When is it OK to show images that may offend the sensibilities of others or are inherently controversial? For example:

1. An image of Nazi memorabilia taken as a still life
2. An image of the male erect penis close up
3. Images of couples in a sexual embrace
4. Images of the dead or dismembered body parts
5. Children naked taken by their parents playing in their bath tub

etc...

Where does the balance between freedom of expression and courtesy/respect lie? As artists, are there any responsibilities one has when taking and displaying images? Can images that may be considered pornographic ever be art? Does there have to be context in the image? Are there images people will never take? Do the morals, cultures, beliefs, religions, etc... of others dictate what images you take versus what you show? Is that self censorship?

Assuming the images, when taken, were NOT in the commission of a crime (this means I am not talking about snuff images, underage sexual images, etc...)

Many questions this morning, and no real answers.

Regards, Art.

Interesting topic. But then who desides what is or isn't offensive?

What is art? I asked a person on this this site that question, and even though that person described himself as a "visual artist," he seemed to get offended rather than provide an answer.

Photojournalists take "offensive" (to me at least) photos routinely - seemimgly the more offensive the better. War photographrs take images of the dead, dieing and maimed.

Pornography is a huge industry - several times more porn than Big Macs in the US alone. It must not be offensive to many people.

It seems like a photo will always appeal to someone, while being offensive to another. To me, there are black areas (always offensive), white areas (never offensive) and many shades of gray (offensive to some). Some folks are just offended by photographs, regardless of content.

"Can images that may be considered pornographic ever be art?" Robert Maplethorpe comes to mind. Many considered him an artist. In addition to homosexual men, he took many images of flowers and normal portraits that I consider art. I think his use of soft light and a green filter combined for some beautiful b&w portraits

"Does there have to be context in the image?" No, I don't think so.

"Do the morals, cultures, beliefs, religions, etc... of others dictate what images you take versus what you show?" No. I have never taken a photo I would not show to someone else simply because of its content. I have taken many photos that I simply didn't think were worth showing (or even keeping), but not because of their content. Onece I framed a photo of a 3 month old boy in black. A Chinede viewer said how sad that the boy was dead. He wasn't, but to the Chinese viewer, the black matt meant the boy was dead. Sometimes other cultures can be a land mine.

Self censorship? Yes. I do not take images I consider offensive.

Very controversial, for sure not one answer will fit all.

Regards
Danijela

I'd prefer zero regulation and zero cencorship, but with fair and reasonable warnings to protect folks with fragile feelings ...

This might be a bit idealistic (and note that as a new Forum member I haven't yet seen any previous dialogue on this theme), but ...

Imagine you're walking through a shopping mall. If you're in a part of the mall that is known to offer 'arty' or 'challenging' or 'liberated' products then you shouldn't be surprised to see a billboard on the pavement in front of you offering a chance to see some 'new and original' artistic work.

If you *never* wished to view such free-thinking and liberated material then you'd probably aim never to visit those parts of the mall.

But if you happened accidentally to wander through that part of the mall, then your second-level of protection could be simply to note-and-ignore the pavement bill-board invitation to 'enter here to have your mind expanded'. You can choose just to walk on by...

Or, if somehow you happened to step inside the 'artistic' venue by accident, you'd see further warning notices explaining that the "material herein is aimed at free-thinking and at-ease-with-life folks [and] you venture further entirely at your own risk [and] Please leave now if you are not comfortable ...".

Then - given all those protective layers, allow me(us) please to present my work to the world, showing whatever subject matter I want, to my own standards, reflecting my own tastes, in my own style and in whatever-the-heck manner *I* choose, and please don't complain if you've stepped across all of my warning thresholds to get here ...

If we can build our web sites with equivalent layers of warnings for the benefit of some folks' genuine but fragile sensibilities, or possibly wreckless mouse-click navigation, and (of course) with appropriate SafeSurf and ICRA labelling, then ... I think we should be free to indulge ourselves and to share our work in complete freedom!!

But ... I doubt we'll reach this level of enlightenment for another generation or two...

Colin

Perhaps this is the place to respond to the image of two women, nude from at least the waist up, in an article on printers on LL.

A response said the image was from Studio One as a fine example of it's printing. So what where it came from or why? Believe it or not, there are people in this world that still believe nudity and lesbian acts are immoral. They are offended by unexpected images of these.

It is not "us against them." The issue is not black/white or on/off (binary). There are OK images (white) and not OK images (black). Most are shades of gray.

We have a responsibility to our neighbors to not cause them to stumble. We should behave in a way as to not cause our neighbor to stumble. Will we make mistakes? Sure. But when those mistakes are pointed out to us, we have to take steps to prevent it from happening again.

It matters not one bit if the offensive image is art or we call ourselves artists. That does not change our responsibilty.

Howie,
Stumble?? Mistakes???

Who or what gives each of us the right to think that another may stumble? I think those judgements only reflect arrogance.

Julie

The "who" would be the apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.) I'm not sure I would call it a right to think that another might stumble, but an imparitive to prevent it as best I can. The "mistakes" are mine when I might inadvertantly cause another to stumble.

Howie's right. Regardless of what we think we have a responsibility to those around us. Think of it as a kindness to others. You may not care but others might, so it is simple courtesy to attempt to consider how others feel. Don't be the person who is so concerned with what they want that they aren't even willing to think of others. There are so many people on fourms like this that care so much about "making a statment" with their photos and defending the photographer's right and all that jazz (which is great) that they miss the very people to whom their "statements" are supposed to benifit. The poster in the other topic wasn't saying it was bad (i think, correct me if I'm wrong) or evil, he was simply saying that he might have liked a warning. I know of quite a few photography sites around who do that in cases like this, it's not a big deal. I'm not saying that I expect Michael to do so, it is his site, I'm just saying that it's not unheard of.

Yes, a kindness to others.

This post could have appeared in response to the rude workshop that stood where others were trying to photograph. There would have been very little if any objection or outcry.

But ask for a simple kindness of telling me there is some nudity coming, ...

When I offer the simple kindness of allowing a car to change lanes in front of me, usually the only objection comes from the driver behind me, blowing his horn in rage. And what has this really cost him? Nothing or a fraction of a second (that he would lose at the next traffic light) of his time. What has he gained? Exercising his right to be angry as long as he wants.

I agree that we should have respect for the rights and ignorance of others. If this site had been a site on the "practices of accounting" or on "house construction" then the so called "offending" picture may have been out of place.

But this is a site for photographers/artists? and for anyone to be offended on this site over something as innocuous as that picture, maybe he/she is just too fragile to be on any site that contains "art".

The Taliban comment was probably correct in that if we bowed to their wishes any part of a womans body needs to be covered. Should we be sensitive to them and not show a naked face in a magazine. Obviously, an exageration but how far do we go so that someone's tender sensibilities aren't offended.

Well the answer is that as a society or community we draw up vague standards as to what is acceptable. This picture obviously meets that standard.

Does it need a warning label so as not to injure anyone?

On an art site. NO.


Michael

Two last comments on the locked topic.

Julie, seldom if ever, are you forced to look at eithre violance or lesbians. A third choice could be neither.

Michael, is the standard for LL now anything that is tamer than anything you have seen is OK? Whether it is tamer or not is arguable, and irrelavant to many of us. Are there really degrees of wrong?

The request was not for censorship or deleting the image, but merely for a warning that nudity was coming. My question for Michael now is "How can you ban nudity from posts on this site?"

Howie

If I may interject, yet again, why are you trying to impose 'christian' ethics on this site? There may be all manner of other faiths looking in but not finding it necessary to proclaim their stance. I know all about the need to preach, having spent the most unhappy years of my childhood in a boarding school in India run by American, Canadian and Australian Baptists.

I need no reminding now of the horrors of narrow vision; it was possibly in response to this mental persecution that, when I found my freedom again back in the UK, I gravitated with much force into the world of photography, models, fashion and calendars. You could look upon this as a sort of reverse trajectory to that being forced upon a callow youth by biggots; if my life's work counts against me in some other manifestation of future life, then you know now who pushed me there.

No, I don't need lessons in morality, direct or implied from anyone.

For what it's worth, yes I do believe in God; but He isn't the monster that successive power groups have tried to project upon others, mainly as a form of political and financial control; and yes, this same God has answered prayers.

Cordially - Rob C

Rather than turning this into a philosophical argument between the secular humanists and the evangelical Christian, I suggest that we return to the topic at hand and consider the original post.

Is is a "right" of an individual to display a photography that others might find morally or ethically questionable or even disgusting and scream "It's art and you shall not complain"? Does this right trump the right of an individual who might not want to have explicit images thrust in their face uninvited?

To illustrate, forget about the image that started the topic at hand and consider an image of a seal with his brains bashed out, a child that has been hit by a automobile leaving his twisted and torn body in the street, images of decapitation, images that display an erect penis as the man masturbates to orgasm, etc. Yes, there are many that find these images perfectly acceptable. But there are equally as many that would be offended or even repulsed.

Forums are attended by a wide variety of individuals. They range in scope from the religious individual to the individual that thinks anything is acceptable. You cannot possibly satisfy every individual in a forum setting. There needs to be some method to at least provide an environment that does not alienate individuals, neither by springing objectionable material upon them nor by restricting the freedoms of the artists that feel even over the top material is merely art.

Just my .02

WARNING: This post does not include nudity; it does express an opinion so read at your own discretion.


Carl, there is one great problem with what you write: there is no way on earth that such a thing as a universally acceptable consensus of morality can exist.

Your examples of dead brats etc. are extremes which, possibly, most folks would understand as being sensitive and only appropriate to more specifically focussed fora; the photo published, which started all this, was only there on Michael's say so and, as owner of this site, it is his devine right to do with it as he pleases without asking you, me or anyone else for their permission. As he says himself, the picture is quite harmless and it's rather silly to use it as an excuse for venturing into the realm of censorship which, I'm afraid, the posting of some kind of 'warning' implies by its very application.

You can, if not find a consensus for morality, at least reduce everything to kindergarten level; if you want to, that may provide you with your solution. You will, however, be the only person checking in...

N'est ce pas?

Ciao - Rob C

There are still some in this world — perhaps even many — who would find an image of a black man holding hands with a white woman to be offensive, even, some of them would say, morally offensive. Must we cater to them too? If not, why not?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Rob, I believe you have misunderstood my intent. I'm not suggesting imposing morality guidelines at all. After rereading my last post, quite understandable as I did imply exactly that, so let me rephrase...

While someone's negative response to nudity generally initiates these threads, the topic is generally within the control of the forum guidelines and is not the basis for my thoughts.

In this case, I'm exploring the extreme edges of photography, not a naked woman or man, nor even an image that a narrow minded individual may find objectionable (such as the one Nils suggested (and Nils, I don't have a good answer for why not)). I'm referring more to the ones that many reasonable people may find offensive/objectionable in society. And, I realize that even this is impossible to neatly define, but humor me on the limits of that definition

I'm not suggesting an answer or a guideline be imposed. I'm merely asking "is there a limit that we impose upon ourselves, as photographers, when posting images or do we cover it under one wrap of creative expression?" (and then when the moderator removes the image, claim foul play and censorship )

edit: (now I remember why ethics courses in college gave me headaches ... there is no clear answer in most cases )

Of course there is such a limit, but it's not a bright line, and it's a line that moves from time to time and context to context, and it's plainly not the same line for all of us.

Some images are "obviously" on the other side of that line for most of us, in most contexts — some of Mapplethorpe's work comes readily to mind, but that's probably just me. ;-) Autopsy photos, whatever.

Where the question should be more interesting, but sadly usually isn't because of the sorts of arguments that invariably ensue, is with regard to stuff more in the middle ground, like the subject of the current discussion.

Personally, I am much more morally offended by the substance and tone of many of the arguments that get espoused in favor of restricting this sort of image than I am by just about any image that would typically elicit those arguments — but again, that's just me, and it's the price I pay for wandering (stumbling?) into threads like this one. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Carl

Okay, I accept we had a crossed wire.

Now, on the newer question of self-imposed regulation, my answer can be more explicit.

As a photographer, and I am talking from the point of view of being both pro and very interested from the personal, amateur (literal meaning) aspect too, I can safely say that I have never applied, as far as I am aware, a double standard of personal as compared with professional image making. I mean that anything I have photographed has been photographed in the full expectation - even hope - that it will/might be in the public domain. I have photographed lots of girls with and without clothes and I have never, as far as my interpretation of these things goes, created a pornographic picture. I feel no sadness or sense of loss; I just never felt any wish to do so. I have been in love with the idea of beauty all my life and its what I've tried to express in my photography of women, sometimes with greater success than at others.

I'm informed that the web contains many sites which cater to porn of various grades; the closest I ever got was once when I tried to be smart and type in the name of this very site from memory: I forgot the hyphen and up came some dumb Spanish site which wasn't at all what I'd expected. Perhaps I've also stumbled onto less pleasing female 'studies' when checking out the sites of various photographers who feature in photography magazines, but this presents no problem - I just click away from them.

I can understand Nil's point of view regarding recent posters on a high morality kick, but at the end of the day, one cannot deny their right of protest if one does not want to deny one's own right to opinion; it's just that there are ways of expressing opinion and we don't always use the most appropriate, whether because we shoot off a reply in a hurry and in the heat of the moment (I excel at that) or because some of us go rigid at the thought of moral censure from anybody other than ourselves.

Ciao - Rob C

Actually, I'm with you Nils. I generally avoid these topics like the plague. I have no idea why I responded to this one (certainly wasn't looking for a debate, much less an argument).

Well...that's enough from me on this topic...I'm off to read things of more interest to me, like seeing how others are struggling with or mastering Lightroom, CS3, and other post processing tools....MUCH MORE INTERESTING

Carl - disappointed to find your interests lie where they do...

Debate is what allows us to know we are alive and not alone.

Ciao - Rob C

I know that I'm alive and I know that I'm not alone and I don't need debate to provide that information

Besides, I'm not sure what more I could add to this topic. It's very similar to a debate on free speech and at what point free speech of one individual impedes on the freedoms of another. I'm more on the receiving end than the sending end with regards to posted images as I don't find myself taking images that may offend the majority of a group (many of my images offend many, but it's mainly because of lack of talent rather than subject matter )

From my personal point of view, I am not "offended" by images or words, although there are those that I'd rather not view/hear because they don't align with my interests. Fortunately the really bizarre photographs that border on the edge of repulsion are not found by accident and one has to actively seek such images.

While I do not support censorship, I do believe that there are times when the rights of the artist begin to infringe upon the rights of the viewer. At what point that occurs, I don't know. I'm sure it will vary between cultures and even individuals. And, hence the problem we continually encounter and will likely continue to encounter ad nauseum throughout our lifetimes.

Carl - there you are - you do exist and I've confirmed it for you; and don't you feel so much better for having stated your point of view?

Only joking... maybe I don't exist either; perhaps I'm but another squeak in this cranky old laptop that has this amazing life of its own: I have to post my messages before I've finished just to ensure that the damn thing sends them before it dies again.

Maybe nothing exists.

Ciao - Rob C

My former department chair (mathematics) was fond of quoting what he called "second-order DesCartes":

"I think I think; therefore I think I am."

There's no difference between thinking that you think, and plain thinking. It's all thinking .

On a more serious note, I'm quite surprised, in this day and age, that this topic has centred so much around sex.

There's no doubt that images can be extremely offensive. In Australia we seem to be less 'religion obsessed' than America. Less prudish, perhaps. On free-to-air public TV broadcasts, almost anything goes except erect penises and 'real' sexual intercourse (as opposed to simulated sexual intercourse).

However, we do have consideration for the frail at heart, for those of a nervous disposition who have perhaps led a very sheltered life, and even for those who may not have led a particularly sheltered life but who consider certain objects as sacred and not for public view. I'm thinking here of Aboriginals who are offended if personal artifacts of their ancestors are publicly displayed, such as dug-up skeletons perhaps thousands of years old.

One has to be sensible about such a mix of different sensitivities. Few of us want to live in a 'nanny' state where we are all treated like children. In Australia, we not only have a variety of classifications for broadcast material, which give a fair indication of possible offensive content, such as; nudity, strong sex, violence, drugs, foul language etc. (in short, all the good things in life. Just kidding ), but such programs are broadcast late in the evening when all good, dutiful children should be in bed.

It's a compromise, of course. It has to be in a free liberal society.

Sometimes, of course, the ends justify the means. It's okay to show images of starving kids in Africa (and that surely must be extremely upsetting for most of us) because it's going to bring in donations which (hopefully) will help those kids.

It's not okay to show real footage of road accident victims, moaning and groaning in a horrible manner, severed limbs, smashed faces and blood pouring everywhere, because that's too close to home. It would certainly encourage people to drive with more care, but it would also nauseate too many viewers. Might even cause some viewers to never drive a car again.

Okay! After so much pontificating, you will understand I hope , that you cannot escape another image from me, to demonstrate a point.

The nude females in a suggested lesbian embrace, in Michael's review of the HP printer, are very small beer in the general scheme of things. People who get offended by this should take a hard look at themselves. There are far more important things to get offended about in this world.

However, as a humorous antidote to any such offense in that printer review, I offer the following image, which I took in Kagbeni, Nepal. This statue is in a public place where kids of all ages play.

Click to view attachment

Having had further thoughts on the above image, I would respectfully request that Howard does not criticise this image on the grounds it is soemone els'e art work.

Ray, don't tell them about all the topless girls on the beeches or there will be a stampede...

Ray

There are those about who would be offended, deeply hurt even, by such misuse of good cigars.

Ciao - Rob C

Hhmm! It is a bit small, isn't it! I hope this wonderful work of art is not mere local vandalism; or just something to amuse the tourists .

WARNING: This post contains material that might cause some Scots to become aroused, deeply hurt and even violent. This is not a criticism, just an observation based on twenty-eight years of living there.

Ray - if that had been on display in my old hang-out, Glasgow, the cigar wouldn't have lasted a full five minutes; even the guy might have had problems...

Cheers - Rob C

Rob,
Are you saying your old hang-out was the Gorbals? . My father was raised in Glasgow and I got the impression the Gorbals was the Scottish equivalent of Harlem in New York.

Ray - No, not quite, but then again, which Gorbals? There have been several iterations: the first one I remember seeing was old tenement buildings; these were knocked over in a brave new tax-wasting venture and replaced with modern ugly which, in turn, had to be knocked down and so it goes, on and on in a socialist-run society.

Actually, there have been some rather fetching shots made of the old Gorbals by various people; that they had the nerve to try might perhaps be explained by the hidden presence of mounted police or, more likely, the naive way in which the downtrodden of the world have always been open to, and have embraced, exploitation. I did, once, have a vague stab at doing 'tough', back in about '56 I think. I remember driving into Glasgow up to the bridge over the Clyde at the end of Eglington Street, parking, and getting out of the little 3-wheel car - a Bond (which has nothing to do with the Bond that came later, believe me!), and walking towards the river. It was foggy, as usual, and I had a Vito B... wow! Anyway, after a couple of shots I felt that the risk of standing there was not commensurate with the value of what I was doing. I left quickly, all 197cc of Villiers two-stroke working hard. That was all kind of to the west of Gorbals, but in the days of the razor artists, quite close enough.

For your Dad's interest, I lived at Rouken Glen, another priceless spot which is being slowly attacked around the edges. Progress, you understand.

Stay cool - Rob C

Ray, for your education, there are many people in this world that chose to live a modest life, not because they are frail at heart, are nervous, have lived a sheltered life or are afraid of being punished. Considering some things as private certainly need not be the result of any of those things. Many chose such life styles because of the joy and piece it brings. And many of those expect to be mocked for holding such beliefs.

And yes, one should be sensitive to such peoples' feeling and beliefs. It is not an imperative (has to be), but a good way to live for some in a free liberal society or even a conservative society. Keep in mind the cultural differences betwee Australia (original white setttlers were criminals) and the USA (original white settlers seeking freedom of (not from) religion).

Ray, when exactly does the "ends justify the means?" This term more often than not means that an immoral, unjust or wrong action is OK as long as it produces a moral, just or right result. But then, if you actually believe this, you must be ready to accept any and all results. And how do you (or who?) decide what is a moral, just or right result?

In spite of your respectful request, in my opinion, the image you posted is not art nor an image of someone else's art. Rather it is an image of an idol of some folks in Nepal. But for the erect penis, you would have taken the image, and certainly not posted it here. You posted it merely to try to offend.

For my education, is the smiley face thing you so often post Australian for "Wink. Wink. Giggle giggle. I just made a sophomoric joke"?

Howard,
My initial reaction to your post was to ignore it in order to avoid any flare-up of religious discussin which is not allowed on this site.

However, I can't resist the urge to educate you . First, the use of smilies. Sometimes they might mean, 'wink, wink. I just made a sophomore joke', but more often they are used when I sense that certain individuals might misconstrue my intent. Everything we write has to be interpreted at some level and often a statement or phrase or expression will be interpreted differently by different readers.

For example, when I write, 'I can't resist the urge to educate you', I add a smilie in order to reduce the likelihood of a response such as, 'How dare you criticise my level of education. I've got 3 degrees and six diplomas and have sat on this committee and that peer review panel, blah, blah, blah', all of which is beside the point.



So let me educate you. Before England began shipping some of its convicts to Australia, they had already been shipping them for a century or so to America. As a result of the American War of Independence, it became no longer possible to continue shipping convicts to America, so Britain chose Australia as an alternative solution.

Here's an extract from the following book, "COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF EASTHAM, WELLFLEET AND ORLEANS by Rev. Enoch Pratt pub 1844 Describing 17th Century Massachusetts and the Customs of our Forefathers"






Howard, this has been the subject of philosophical discussion for millennia. What exactly? There's obviously no simple answer to that. I would say that I tend to subscribe to the philosophy of the Utilitarians, such as Jeremy Bentham, which could be summarised as 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people'. There are always winners and losers throughout history. Whatever policies are adopted, whatever changes to legislation are made, we can't avoid the fact there will be some losers as a result of those changes. If a government decides to build a new highway to ease traffic congestion, it may have to resume property where people have lived for years. The monetary compensation often cannot compensate for the emotional loss. In such circumstances, the greater good should prevail.



Rubbish, Howard. If I'd wanted to offend, I have far better images than that I could have posted. I posted it as a harmless piece of jocular humour which I thought was apposite in relation to another image in a recent printer review from Michael, which I thought was equally harmless.

Ray, Howie, guys, guys!

Look, the US constitution, I'm told, guarantees freedom both FOR and FROM religion.

I have been chastised for being too secular - oh well, perhaps, but in my own way I too have a God, an original creator, some being/entity/power that got this entire show, as we know it, on the road.

What I object to is the form of preaching, carping and bloodthirsty religionist who says my way is the only way; really? so what about all the millions of souls who existed before the events of circa 2007 years ago; are they all condemned to some imagined form of hellfire because they were born too early to hear about the 'only' way that gets preached by both christian and moslem? I think not. I think that God is part of every single one of us; that he is part of every form of life as we are too.

I do not deny that religions do, in chosen bits, provide admirable rules for communal living; I do deny that any single one has all the answers.

I do believe that the God within us is the only one we need concern ourselves with; the reality is there along with the power to chose good or evil, two basic, commonly understood paths. Which we choose does not depend on religion but on our own set of values which are fashioned by and for us as we grow from kid to adult.

So, lighten up, guys, we are not the first beings to wonder about the majesty of it all; we will not be the last.

As for this this site permitting or not permitting discussions such as this: If you take away the human all you have left is the geek.

Ciao - Rob C

America, at least during my lifetime, has had a tradition of getting things first; the latest products and innovations.

It's ironic she was also the first to get our British convicts .

Ray,
Your history lesson perhaps helps explain why drivers in and around Boston (where I live) are among the worst in the world. Maybe most of us are descended from convicts.

By the way, EASTHAM, WELLFLEET AND ORLEANS are nice places to photograph.

Ho! Ho!, You're getting into dangerous territory there, Eric, by suggesting there might be such a thing as a criminal gene.



I know (believe) there are lots of great places to photograph in America. Maybe now the Aussie dollar is rising against the greenback, I should think of making a trip to America. Perhaps I'll wait until we get parity.

I hope Howard is not frantically searching the genealogy web sites to find out if his great, great, great, grandfather was a rapist or a murderer. Don't waste your time, Howard. There's no gene for such traits. Better not to know, psychologically.

If I may add a bit to this thread.
Images do not exist. What exist is just the interpertation of random points of light, and in the case of digital, numbers collected and displayed on paper or CRT/LCD. If we take any single point, it is just that, or several or even a collection. They are just points of ink or light, what we create out of them is unique and in our mind.
Remember Edward Weston's B&W of the bell peper that looked to some as a nude with her legs curled under and head hidden by her body-----or was that just me? he most likely had the pepper with dinner that evening.
To belabour my point, we create our values based on our history and culture but it is not a given that what we see is real(based on the influences in our life)
We are lied to daily, to get our money(adverts) and support. Truth is the hardest commodity to find and easy to loose.
If you don't like what your mind sees, ask yourself why before being offended by a random pattern of dots on a page, it may well be all in your head. Wyndham

I know what you are getting at. One could go one step further and declare that nothing exists, except as a collection of atoms and molecules. What these collections of atoms and molecules really are, is always subject to interpretation. We often falsely assume that attributes which really exist only in our imaginations actually have an external reality, like the color 'green' for example.

I don't think images are made of random points of light at all. They would be just noise.

If they were random and existed only in our minds, why do so many dofferent people see the same image? They may react differnetly, but I think most people who see Adams' "Moon Rise" see the moon above some hills with clouds and a town.

Even Weston's Bell Pepper es seen by a lot of people as just that, a bell pepper.

Interesting thing about truth, truth doesn't care what anybody thinks about it. Truth cares not that I, or anyone else, think it is true.

So my interpretation of this comment from you, Howard, is that you consider that you know what truth is. Right?

Bear in mind that any reply must not contravene the rules of 'no religious discussion'.

This is a pretty interesting topic. But I think we should be clear about limitations.

_________________________
Emerson product guides -- Get free Emerson product guides

Oh my gawd, is no thread free from a salesman?

Rob C

I agree. I was sort of hoping Howard would think of a way of replying to my question without bringing religion into the debate .

Ray - I don't want to attack anyone for having their personal beliefs, even if they are different to my own; at the end of the day we are all struggling to come to terms with a reality that is so huge that none of us has really got the slightest idea of what it's all about. We see ourselves in the mirror so we have fairly convincing proof that we exist and as we can see others, then they too seem real enough (God only knows how somebody born blind can come to terms with life).

The trouble with ALL prescribed religion that I've ever heard of is that it claims to have the inside track, to offer the real deal, as it were. I believe the best we can ever hope to do is to live life without upsetting too many people or dinner tables and to hope that others treat us with the same respect. This isn't as easy to do as it might seem - some invite attack and others martyrdom; I seek neither!

However, it's damn nice to be alive; even when the going gets difficult there are compensations enough if we but seek them out. I don't know if I include Photoshop there yet...

Ciao - Rob C

Agreed! But these sorts of discussions have cropped up before and it's almost certain that Michael will close the thread if we head in this direction.

Ray - I guess the thread is all but unwound right now; pics that offend will always be made by intent or by accident because there will always be those who want to shock as there will always be those who see everything in a poor light regardless of what the original intention might or might not have been.

Just let's be thankful that we still live in a society where a fair degree of freedom does still exist; it might be a little frayed at the edges, abused more than a little by our 'leaders' and by the rest of that tribe which feels itself duty-bound to regulate the rest of us.

Ciao - Rob C

Now that's more than a little unfair. I think it's well established that the Republicans firmly believe that government should stay out of your private life — except when you're doing something they don't like.

(Now that should serve to put this thread out of its misery.) ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net