Searcher wrote:
Yes.

I understand that you definitely take pride in being "shocking" which is fine. Many have done this and many will. It's a very frequent, accepted theme.  Some of my favourite artists--Jan Svankmajer, Barney, etc have done this.

However, breaking barriers for the sake of art and knowledge and hurting people have moral barriers.

In an extreme example, how would you feel about a young child being killed for the sake of art, for example.

ForeverFotos wrote:
Perfoming violence for the sake of causing fear is not most people's concept of art, nor is the capturing of the expression of fear caused by that violence. It bothers me that you feel that everyone else has a natural tendancy to enjoy violent scenes, and that their refusal to participate in such acts is caused by fear alone. There's enough violence and bloodshed on this planet... let's not celebrate it by turning it into "art".

It's primal.

Kevin Connery wrote:
I will make no direct comment as to this particular concept other than to ask whether you understand the issues surrounding cutting, or are just looking for a "cool visual".

Searcher wrote:
The visual. Not immediately interested in neuroses that would cause someone to cut themselves with a razor. That was just an extreme example of something requiring a level of commitment.

What 'art' would you be creating with this, then? A visually interesting picture with no underlying meaning hardly seems like art (by my definitions).

Searcher wrote:
Someone already inclined to cut themselves would be a bad choice for the shot.

Why? If all you want is the visual, what difference does it make that your subject is--or isn't--interested in the acts being depicted?

C David Stephens wrote:
I thought you'd be the one to suffer for your art. I'm happy just faking it.

Searcher wrote:
That's sad.

Actually, it's very much on-point.

You're asking someone else to suffer for your art. If you feel this strongly about it, set up the camera, run a remote, and shoot yourself.

Searcher wrote:
That was just an extreme example of something requiring a level of commitment.

Right. Someone else to commit to your art.

"That's sad."

Renata Brazilia wrote:
I understand that you definitely take pride in being "shocking" which is fine. Many have done this and many will. It's a very frequent, accepted theme.  Some of my favourite artists--Jan Svankmajer, Barney, etc have done this.

However, breaking barriers for the sake of art and knowledge and hurting people have moral barriers.

In an extreme example, how would you feel about a young child being killed for the sake of art, for example.

Without art there is no reason to live. Without life there is no reason to have art. Killing destroys art, so one could never kill for the sake of art. There could be no graver mistake.

Searcher wrote:
Without art there is no reason to live. Without life there is no reason to have art. Killing destroys art, so one could never kill for the sake of art. There could be no graver mistake.

This is a big statement, however flawed, but does not relate to what I said. A red herring of sorts.

But to make this quick, let's replace KILL with RAPE.

Renata Brazilia wrote:
It's like saying--I want to take pictures of dead people but I want to kill them myself.

I think it is like that, but it is not that.

Renata Brazilia wrote:
This is a big statement, however flawed, but does not relate to what I said.

But to make this quick, let's replace KILL with RAPE.

That might be interesting to shoot, but one would get into more trouble than it is worth. Though, you would never know for sure unless you carried it out.

Searcher wrote:
I think of my studio like an indian sweat lodge. I want pain and struggle and chaos and introspection to show in my images, so I want them on the set.

Hmm. You also want most models on MM to get nose jobs. You want models to suffer.

You've been here a year and a half, and a quick peek at your port shows.... well, a lack of suffering on your own part.

Searcher wrote:
But that's the point. Why paint the painting if you know everything about why you're painting it?

That depends. Are you "painting" (photographing) for therapy, or to communicate with others?

Kevin Connery wrote:
Why? If all you want is the visual, what difference does it make that your subject is--or isn't--interested in the acts being depicted?

It's not about the acts, it's about the eyes.

Kevin Connery wrote:

That depends. Are you "painting" (photographing) for therapy, or to communicate with others?

I only know after.

Stephen Melvin wrote:

Hmm. You also want most models on MM to get nose jobs. You want models to suffer.

You've been here a year and a half, and a quick peek at your port shows.... well, a lack of suffering on your own part.

See the note in my bio. I don't really show my work in the MM portfolio. Those are... curiosities.

Searcher wrote:
That might be interesting to shoot, but one would get into more trouble than it is worth. Though, you would never know for sure unless you carried it out.

I went to the grocery store today and got the best apples.

Renata Brazilia wrote:

I went to the grocery store today and got the best apples.

What kind?

Kevin Connery wrote:
That depends. Are you "painting" (photographing) for therapy, or to communicate with others?

Searcher wrote:
I only know after.

So it's therapy while you're shooting, and sometimes results in something you can use to communicate. That's fair. What's odd is that you've indicated that other participants should be willing to commit themselves to what may well only be therapy for you.

Searcher wrote:
What is being presented is too obviously stemming from personal ticks and not a broader understanding of humanity.

Presenting something that will portray a broader understanding of humanity usually requires having that broader understanding before trying to portray it.

Searcher wrote:
See the note in my bio. I don't really show my work in the MM portfolio. Those are... curiosities.

Yeah, I saw that. More likely a copout, IMO.

David Stephens wrote:
You're asking someone else to suffer for your art. If you feel this strongly about it, set up the camera, run a remote, and shoot yourself.

You skipped replying to that one.

Searcher wrote:
See the note in my bio. I don't really show my work in the MM portfolio. Those are... curiosities.

I asked you to link something?

Kevin Connery wrote:
So it's therapy while you're shooting, and sometimes results in something you can use to communicate. That's fair. What's odd is that you've indicated that other participants should be willing to commit themselves to what may well only be therapy for you.

That's why my art shoots are TYC.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Presenting something that will portray a broader understanding of humanity usually requires having that broader understanding before trying to portray it.

You're saying that you assume that sort of understanding is not innate, if latent, in all human beings. I do not.

Searcher wrote:
No, it's more that I can't point to one or two images and say "that sums up everything I'm working toward," because I'm in the middle of finding it.

I can't point to any of my images and say that is exactly what I am working toward, but I can point to what I have and say this is where I am in the process that I have committed to.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
What exactly did you want out of this thread?

Catharsis.

Maynard Southern wrote:

I can't point to any of my images and say that is exactly what I am working toward, but I can point to what I have and say this is where I am in the process that I have committed to.

I'm not ready to share yet.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
What exactly did you want out of this thread?

I jump in...

I bottom line the thread...

It's all about Manipulation and Control...

I jump out

ForeverFotos wrote:
What you are trying to portray is not really new... war correspondents and forensic photograpers do this daily. The only difference is that you would like to create these scenes yourself. That difference is what is disturbing to most people. If this is what you really want to do, try taking your camera into a war zone. Capture the horrors you can find there... that kind of art might help to make a real difference.

I have already seen those horrors. Among others.

Searcher wrote:

Catharsis.

Remember to flush.

Renata Brazilia wrote:
How come models want to bring escorts?

apple said this

Don't troll in my thread. I'm serious about these issues.

Im'age NY (INY) wrote:
I jump in...

I bottom line the thread...

It's all about Manipulation and Control...

I jump out

Yes, it is. So is your apostrophe.

Searcher wrote:
Don't troll in my thread. I'm serious about these issues.

Dude, I dont think you are--whatever we all like attention. What is this reply "I think it is like that, but it is not that." Are you trying to do a cheesy "c'est ne pas une pipe" reference?

But ARE serious when you say that committing rape for a photograph would be interesting but is too much trouble?

uugh i dont like this being an argument thread. tadida. i guess i should stop posting this is silly.

Searcher wrote:
I think of my studio like an indian sweat lodge. I want pain and struggle and chaos and introspection to show in my images, so I want them on the set.

In the London Times, Alan Hamilton wrote:
The American actor Dustin Hoffman, playing a victim of imprisonment and torture in the film The Marathon Man, prepared himself for his role by keeping himself awake for two days and nights. He arrived at the studio disheveled and drawn to be met by his co-star, Laurence Olivier.

"Dear boy, you look absolutely awful," exclaimed the First Lord of the Theatre. "Why don't you try acting? It's so much easier."

Sir Ian McClellan on acting

Searcher wrote:
Don't troll in my thread. I'm serious about these issues.

This is BCG, right?

W.G. Rowland wrote:

Remember to flush.

That's crude.

Maynard Southern wrote:
This is BCG, right?

No.

Renata Brazilia wrote:
But ARE serious when you say that committing rape for a photograph would be interesting but is too much trouble?

uugh i dont like this being an argument thread. tadida. i guess i should stop posting this is silly.

No more silly than asking that question in the first place.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
as someone suggested before (but you failed to respond to)...

Setup the camera, cut yourself up, and use the remote to shoot the pictures.. that is true commitment per your definition

Doesn't work. Hands have to be on the camera, on the lens, feet moving in, shoulder twisting out. The choreography of the moments is too unpredictable to allow capture by presupposition.

Searcher wrote:
I think of my studio like an indian sweat lodge. I want pain and struggle and chaos and introspection to show in my images, so I want them on the set.

In the London Times, Alan Hamilton wrote:
The American actor Dustin Hoffman, playing a victim of imprisonment and torture in the film The Marathon Man, prepared himself for his role by keeping himself awake for two days and nights. He arrived at the studio disheveled and drawn to be met by his co-star, Laurence Olivier.

"Dear boy, you look absolutely awful," exclaimed the First Lord of the Theatre. "Why don't you try acting? It's so much easier."

And how does it relate to what I said? Don't just set it up, finish the thought.