Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: fike on June 25, 2013, 02:40:35 pm
-
I just clicked on two consecutive critique threads, both with nudity. While I have no objections to nudity in art, I sometimes view this material from a workplace where these things are inappropriate. Please add a tag in the thread title (like NSFW or nudity) so that people can choose not to open those threads at inappropriate times.
Again, I have no objection to nudity in art or landscape photography or whatever.
thanks,
-
Never having seen the term, I had to ask Google to find out what "NSFW" meant.
Since I retired about eight years ago, I haven't had to worry about thread titles. ;)
Eric M.
-
Don't surf the internet at work ;)
-
Don't surf the internet at work ;)
may be he is the owner, so he can surf... but at the same time he is afraid that his employee will sue him for that american thing.
-
Don't surf the internet at work ;)
+1
-
This is a matter of online etiquette. There are a variety of reasons people might not want to see nudity. Descriptive titles help people to make their own choices so that they don't demand an authority censors the choices. My issue is that I am sometimes at work, and it is inappropriate in the US workplace to look at explicit content. I restrict my lunch reading to sites where I can trust that I won't accidentally stumble on nudity, and LuLa has always been that way in the past.
I hope that LuLa can stay on my lunchtime reading list since it is some of the most interesting reading I am able to find.
-
I am trying to be earnest and I am being assailed with snarkiness about looking at the internet at work. That aint nice considering I am making a reasoned and polite suggestion.
-
I just clicked on two consecutive critique threads, both with nudity. While I have no objections to nudity in art, I sometimes view this material from a workplace where these things are inappropriate. Please add a tag in the thread title (like NSFW or nudity) so that people can choose not to open those threads at inappropriate times.
Again, I have no objection to nudity in art or landscape photography or whatever.
thanks,
+1. There is no additional commentary needed at this point.
-
... so that they don't demand an authority censors the choices...
Good luck with that. At the same time, it is worth reminding that the worst form of censorship is self-censorship.
... it is inappropriate in the US workplace to look at explicit content...
For that to become an issue, there has to be a pattern (of repeated behavior) and intent to create a "hostile work environment." A few seconds before you close the thread is not going to create any trouble for anyone.
Ultimately, if you are so paranoid or if you work in such an ultra-sensitive environment, stop frequenting photographic sites, because, you know, they tend to contain... photographs. Better switch to CNN and watch to your (and your co-workers) heart's content idillic scenes from the latest carnage by suicide bombers around the world. That, I gather, is accepted as quite appropriate?
Even better, get off the chair, walk around, get some fresh air... good for circulation, you know. And improves productivity.
-
I think Slobodan is generally right but for different reasons. If company rules forbid the use of company provided internet connections to view explicit material, then that's all that's required for disciplinary action. Where the 'hostile work environment' comes into play is if the employee subjects others to the material either visually or verbally.
The idea to put NSFW or 'Contains nudity' or something similar in the thread title is a reasonable one.
-
Nudity? Here?
Humm. Guess I need to look around more.
Michael
Ps: The Op's point is well made and worth posters keeping in mind.
-
... If company rules forbid the use of company provided internet connections to view explicit material, then that's all that's required for disciplinary action...
Again, there has to be an intent to view explicit material, for instance if someone visits, say, xxx dot com or similar.
-
Not necessarily. And it depends on jurisdiction.
-
For that to become an issue, there has to be a pattern (of repeated behavior) and intent to create a "hostile work environment." A few seconds before you close the thread is not going to create any trouble for anyone
You're a little out of touch with the degree of hyper-sensitivity which is (sadly) the norm in many workplaces in the US. Many employers have adopted zero tolerance policies.
The OP's request is legitimate, IMO, and certainly not deserving of the negative and condescending tone of many of the responses thus far.
Rand
-
...The OP's request is legitimate..
I am sorry, but i strongly disagree. It is not our job to worry about his (potential) work issues. It is his. As mentioned, just do not waste company time or resources on private matters. Period. I actually can not believe people's nerve to request such a thing.
-
I am sorry, but i strongly disagree. It is not our job to worry about his (potential) work issues. It is his. As mentioned, just do not waste company time or resources on private matters. Period. I actually can not believe people's nerve to request such a thing.
I completely agree... it is not our job. It is a request for a courtesy.
Kindness and extending oneself "a little" for the benefit of colleagues and friends seems to have gone out of fashion. I for one think we're the poorer for it.
Rand
-
I completely agree... it is not our job. It is a request for a courtesy.
Kindness and extending oneself "a little" for the benefit of colleagues and friends seems to have gone out of fashion. I for one think we're the poorer for it.
Rand
What courtesy? How are we supposed to distinguish what constitutes NSFW and for whom? This is an international forum. A photographers forum to be exact, and their work is exactly that: looking at images. How can you then say NSFW?
The only courtesy that we used to have and a request that might be met, is that some images may be more appropriate for indirect links, and not as inline content. But even then, some of the work over in the medium format threads is simply too good and absolutely tasteful and artistic, and I would ROFLMAO if I ever read:
NSFW: recent professional work
on a photography forum.
-
Man, all the guy was asking for was a little note -- "May be NSFW." Even FARK, possibly one of the snarkiest forums on the net, does it. Nobody's suggesting censorship; just a little courtesy.
-
How are we supposed to distinguish what constitutes NSFW and for whom?
I am surprised and not a little disappointed that so few of the respondents to this thread have the intelligence to figure out what might possibly be considered "NSFW" or the courtesy (yes, in many cultures it really is considered to be a virtue) to add those four easy-to-type letters. And for those of you who got your knickers in a knot over this, it isn't self-censorship, it's freedom with responsibility, something which seems to have been lost along with courtesy.
-
Courtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out? ;)
Edited for typo.
-
Curtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out? ;)
Only if they're female, obv
-
And what to do with a thread like Recent Professional Works, with 20-30 pages with architecture, car, product shots and a few tasteful nudes? Brand the whole thread NSFW?
How about Michael Ezra? Shell we kick him out of the thread and send him in exile, to a separate, scarlet letter thread? As if he is doing something wrong? For the benefit of those who are actually doing something wrong (misusing their employer's resources)?
-
The day that LuLa starts to show porn is the day to start worrying.
That anyone, anywhere, might find what's appeared in Lula offensive is firmly their problem. If anyone glancing over the shoulder of anyone watching the 'show' at his/her place of work feels a bit miffed, then I humbly suggest that person visit a medical centre and seek psychological help.
To attempt to censor LuLa in any way is madness: it simply doesn't need it.
The problem is what, exactly, that people look the way they do? God made a huge mistake? Some people have the good fortune to be born and grow up 'better-looking' than others? Wow, perverted socialism at root! I'm ugly and therefore everyone who isn't must remain hidden in case my looks are seen as lesser; that I may feel a twinge of inferiority? Shit, if that's your national outlook, thank God I don't live amongst you.
The world is infinitely varied; people are infinitely varied and to hope or pretend otherwise is so sad, such denial.
Long live LuLa, long live Lula Libre! to paraphrase the departed general.
Rob C
-
And what to do with a thread like Recent Professional Works, with 20-30 pages with architecture, car, product shots and a few tasteful nudes? Brand the whole thread NSFW?
How about Michael Ezra? Shell we kick him out of the thread and send him in exile, to a separate, scarlet letter thread? As if he is doing something wrong? For the benefit of those who are actually doing something wrong (misusing their employer's resources)?
Health warning: this is tongue-in-cheek (my own cheek, sweet prudes).
OOOOH YES!
Then I shall have almost total monopoly of a single type of input!!! Great thinking, do it now!
;-)
Rob C
-
Man, all the guy was asking for was a little note -- "May be NSFW." Even FARK, possibly one of the snarkiest forums on the net, does it. Nobody's suggesting censorship; just a little courtesy.
+1
-
Curtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out? ;)
Or is it "curtesy= holding the door for the "o" robbers on their way out? ;D
-
Man, all the guy was asking for was a little note -- "May be NSFW." Even FARK, possibly one of the snarkiest forums on the net, does it. Nobody's suggesting censorship; just a little courtesy.
+1
-1
NSFW has also become a meme for "juicy pictures inside" so its use on other forums is totally and utterly irrelevant for the purposes mentioned here and it would in fact create "unwanted confusion". (And yes, that was meant to be euphemistic!).
-
And what to do with a thread like Recent Professional Works, with 20-30 pages with architecture, car, product shots and a few tasteful nudes? Brand the whole thread NSFW?
How about Michael Ezra? Shell we kick him out of the thread and send him in exile, to a separate, scarlet letter thread? As if he is doing something wrong? For the benefit of those who are actually doing something wrong (misusing their employer's resources)?
He's not necessarily doing anything wrong. Most employers permit personal, limited internet usage as long as it doesn't interfere with company work. That includes doing so during a lunch time.
-
The hysteria of those objecting to what is the norm on almost every photography forum on the net is very telling.
-
I'm quite shocked at how controversial this request seems to be with some people. It was a bit disappointing until I read back through the thread and found that basically three people are sustaining the argument against the seven people who have spoken in support of the simple courtesy. Most notably Michael R. seems to think the idea fine. We are in Michael's house, so I think his reasonable point of view should prevail.
As for some of the issues people have brought up:
* Don't surf at work. Mind your own business. You don't know me, my work environment, or my company's policies, so don't presume to be a judge.
* Long threads with a single possible NSFW image. sh!t happens. Try to avoid it. Maybe start an alternate thread with the racier images...like "cars with naked ladies on them" alongside the cars thread.
* NSFW is a meme for "juicy pictures inside." So what. Maybe they are juicy. I'll have a look when I get home tonight.
* This is just another form of censorship. No, it is not. This is labeling so that informed consumers of information can make choices. It is no different than putting a adult rating on a movie. This sort of reasonable accommodation actually makes it easier to fight AGAINST censorship because those who object to the information are empowered to make informed choices.
I have no personal objection to nudity in art and pop culture, but I live in a 9-5 world where those things need to be temporarily put aside. It is the reality I live in and debating the trend is irrelevant to the reality.
You know, there are some other places on the web that have created a different tag. It is NSFL--Not Safe for Life. This tag is used for gory, bloody, or scatological content. I am personally upset by some of these things, so I appreciate the tag because I can avoid being assaulted by photos and videos of decapitated heads and stuff. It isn't that big a leap of logic to consider that some people might feel the same way about the human form. While I disagree with them, it is courteous for me to not trick them (with thread titles that don't contain sufficiently descriptive information) into accidentally seeing things they don't want to.
-
I am sorry, but i strongly disagree. It is not our job to worry about his (potential) work issues. It is his. As mentioned, just do not waste company time or resources on private matters. Period. I actually can not believe people's nerve to request such a thing.
The OP's request is eminently reasonable, and your dismissive responses Slobodan do not speak well of you. All he is asking for is a little common courtesy. And as anyone who works in a typical US work environment can tell you, his concern is not unjustified. Whether or not workplace policies are rational is irrelevant, the point is that he is require to follow them. Frankly, I am appalled at your response.
-
The OP's request is eminently reasonable, and your dismissive responses Slobodan do not speak well of you. All he is asking for is a little common courtesy. And as anyone who works in a typical US work environment can tell you, his concern is not unjustified. Whether or not workplace policies are rational is irrelevant, the point is that he is require to follow them. Frankly, I am appalled at your response.
+1
A little courtesy goes a long way.
-
Mind your own business. You don't know me, my work environment, or my company's policies, so don't presume to be a judge.
Exactly!
Members consider this a liberal environment with a reasoned, intelligent, and adult audience. A civil place where they do not have to worry about labelling. They don't want to "presume to be a judge" on whether their work is suitable for your viewing. They wouldn't create the work in the first place if they didn't think it was appropriate for viewing.
If the majority here (and the owner) want labelling to ensue, so be it. Things change. We all move happily along and continue to post images according to the new rules, and some will look elsewhere and this will just become another one of those forums.
For as long as discussion about this issue is still reasonable, intelligent, and civil, I will happily defend my position, even though I am not an Artist.
-
The OP's request is eminently reasonable, and your dismissive responses Slobodan do not speak well of you. All he is asking for is a little common courtesy. And as anyone who works in a typical US work environment can tell you, his concern is not unjustified. Whether or not workplace policies are rational is irrelevant, the point is that he is require to follow them. Frankly, I am appalled at your response.
Well, a lot of us don't work in a typical US work environment. There are more countries with internet these days you know? Just for discussion's sake: do we now label all threads with a link to music with "music inside" just because there may be a fundamentalist roaming the site?
-
The hysteria of those objecting to what is the norm on almost every photography forum on the net is very telling.
The fact that the true Artists aren't posting on those forums is equally telling.
(probably stretching the truth there as much as you did with the word "hysteria". 8) )
-
I understand what you are saying, but your proposed solution seems a bit odd. You are asking many people who post here to do something for the sole purpose of allowing you to read the forums wherever and whenever you want. It seems a lot more reasonable for you to not read the forums at those times and places. In other words, it's your problem so you should solve it, not ask everyone else to solve it for you.
-
I understand what you are saying, but your proposed solution seems a bit odd. You are asking many people who post here to do something for the sole purpose of allowing you to read the forums wherever and whenever you want. It seems a lot more reasonable for you to not read the forums at those times and places. In other words, it's your problem so you should solve it, not ask everyone else to solve it for you.
Absolutely right.
Rob C
-
1. I'm off to a life drawing class in a couple of hours.
2. I've spent quite a bit of time in life drawing classes over the last 20 years.
3. My partner was a lifemodel for a while.
4. I don't seem to have any problem with nudity.
5. IMHO Fike's request was entirely reasonable.
Graeme
-
1. I'm off to a life drawing class in a couple of hours.
2. I've spent quite a bit of time in life drawing classes over the last 20 years.
3. My partner was a lifemodel for a while.
4. I don't seem to have any problem with nudity.
5. IMHO Fike's request was entirely reasonable.
Graeme
Aha! Split personality! Join the club.
Rob C
-
... * Don't surf at work. Mind your own business. You don't know me, my work environment, or my company's policies, so don't presume to be a judge.
* Long threads with a single possible NSFW image. sh!t happens. Try to avoid it. Maybe start an alternate thread with the racier images...like "cars with naked ladies on them" alongside the cars thread...
Seriously!? Mind my own business!? After YOU asking me (us) to mind YOUR business!? You are asking us to do something for you, something that goes against what many of us strongly believe!?
You now want us to change threads that have being going on for YEARS successfully and to create red light-district threads to pander to your preferred way of spending your lunch time!?
Mind your own business, Sir, indeed!
-
He's not necessarily doing anything wrong. Most employers permit personal, limited internet usage as long as it doesn't interfere with company work. That includes doing so during a lunch time.
If so, and if the company is so flexible, then my previous premises apply too. i.e., that there should be an intent to visit explicit sites and to create a "hostile work environment." Hardly such a flexible policy goes combined with a zero-tolerance one.
-
11 people have voiced opinions in support (including our host)
4 people have repeatedly voiced opinions against
PeterAit, Slobodan, Opgr, and Rob C.,
I am sorry that this request is such an inconvenience to you and that it violates your morals in such a fundamental way, but I am not moved by your arguments that remain detached from the reality of our modern society.
Kindest regards...over my lunchbreak,
marc
-
... but I am not moved by your arguments that remain detached from the reality of our modern society.
You wish them to change their behaviour, so the problem is that they are not moved by your arguments.
-
Curtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out? ;)
Non sequitur.
-
Thank God Michelangelo's David is not in the USA, they would have to dress him up. They actually did that to a replica that served as a hotel's fountain here in the Midwest, when the conference facilities were rented by a religious group.
For a more recent take on dressing up statues for their "immodesty", check out this video (sorry for the ad in the beginning):
http://on.aol.com/video/teens-dress-up--immodest--statue-517808185
-
Curtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out? ;)
I think the word you are looking for is courtesy.
Curtesy = 'The life tenure that by common law is held by a man over the property of his deceased wife if children with rights of inheritance were born during the marriage.'
Which has very little to do with the thread.
Cheers,
-
I think the word you are looking for is courtesy...
Indeed. Thanks for the courteous reminder.
-
Let me just throw this monkey-wrench in to the fray...
-
I got a letter from school that my daughter was inappropriately dressed one day. It was summer and she was wearing a tank top with spaghetti straps. Ah, yes... that was when she was in kindergarten.
-
What about Michael having a forum just for nudes with a warning that the nude images should be posted in that particular part of the site? The title...Naked Landscapes? :)
-
As one of the 'guilty parties' who has posted the occasional nude here, I am quite happy to place the word 'nudity' in the Subject of the post. This will serve both to warn and to welcome, I should imagine.
-
Surely in these enlightened times an employer can tell the difference between a nude on a photographic site and one on a porn site? Then again if the employee is sitting in front of the computer in the nude with a bottle of poppers in his/her hand then there could be a "problem". ;) ;D
-
Well, I find it all so depressing that in this day and age there are still social bubbles where the human figure is considered dirty, unsafe and at the very least, distasteful.
Creating a special 'red light' district in LuLa would be a terribly backwards step, making out of innocence and art a monster of vice.
If that happens, then I really do think I bid my third and final adieu to a place that helped me a great deal, especially after the death of my wife, urged me back into the making of images at a time when the strongest thought was the exiting of everything; few who helped me are even aware of their contribution - I doubt that any of them is - but I thank them nonetheless.
A friend in England sent me a book called Exposure, which is a strange investigation into the life and death of Bob Carlos Clarke.
It is a sequence of interviews. One of these, with photographer John Stoddard, reports a conversation with Patrick Lichfield, who first embraced digital and then, later, complained that it had ruined his life, that nobody wanted to send him anywhere anymore. Another interviewee mentions the death of one of my oft-quoted heroes, Terence Donovan, and that the feeling existed that age and familiarity had begun to turn him into a mild form of yesterday man...
Photography is a flickering flame at the back of a shed; don't make even stronger winds blow.
Rob C
-
Backwards to allow choice. Got to love it. Interesting also that the anti crowd are mainly the coffee corner pugilists who can all be happily ignored anyway.
-
Backwards to allow choice. Got to love it. Interesting also that the anti crowd are mainly the coffee corner pugilists who can all be happily ignored anyway.
Have you got your gum-guard handy, Ben? I have the feeling you might need it...!
-
11 people have voiced opinions in support (including our host)
4 people have repeatedly voiced opinions against
PeterAit, Slobodan, Opgr, and Rob C.,
I am sorry that this request is such an inconvenience to you and that it violates your morals in such a fundamental way, but I am not moved by your arguments that remain detached from the reality of our modern society.
I never claimed that my morals were being violated. I also never argued that viewing nudes in a workplace was not a potential problem - it is, of course. I did argue that you should not expect the forum membership to change their posting habits to suit your convenience, yet you totally ignore my point. You seem to feel entitled to have others change their habits so you don't have to change yours.
I never shoot nudes so this would not affect me one way or the other.
Is there some reason why you don't bother to read and understand posts before replying? It really makes for much more intelligent threads.
-
I think this thread has run its course without agreement. I feel further deliberation unnecessary and likely to expose more...