places.
I too wonder if it was to target the so called religion of peace would this have been allowed to Stand? I mean the same photo with a Quran instead of a Bible? I really think not. I hope this in not the new direction of this site.
Bogan Tripod. Gaint Yukon 25' Bike,
Like it or not we most often get what we deserve in the end.
According to the mission statement, the yardstick isn't "family safe", it's "museum safe". The stuff posted on this forum is generally (to my slight dismay) nowhere near as edgy as what can be found in any modern museum. On paper, this forum is just the SmugMug support/lounge forum, but the community makes it much more artistically valuable than that. I feel this is, at its heart, an artist's forum, and it makes me proud to be an active member. IMO, censorship (of any kind) isn't kosher, unless it's smut.
I seriously doubt that it would be deleted; the people on this forum are much more mature than that. Look at it from this prospective; if you did shoot the photo you mentioned and posted it here, it may offend quite a bit of people (with thin skin), but there would still be people who would relate to it in one way or another. There's an infinate number of prospectives out there and everybody feels differently - the trick is to be able to understand and accept differing opinions.
An example: any decent movie establishes an emotional link between the viewer and the character, and some of the most powerful movies show their suffering in vivid detail. Most of us aren't looking for box office results, but to express our wildly diverse opinions (and maybe make a few bucks along the way
IMO, if a posted photo's intent is strictly to provoke and offend, leaving on the forum would be questionable, but if the poster personally experienced something that made them feel compelled to shoot said photo (as the OP has), they have every right to do so and post it on an artist's forum. I wouldn't be here if we weren't afforded that ability.
I understand that there are and should be limits, but exposure to slightly shocking but thought provoking imagry can do people some good. I think it's quite healthy for humans to expand their viewpoints from time to time; adults can definately handle it. If a child comes across something which their family or environment may deem offensive, they should be able to sit down with their loved ones and have a rational, level-headed discussion about it.
I can't quite tell what you were intending to say in your post; your first few sentences were quite confusing. I think the second image you proposed could be quite powerful if done right. Granted, a true journalistic shot would be better, but the message could still work. It could be a fantastic showcase of the end result of intollerance amongst humans.
I would question the need to explain the images, surely the images should speak for themselves?
Congratulations to Dgrin for allowing this thread to remain, one would like to imagine that those of faith would be secure enough in that faith to be immune to any possible insult or criticism.
Charlie
The fact that the images are a series is key to understanding their message. More important IMHO than all the description in the first post. So I'm thinking you should spend a little time thinking about how to present them to make that more clear without spelling it out. Here are a few ideas:
Here is another comment. You put a ton of work into these images and it shows. The idea is powerful and the execution is professional. But I don't think you put as much effort into the entire presentation. How many times did you rewrite your introduction from the first post? How much did you think about the layout of the words and pictures in that post?
A photoessay is more than just the pictures. A good photoessay can make use of images which are not strong enough to stand by themselves. Great shots (or series of shots as in this case) can be lost in a poorly thought out essay. Go back and look your shots and reread your words. Now try to imagine how you would most like to see these images and concepts presented. IMHO, these images and your passion are worth this additional effort.
Ok so anything that provokes debate has merit. We shall see.
We shall see if that is true.
Bogan Tripod. Gaint Yukon 25' Bike,
Like it or not we most often get what we deserve in the end.
I do not take issue with teh fact that art may be "edgy" but do we need to provoke peoples feelings in a negative way? What if the image to many is infact slander? IMO the images were to provoke and to do so by offending.
I will be back to expand some of your view points. I expect to see the same level of understanding from you all.
Bogan Tripod. Gaint Yukon 25' Bike,
Like it or not we most often get what we deserve in the end.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I've deleted a couple of posts that, without malice, strayed into a purely political/religious discussion.
I will continue to delete such posts. So please stick to the issue of imagery.
Thanks.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Please pay attention.
I don't want to close the thread, it's been a good, on-topic discussion so far.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
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!"
Thanks for keeping us civil Sid.
That being said, I would imagine that it is hard for the conversation to not stray into a political/religious discussion given the text that accompanies the image in the original post which seems to be very political/religious.
Thanks,
Lee
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
That being said, I gotta add my bit.
I like the photos. I like the overall look and feel of them. I personally would love to be able to duplicate the look/feel of these fantastic images.
My favorites would be number 4, and 5. #5 almost has a bit of a Blair Witch feel to it (from the last few moments in the movie).
Kudos on such incredibly well done, thought provoking images.
Derek
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
Never!
Some people may react negatively, some positively; as has been demonstrated here in this thread. It's not universally negative. If I staged photos of somebody killing a puppy, I think we would all agree that that was strictly to provoke and offend, and the photos should be pulled. From my prospective, Cody has successfully stated that he has had life experiences leading him to form very strong opinions regarding certain subjects, and has created art to reflect it. Not to mention, the art was intended to represent the extremist end of things.
If somebody grew up with an alcoholic parent and lived through it, only to become an artist, would we be right to stifle their work just because it might offend alcoholics, be the work for or against alcoholism? The photos could represent the lack of parental involvement (or other negative aspects), or represent an alcoholic who was still an OK parent; I know several dictionary-definition alcoholics who keep themselves under control. Just because something is viewed by the general public as positive (Christianity) and others as negative (alcoholism), doesn't mean we should try to snub out the minority viewpoint. People deserve more respect for their opinions than that.
Regarding the slander aspect; it'd be libel since it's written. Slander's verbal
Awesome! I love a good, level-headed discussion. It's not often that you find that online anymore.
Agreed.
Cody Weber Photography.
Gallery -- Journal
I understand I can't say anything about your viewpoints, but hopefully I can get away with...I agree completely.
what a pile of hypocritical contradictory malarkey.
:deadhorse
amen. wax would have sprained his finger he'd have hit the delete button so fast. what a sham this is.
I have a Koran. I have a digicam. you wanna see creative?