More on "selfie"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It's as if when women take over their own image and deign to represent themselves as objects of beauty or admiration, suddenly they are narcissistic sluts, but when they pose nude for "artistes" then THAT is okay...

That IS indeed ok.

As they say, when you talk to God, you are religious... when God talks to you, your are... delusional (at best, schizophrenic at worst). When somebody calls you beautiful, that's a compliment... when you call yourself beautiful, you are a narcissist (and most likely delusional at the same time). By the same token, when an artist takes a nude photo/painting/sculpture of you, that is art... when you do it, without managing to elevate it to art, that's just a narcissistic selfie. For the same reason we do not mind seeing Michelangelo's David's peepee in public, yet cringe at even a thought of streets full of people exposing theirs.

When a famous (or at least good) writer writes an autobiography, that is art. If I write it, it would be a narcissistic crap.

In a nutshell.

[fike]

That IS indeed ok.
...

Elitist claptrap. 

[Rob C]

That IS indeed ok.

As they say, when you talk to God, you are religious... when God talks to you, your are... delusional (at best, schizophrenic at worst). When somebody calls you beautiful, that's a compliment... when you call yourself beautiful, you are a narcissist (and most likely delusional at the same time). By the same token, when an artist takes a nude photo/painting/sculpture of you, that is art... when you do it, without managing to elevate it to art, that's just a narcissistic selfie. For the same reason we do not mind seeing Michelangelo's David's peepee in public, yet cringe at even a thought of streets full of people exposing theirs.

When a famous (or at least good) writer writes an autobiography, that is art. If I write it, it would be a narcissistic crap.

In a nutshell.

Doesn't follow: I do and I'm not.

;-)

Rob C

[fike]

If we take an elitist attitude towards judging art we overlook great artist that come from humble beginnings.

* Diary of Anne Frank, she was just a young girl who wrote in her diary.
* I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, an unknown african american writer who dared to write about life from her perspective
* Vincent Van Gogh lived in poverty during his lifetime, never recognized by the elites

How many great artists were never "discovered" because of elitism like this.

Of course you will ask whether I am comparing a naked selfie to the works of these folks.  YES, I am.  I can like or not like a particular piece of work, but I will not denigrate the people who answer the call to make art. 

[Rob C]

It's fascinating to see how we malign a sexy selfie in a way that we would never malign artistic nudes or fashion photography. 

I think it is very interesting to see how women present themselves when the image is self-taken and given willingly (I will, for the moment, put aside the fact that many of these photos were never meant for distribution, which in itself is an unfortunate betrayal).  It's as if when women take over their own image and deign to represent themselves as objects of beauty or admiration, suddenly they are narcissistic sluts, but when they pose nude for "artistes" then THAT is okay.  Very strange mores we have here, people.

A selfie is to a portrait what an autobiography is to biography.  One is not better than the other.

Where is the sexy selfie? That image is the opposite: to me, it's agricultural.

As for the difference between working for a legit photographer and making rotten self-images, they are hardly comparable on moral grounds, but certainly do speak of poor judgement if they are 'sensitive' material. If the photographer, and what the woman does with him is good, that's fine; if it is pornographic, then that's another genre altogether. You simply can't generalise and also be accurate in such matters.

And to balance selfies with an autobiography is madness. At least the autobiography and biography both take some skills to get published, unlike this image, which I could imagine probably took a snort or two instead. (And that's no reference to agriculture.) If it is genuine - which I doubt somewhat - getting published is simply because of the celebrity whom it supposedly represents.

Rob C

[Rob C]

If we take an elitist attitude towards judging art we overlook great artist that come from humble beginnings.

* Diary of Anne Frank, she was just a young girl who wrote in her diary.
* I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, an unknown african american writer who dared to write about life from her perspective
* Vincent Van Gogh lived in poverty during his lifetime, never recognized by the elites

How many great artists were never "discovered" because of elitism like this.

Of course you will ask whether I am comparing a naked selfie to the works of these folks.  YES, I am.  I can like or not like a particular piece of work, but I will not denigrate the people who answer the call to make art. 

I think you are just having a bad day; where does elitism compact upon any of the people you mentioned and humble origins? That's nothing at all to do with elitism.

Another question might be: are you sure any/all of those people were really that damned good? Perhaps their eventual success might be due more to commercial interests and the weaving of sentimental claptrap than anything intrinsic to themselves as artists.

Where's the naked selfie?

;-)

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...the people who answer the call to make art.  

So, when KK exposes her grotesque butt to the world, she was just "answering the call* to make art" Her butt has the same historic and artistic significance as Van Gogh's ear (or the lack thereof)?

What are you smoking, man!?

* EDIT: Come to think of it, she was more likely answering the nature's call 

[jjj]

Perhaps.

However, you opened the door, Jeremy. You called the opinion you disagree with "idiotic, moronic, ignorant."

I was much kinder to you.

My words were simply accurate descriptions of the rules of photojournalism competitions with regard to B+W. They are are ignorant of photographic history and/or photographic techniques. Also you have to be pretty dim not to notice the contradiction of thinking B+W photos are OK, but altering the saturation slightly is apparently misrepresentative of reality.
And your comment is still remarkably patronising and doesn't have anything to do with the argument, it's simply a sneering put down with no basis in fact. Try arguing the point instead of behaving like the unlamented Floyd.

[jjj]

Where is the sexy selfie? That image is the opposite: to me, it's agricultural.

That's just your opinion/taste. A lot of people find her very attractive - which is the sole reason she is so famous. And the photos do not necessarily have to be technically good images for people to appreciate her 'charms'.
Some people may like playboy style imagery - where it's all high production values and beautifully lit, others will prefer less sheen. Even the recession and everything else proof porn industry has suffered with the advent of digital as it was realised, people didn't actually care about production values. They just wanted to be able to see what was going on and 'amateur' porn turned out to be more real/erotic for a large chunk of the market.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

My words were simply accurate descriptions of the rules of photojournalism competitions with regard to B+W. They are are ignorant of photographic history and/or photographic techniques. Also you have to be pretty dim not to notice the contradiction of thinking B+W photos are OK, but altering the saturation slightly is apparently misrepresentative of reality.
And your comment is still remarkably patronising and doesn't have anything to do with the argument, it's simply a sneering put down with no basis in fact. Try arguing the point instead of behaving like the unlamented Floyd.

What's the point in "arguing the point" with you if you already dismissed my argument (which happens to coincide with the competition rules) as "ignorant, dim, idiotic, moronic"?

[Jim Pascoe]

When a famous (or at least good) writer writes an autobiography, that is art. If I write it, it would be a narcissistic crap.

In a nutshell.

Hey Slobodan - just being pedantic, but only you could write an autobiography about yourself!  And you better get a move on if you want it in the shops for Christmas.

Jim

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hey Slobodan - just being pedantic, but only you could write an autobiography about yourself!...

Hehe... obviously. Let me rephrase then: "my autobiography would be a narcissistic crap." Good thing is, nobody would notice😏

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

[Rob C]

That's just your opinion/taste. A lot of people find her very attractive - which is the sole reason she is so famous. And the photos do not necessarily have to be technically good images for people to appreciate her 'charms'.
Some people may like playboy style imagery - where it's all high production values and beautifully lit, others will prefer less sheen. Even the recession and everything else proof porn industry has suffered with the advent of digital as it was realised, people didn't actually care about production values. They just wanted to be able to see what was going on and 'amateur' porn turned out to be more real/erotic for a large chunk of the market.

To, the first part, indeed; to the second, no. That's what those PITA PR people are hired to promote; gloss. It's what sells vacuity.

Regarding porn: I know little about it other than that I hate it because it devalued what I used to shoot. Somehow, in some eyes, it infected me with the same farmyard spray of cold slurry.

Rob C

[jjj]

What's the point in "arguing the point" with you if you already dismissed my argument (which happens to coincide with the competition rules) as "ignorant, dim, idiotic, moronic"?

Well, maybe one is assume that you resorted to personal insults because you have no valid arument to back up your stance. Also bear in mind I was not talking to or about you when I commented on these rules. So here's your chance, go on and prove there is no hypocrisy or ignorance regarding colour grading and B&W in PJ competitions. And feel free to use Paul Hansen as an example of a cheating photographer.
And whilst you are at it, explain away your patronising comment about those who get B&W and why I'm too stupid to understand B&W.  
The rules regarding HDR are equally ignorant of how photography actually works and are just as inconsistent in their (mis)application.

[jjj]

To, the first part, indeed; to the second, no. That's what those PITA PR people are hired to promote; gloss. It's what sells vacuity.

Once upon a time gloss was the only way to sell. Not anymore, times have changed. Vacuity can sell itself now. And cell phone selfies are more than up to that. Besides it is content that is of greatest importance, that selfie of KK is better quality than many an iconic news photo.

Regarding porn: I know little about it other than that I hate it because it devalued what I used to shoot. Somehow, in some eyes, it infected me with the same farmyard spray of cold slurry.

Well if someone, somewhere is getting their rocks off to your or my work, then it will be seen by some people as porn.
I saw a documentary on the British Board of Film Classification a while back and they mention an 'adult' video they received which contained nothing rude in it whatsoever. They deliberated and finally decided to give it an '18' or 'x' certificate as it probably wouldn't sell very well otherwise in adult stores. The content was nothing more than footage of ankles and feet as it was aimed at foot fetishists, but was completely un-erotic to anyone else. So maybe a more useful way to define porn is work produced with the sole purpose of arousing people and has no interest/value other than that. So a Pirelli calendar shoot would not be porn as it has a function of selling tyres and the pictures are aesthetically pleasing in and of themselves. However, Pirelli are fundamentally using naked women/sex to sell a product, so porn is bizarrely just being more honest about what it does.

[Manoli]

So a Pirelli calendar shoot would not be porn as it has a function of selling tyres and the pictures are aesthetically pleasing in and of themselves. However, Pirelli are fundamentally using naked women/sex to sell a product, so porn is bizarrely just being more honest about what it does.

Well Pirelli has evolved, not by design, into something much more that that. It has , in it's genre, become an anthology of photography through the decades. Being invited, and you are invited, to photograph a calendar is now, in and of itself, a recognition of your 'contribution to the photographic aesthetic' and peer esteem. Look at the photographers who, over the past two decades, have been chosen (the one exception arguably being Karl Lagerfeld) and you will see a varied and copious cross section of the better known 'names' and talent in the pro business - from Annie Leibovitz to Terry Richardson, et al.

End result is a Pirelli calendar is much sought after, hard to come by and in the end it's the 'prestige' that's enhanced the Pirelli brand. Not so much the 'women/sex' angle.

[Rob C]

Well Pirelli has evolved, not by design, into something much more that that. It has , in it's genre, become an anthology of photography through the decades. Being invited, and you are invited, to photograph a calendar is now, in and of itself, a recognition of your 'contribution to the photographic aesthetic' and peer esteem. Look at the photographers who, over the past two decades, have been chosen (the one exception arguably being Karl Lagerfeld) and you will see a varied and copious cross section of the better known 'names' and talent in the pro business - from Annie Leibovitz to Terry Richardson, et al.

End result is a Pirelli calendar is much sought after, hard to come by and in the end it's the 'prestige' that's enhanced the Pirelli brand. Not so much the 'women/sex' angle.

Pirelli both touched the skies and trawled the bottom of the pond. It went out of production for some years because of the economy (they claimed -) and then started up again with another AD who, for my money, took it into hopeless digressions into 'concept' where the hard sell to flog an idea removed the aristic freedom that had governed the earlier shoots - bar the early disaster with poor old Duffy and Allen Jones, of course, so bad Duffy demanded his name be removed from the operation.

Later shoots, selling the P6 tread pattern, turned women into lizards. hardly erotic or even exotic.

Frankly, I think the thing has lost its way; I have two versions of the Calendar Book and owned one calendar - the Big Sur one by Harri Peccinotti - and wouldn't buy a third book, should it ever be published.

Thing is, the original recipients - my best client was one - didn't know anything about 'famous' photographers and I doubt many people care today, either: it was the photographs that appealed. And thank God for that: gave me an entré too, in my own little world of the art. If the photographers mean anything today, it's because of the celeb culture that surrounds some that they are known outwith photography. Nobody other than snappers and models had ever heard of Sara Moon, Francis Giacobetti or even Hans Feurer. And for my money, they still were the ones that took it to the hights. Today, I think they try to preach.

Truth to tell, some of the productions from Pentax, where Sam Haskins alternated with Hans Feurer, were every bit as good, if not actually better; Mintex did some crackers too. Mintex, because it was being handled by Derek Forsyth after he was temporarily displaced from Pirelli by the other guy with the 'concepts'. I think Forsyth knew how to get the best out of photographers. An art in itself!

You can 'concept' any production to death.

Rob C

[jjj]

Well Pirelli has evolved, not by design, into something much more that that. It has , in it's genre, become an anthology of photography through the decades. Being invited, and you are invited, to photograph a calendar is now, in and of itself, a recognition of your 'contribution to the photographic aesthetic' and peer esteem. Look at the photographers who, over the past two decades, have been chosen (the one exception arguably being Karl Lagerfeld) and you will see a varied and copious cross section of the better known 'names' and talent in the pro business - from Annie Leibovitz to Terry Richardson, et al.

End result is a Pirelli calendar is much sought after, hard to come by and in the end it's the 'prestige' that's enhanced the Pirelli brand. Not so much the 'women/sex' angle.

I noted the fact that the Pirelli pictures were aesthetically pleasing in and of themselves and by using name photographers this elevated the product in the minds of people who would normally sneer at garage calendars. Great marketing, particularly as they also deliberately limited a promotional tool to create a fake scarcity which again upped their cred in arty circles. It was however, still naked chicks flogging tyres at end of the day though and whilst doing it creatively elevated the calendar, it was still about sex. And being 'arty' gave publications an excuse to print a naughty picture where they wouldn't otherwise, so lots of extra exposure, so to speak.   Here's the Independent  doing just that with the 2014 Calendar. And the pictures are awful, girls leaning on or next to a car/bike/macho product trying to look sexy is the crappest of all photography genres.
Fundamentally, because they were a big budget affair this gave them a false sense of being better. As it wasn't just a girl photographed cheaply against a coloured backdrop/sitting on a car. Very smart marketing as people in boardrooms would be more likely to collect or display the calendars as they were 'art' and it's those people who actually made the buying decisions, not the grease monkey in the worksop.
 
Terry Richardson has done them? Well if you want talk about a photographer who does porn, Terry's your man. Link very not safe for work by the way.
He also has a bad reputation for abusing his position of power.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, maybe one is assume that you resorted to personal insults...

Where exactly did I use an insult!?

I usually go to great lengths to avoid personal insults in my posts. Saying that you do not understand something is an insult!?

I gladly admit I do not understand many things, from brain surgery to rocket science. When it comes to photography, there are still many things I do not understand there either. For instance, how Canon E-TTL II flash metering really works. If someone points it out I do not feel offended a bit. Nor stupid.

Compare that ("you do not understand") with your choice of insults: idiotic, moronic, dim, etc.

So here's your chance, go on and prove there is no hypocrisy or ignorance regarding colour grading and B&W in PJ competitions...

That it is "hypocrisy and ignorance" is just your opinion, as well as some other members of this forum. I stated clearly, as well as others, in numerous previous posts, my strong disagreement with such a philosophy, as well as my general views on veracity in photography in general and B&W in particular. I have no intention to continue to beat that dead horse, especially not with someone who preemptively dismisses opposing views as "idiotic, moronic, dim."

...explain... why I'm too stupid to understand B&W...

I really wouldn't know why.