CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17013238
Your point is well taken. On the same note, having not seen the image, can you really be so sure you should be defending it so forcefully? How you can be so strident in challenging our opinions, (which after all our only our own, and thus not likely to be easily quantified) when you too have nothing to base it on?
Me, I'm taking the OPs words at face value. I'm believing him, as I have no reason not to. That's just a choice I made. I could be wrong, happens all the time.
I suppose we could all just not comment, in essence that's what many of us did, with nothing to go on, instead we posted jokes.
Empathy is what made me post my latest post. Empathy with the OP and Tanker. After all the jokes, it occurred to me that some people were being affected by this, even if they had not seen the image. Although hearing about this did not affect me, I could understand that it could have an affect on people, and felt bad for just posting jokes.
I hope this explains to you how some people could comment without seeing the image.
Well, my intent isn't really to defend the images at all. After all, I haven't seen them so for all I know they could be complete crap. Basically the thing about this topic that is really grinding my gears is the implicit notion of reductionism. That we can take a photo, compress it into a 100 word description, then determine it to be tasteless because it contains x (in this case, the use of dead animal parts). It's not that way. It can't be that way, because if it were, then what the hell are we all doing? We can't reduce art into a mathematical formula and then say that it must have this element or must not have that element. That is a dangerous line of thought, and we're all playing into it when we make these kinds of assumptions. Regardless of whether or not the image is garbage, we have to see it or else we don't know a damn thing about it.
Me? I don't take ANYONE'S words at face value when regarding a photograph or a movie or a painting or a song or anything else that doesn't solely operate by word. If the source material wasn't solely words, then you can't adequately describe it based on someone's typed description. That's just how it works. A written description necessarily leaves information out. I don't trust ANYONE to be so good with words that they adequately represent a photograph with a typed description. You can talk all day about how good an image is, but you don;'t really know how good it is until you see it. You can talk all day about how bad an image is, but you don;t know how bad it is unless you've seen it.
But hey...let's suppose that the images are garbage. That still doesn't answer the question of WHY they are garbage. There are a lot of people who can photograph a pile of guts or feces and make it look good, and there are also people who can't make a good photograph to save their lives and only photograph guts and gore because that's the only way they know to get attention. With that in mind, I'm not entirely clear what the topic is about. Even if the images suck, why do they suck? Do they suck because of the gore, or do they suck simply because they have no photographic merit? That is a big issue. Is a stunningly well shot photograph of gore still bad because of the gore? On the other hand, is a snapshot of gore bad because of the gore, or is it bad because it's just a simple careless snapshot? These actually are inrtesting things to discuss, but what basis is there for discussion without examples to reference to?