Nemi Bea wrote:
I have seen several requests floating about for 9/11 themed shots.

Don't.
Just don't.

It is near impossible to pull off something that isn't trashy,cheesy or otherwise repugnant, I have yet to hear a concept that doesn't make me cringe.


The American flag is not a pretty colored toga.

Nobody wants to see your trampy ass wrapped in the flag, with some combat boots on, biting your nail with the words " NEVAR FORGET 9/11" etched in with MS paint. Nobody.

Seriously, was the movie not enough for you guys?
Give it a rest.

WTF is a 9/11 themed shoot. 

I here ya Nemi.

swhnyc wrote:
A June 9th themed shoot, however, is more than welcome.

Think about it.

Not sure what I'm supposed to be thinking about...but yes, a June 9th shoot is more than welcome.

Nemi Bea wrote:
Don't.
Just don't.

Thank you.  Thank you.

swhnyc wrote:
A June 9th themed shoot, however, is more than welcome.

Think about it.

Or a November 9 themed shoot.

Don't think about it.

Nemi Bea wrote:
I have seen several requests floating about for 9/11 themed shots.

Don't.
Just don't.

This is the patch my squadron designed during OEF.  As you can see on the date, my airwing (Carrier Air Wing 11) participated in the first 3 months of OEF back in the fall of 2001.  USS Carl Vinson flew the first airstrikes against the Taliban on 7th October, 2001.  I still wear this patch on my flight jacket today.

missing fingers product wrote:
as a artist , i really think we have to touch even the touchiest subjects esp 9-11.  why should we censor ourselves? seriously a 9-11 theme shoot can be done but ya its gonna get you tons of flak, perhaps a death threat or more and you might have to go into hiding.  but all done in the name of creative freedom.  i have some ideas for a shoot but ill prob get tons of shit for it so ill keep it to myself.

you shouldn't do it cause i might have to kill you for doing so. no, i dont need the memory of family and friends to become fodder for some faux art garbage. if you had images of the event itself thats a completely other story. but 9-11 themed shoot? its called exploitive.

oldguysrule wrote:

you shouldn't do it cause i might have to kill you for doing so. no, i dont need the memory of family and friends to become fodder for some faux art garbage. if you had images of the event itself thats a completely other story. but 9-11 themed shoot? its called exploitive.

Oldguy:  How do you feel about the recent "9/11" themed movies?  I think they were done in good taste and to honor those who sacrificed their lives to save others and those innocently lost.

Lots of "art" has been created to honor/commerate tragic events or human loss.

The Black wall (Vietnam War memorial) comes to mind, as does the reflection pool.  I have seen lots of tattoos to the same effect.  Since when was it taboo to help ease the pain of suffering thru art?   As long as it is done in good taste, their is nothing wrong with it.  In fact, the two towers of light was an artistic homage, was it not?

W.G. Rowland wrote:
The nice thing about propoganda in the modern age is, with the #1 concern being for the almighty dollar, they won't force me to see any propoganda because they would then lose the opportunity to charge me for it.

brilliant ... cynical and brilliant

gdsandy wrote:
Telling stories of atrocities is a way of ensuring that the lessons learned from them endure.

and the lesson here is? bodies tend to splatter when falling 100 stories? flesh kinda stinks when it's burnt? ... please don't tell me that the lesson to be learned is vigilence against terrorism... or is the lesson learned that we shouldn't fly planes in buildings?

no... the enduring lesson here is life sucks. its not fair. and i miss my nephew and i miss my friends. there is no enduring lesson of the heroics of so many who will ultimately succumb to the illnesses acquired there. its good politics, but what is it we will learn?

Nemi Bea wrote:
I have seen several requests floating about for 9/11 themed shots.

Don't.
Just don't.

It is near impossible to pull off something that isn't trashy,cheesy or otherwise repugnant, I have yet to hear a concept that doesn't make me cringe.


The American flag is not a pretty colored toga.

Nobody wants to see your trampy ass wrapped in the flag, with some combat boots on, biting your nail with the words " NEVAR FORGET 9/11" etched in with MS paint. Nobody.

Seriously, was the movie not enough for you guys?
Give it a rest.

Thank you, nothing irritates me more than someone playing off tragedies like that.

oldguysrule wrote:

and the lesson here is? bodies tend to splatter when falling 100 stories? flesh kinda stinks when it's burnt? ... please don't tell me that the lesson to be learned is vigilence against terrorism... or is the lesson learned that we shouldn't fly planes in buildings?

They may be the lessons that you take from that day but many others will have different slants on it.  For me personally it is that a countries actions overseas has domestic impact.  Rightly or wrongly, there is a part of the world that thinks terrorism is the only weapon of the disenfranchised.  When you have a government intervening accross the globe and a nation of people with cheap air tickets but no passports, one lesson to be learned from that day is in the subject of geopolitics.

Leo Howard wrote:
Thank you, nothing irritates me more than someone playing off tragedies like that.

What about the movie Pearl Harbor? Made over $200 million in the US alone.

What about the movie Titanic? Made over $600 million in the US alone.

As an ex-lover once said to me, "One generations tragedy is another generations entertainment."

Seems she was right...

E|||B wrote:

What about the movie Pearl Harbor? Made over $200 million in the US alone.

What about the movie Titanic? Made over $600 million in the US alone.

As an ex-lover once said to me, "One generations tragedy is another generations entertainment."

Seems she was right...

I didnt go see either movie, and I never would.

Nihilus wrote:
More knee-jerk, emotive responses in here than I had expected to see.

There will be those that aim to capture the events objectively and devoid from emotion (in the eyes of a historian...as aptly hinted at by EMB's post). From such a detached eye, IMO, would come the purest symbolism (based on the quality of the creator/creatrix's craft). This should not be slapped with an automatic censor sticker with an appeal to emotion as the sole basis for the reaction.

Then, there will be those who aim to create visual symbology of the events to express their feelings (whatever they may be) about the traumas of those days. To that extent, it is a personal catharsis to a sense of his/her own seeking of a sense of closure. Will you be the hypocrite that robs that from them?

Nobody would bat an eyelash if the means of expression about these events were in the medium of poetry...but should someone seek to bring life to those words with visuals, then we raise the red flag?

'Freedom of expression' does not equal 'freedom of expression so long as it does not offend me'.

Artists (if we would call ourselves that) should know this better than anyone.

I would never, ever move to try and take away their right to free speach in whatever form it takes, but that doesnt mean I have to like what they are doing, this is America, they have the right to make a statement, I have the right to not like it, but my right to not like it does not hold more power than their right to free speach, but I too have the right to free speach, to speak out against that which I feel is wrong, as long as both sides are civil about it, we can agree to disagree.

Leo Howard wrote:
I would never, ever move to try and take away their right to free speach in whatever form it takes, but that doesnt mean I have to like what they are doing, this is America, they have the right to make a statement, I have the right to not like it, but my right to not like it does not hold more power than their right to free speach, but I too have the right to free speach, to speak out against that which I feel is wrong, as long as both sides are civil about it, we can agree to disagree.

Curious question. Honestly not intending to bait, I'm just curious about the thoughts with those who would claim to be offended by attempts of this kind:

If the image is created/taken/birthed by someone who has had personal loss/emotional-investment in the tragedies, would you be more prone to consider the beauty/moral/intent/artistry behind it? For instance, let's say someone who lost an immediate family member due to the events.

This is what I was alluding to in my second example. I have a suspicion that the very emotive reasons that people are getting initially bothered by due to these potential attempts would empathize with someone who would do it in an expressive form of personal therapy.

The other situation, however, I don't think would be met with such leniency...although I personally would find it more true to the reality of it. Then again, though...there is no real way to gauge which (or other) would be the case just by the image alone...