Thoughts on people using a cut off animals head in photos?

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17010397
If you can't get their attention with talent, shock them instead.

That's the way I see this type of behavior.

People often say "wow" about Madonna and Howard Stern. What geniuses, right?

No. The way I see it is that we were doing the same, immature disgusting things with our friends during middle school (making sexual jokes, walking around in wedgie underwear to make friends laugh, farting in someone's face, etc.). The difference is that some people do it in public when they are adults (again, Howard Stern, Andrew Dice Clay...the list goes on) and crowds eat it up because they miss those immature days during the wild ride of puberty.

Some of us grew up and don't need to shock others to get attention.

I'm not referring to the images here (like I said, I haven't seen them), but I think it's a little bit wrong to completely dismiss the talent of the people that you've mentioned. See, here's the thing: being "shocking" is not hard. It's about the easiest thing a person can do. If it were that easy to become extremely successful just by being shocking, then a hell of a lot more people would be doing it. The ones that people are talking about are the ones who are good at it, and yes that does require talent. Anyone can tell a dirty joke and cuss a lot, but most of them can't hold an audience's attention as well as Andrew Dice Clay.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17009298
Mmmmm Soused Hogs face. Delicious. Head cheese, Scrapple... yummy stuff.

Farm boy, and we ate every part.

Careful, Jake! After all, you are what you eat.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17009298
Mmmmm Soused Hogs face. Delicious. Head cheese, Scrapple... yummy stuff.

Farm boy, and we ate every part.

Scrapple . . . yummmm!

I grew up in Philly, and ate scrapple regularly. I can't even get it out here in the west. Folks out here have never even heard of it. I miss scrapple (and yes, I do know what's in it).

Is it really that different to taking a picture of someone with a spare rib, steak or perhaps those heathens who eat cut off chicken legs and cook them in a finger licking good batter?

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17011268
Is it really that different to taking a picture of someone with a spare rib, steak or perhaps those heathens who eat cut off chicken legs and cook them in a finger licking good batter?

Yes, it is really different.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17011271
Yes, it is really different.

How so? Because one you can more easily convince yourself that it doesn't come from a formerly living being that could feel pain, express basic emotions, etc?

I'm well aware of where my bacon comes from, and have eaten more than a few animals that I had helped feed and played with, but I don't lie to myself about what happens to bring tasty food to my plate.

Luckless wrote in post #17011294
How so?

In your hypothetical case, the animal was killed to provide food. Whether you agree with this or not, that was why the animal was killed, and its appearance in the photograph is incidental to the subject, which is a person who is eating. The point of the photo isn't "Hey, look at this carcass." It is about the person.

In the second case, whatever reason the animal was killed, the head is being used for sport, for a prop, as a laugh. The photograph is about the carcass. Nobody in the photo is eating the animal and the reason for the animal's death is at the least obscure.

You asked what the difference is, and in my mind that is the difference and it is significant.

I'd react very differently to a photo of someone with bloody animal parts if it were made to educate people who want to learn butchering than if it were made because someone thought it was entertaining. In the second case, I'd choose to stay away from the person. Preoccupation with death, mutilation, dismemberment, and blood is a sign of going too deeply into the darkside.

OhLook wrote in post #17011320
I'd react very differently to a photo of someone with bloody animal parts if it were made to educate people who want to learn butchering than if it were made because someone thought it was entertaining. In the second case, I'd choose to stay away from the person. Preoccupation with death, mutilation, dismemberment, and blood is a sign of going too deeply into the darkside.

My point exactly. I would expect a bunch of photographers at the least to understand that the subject and purpose of a photo is more important than just what is in it.

As you noted, there are all kinds of reasons you could have a photo with a dead hog (or parts of a dead hog) in it. One could be a shot of people enjoying a barbecue. Another could be a manual on hog butchering. Or a third could be some kind of macabre death scene.

Just because a dead hog is in all three images doesn't make them similar.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17011324
My point exactly. I would expect a bunch of photographers at the least to understand that the subject and purpose of a photo is more important than just what is in it.

As you noted, there are all kinds of reasons you could have a photo with a dead hog (or parts of a dead hog) in it. One could be a shot of people enjoying a barbecue. Another could be a manual on hog butchering. Or a third could be some kind of macabre death scene.

Just because a dead hog is in all three images doesn't make them similar.

What's mindboggling is how a bunch of photographers are discussing the subject and purpose of a photo that hasn't even been shown. Until we see the image, how can anyone know what the image is saying? People here are posting comments expressing that such photographs are tasteless or disrespectful, and that the photographers are being shocking in order to compensate for a lack of talent, but I genuinely want to know how anyone can have a basis for making these claims without seeing the photographs.

Clean Gene wrote in post #17011476
What's mindboggling is how a bunch of photographers are discussing the subject and purpose of a photo that hasn't even been shown. Until we see the image, how can anyone know what the image is saying? People here are posting comments expressing that such photographs are tasteless or disrespectful, and that the photographers are being shocking in order to compensate for a lack of talent, but I genuinely want to know how anyone can have a basis for making these claims without seeing the photographs.

Although I'd also like to see the photograph, I don't know how it is necessary to do so in this case, as what is being discussed are principles regarding the acceptable use/representation of dead animals in photographs, in general.

Yes, the specific photo the OP is mentioning may be interesting, but it does not detract from the more general discussion not to see it. It may make it easier, if anything.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17011250
Scrapple . . . yummmm!

I grew up in Philly, and ate scrapple regularly. I can't even get it out here in the west. Folks out here have never even heard of it. I miss scrapple (and yes, I do know what's in it).

It's still a regular breakfast item for me. I can get it frozen at the grocery store (Jones) but it sure doesn't compare to what my old Mom used to make on the farm from our own hogs.

With two eggs over light, It'd be a toss up between scrapple and really good home made corned beef hash for my perfect breakfast.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17011313
In your hypothetical case, the animal was killed to provide food. Whether you agree with this or not, that was why the animal was killed, and its appearance in the photograph is incidental to the subject, which is a person who is eating. The point of the photo isn't "Hey, look at this carcass." It is about the person.

In the second case, whatever reason the animal was killed, the head is being used for sport, for a prop, as a laugh. The photograph is about the carcass. Nobody in the photo is eating the animal and the reason for the animal's death is at the least obscure.

You asked what the difference is, and in my mind that is the difference and it is significant.

I see your point, but, I think it's about 100% likely the pig in question was eaten.

I guess it's almost like a disrpectful thing. We all (well mostly) love eating chicken, and certainly know they are "slaughtered", but how many want to see a picture of one running around after it's head had just been chopped off?

Yeah, we kill animals to eat.. but, do we..or should we..make make complete light of that? When i was a teen, i would have positively said.. "why not"!?!?

Now as i approach 50, i don't see the humor (and i have a pretty good, and pretty dark/raunchy/dirty, etc. sense of humor).

As i said earlier, though.. to each their own. I like horror movies, some don't.

**And BTW.. i'm not a tree-hugger, nor a PETA-type person**

Well I agree there, I don't see the humor or aesthetic value either. Kind of stupid and kind of sick.