Porn or Art?

[Stormsong]

Originally Posted by Cathus

It got a second place, not the winner.

You can see the winner (& the second place) on this page.

Interesting to read the comments on that page!

[amk1977]

I read the comments too, including the thousand word essay, giving us a crash course in the English language, syntax and some geography thrown in for good measure. What it seemed to suggest was that the title was more important in this photo than the actual image itself. While I agree that the title of a photograph is important, by far and away the image should be able to stand on its own, conveying a message. The photograph in question fails to achieve this.

Controversy gets publicity, which sells tickets. I struggle to see how a photograph that has little visual impact (even with her "giblets" out) and lack lustre compostional or technical attributes would merit such an accolade, if it wasn't an attempt to get tongues wagging and bums on seats. I'm pretty certain there were a multitude of much more deserving photographs entered, that were passed over in favour of My British Wife.

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by amk1977

Controversy gets publicity, which sells tickets. I struggle to see how a photograph that has little visual impact (even with her "giblets" out) and lack lustre compostional or technical attributes would merit such an accolade, if it wasn't an attempt to get tongues wagging and bums on seats. I'm pretty certain there were a multitude of much more deserving photographs entered, that were passed over in favour of My British Wife.

I don't thiink its porn and not that controversial when you look at it and compare it to the work of others, Nan Goldin for example. She photographs her friends, many of who are homosexual, transexual etc in all kinds of nude poses. There is even one of her male friend masturbating. It is the sort of art photography that does sell and I know in the first year of college we did a project called the body and we were told to look at the work of Nan Goldin, Bill brandt, Edward Weston etc, all who had made nude photographs. Does it have shock value simply because the general public has access? Normally anyone not interested in photography would never get to see that kind of work. Is it the public that is more shocked or does the photographic community share the same sentiments? I just don't know.

Karen

[amk1977]

I hear what you are saying Karen but for me, and I'm assuming from what I've read here and elsewhere, many other people too, the controversy doesn't lie so much with the fact that the subject is exposing herself but, moreover that the image as a whole lacks anything of merit and certainly not worthy of accolade that its been awarded.

For me there was no visual impact, either in the cropped or full version. It didn't convey a message to me. It didn't tell a story. I wasn't drawn into the photo or find any aesthetically pleasing elements. My honest reaction to it when I saw the cropped photo was a raised eyebrow and a thought of "what's so special about that??". When I saw the full version, the other eyebrow went up and a thought of "oooooookay... what's so special about that??" lol.

That to me, is where the controversely lies. Without wanting to sound obtuse... it's just a bloody awful photo. I would like to have seen the images that were not chosen. That really would be interesting to see.

[GeoffWessex]

Quite right.... if the lady had been wearing jeans it just wouldn't have been looked at twice. So we have to assume that the shock value has paid off handsomely. And I'm certainly not convinced by all this cobblers about the title having many meanings - 'My' as a possession, 'British' as some kind of moral observation of one nationality by another, and back to the 'Wife' signifying 'ownership' ...... I didn't know a title was important in a photograph - unless it's so obscure that the photographer thinks the public needs some help.

[mondmagu]

I agree with greenwing, I am sure there are thousands of these type of shots on the net or in magazines.There is nothing special about this photo and I cannot see how it won a prize.

[Eyeayen]

Do you think they just entered it for a laugh or it was lost in the post when it should have been going to some readers wives thing ?

[GeoffWessex]

Good point! Maybe the "Readers' Wives" section of some top-shelf magazine are wondering what's so saucy about the 'other' picture that the twerp sent - with his wife sitting demurely by the beach in her cardigan.

[KeithT]

It might have originally been sent to her mum and dad for Christmas. They would would have been proud of their little Rose bud!

[Bristles]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no disrespect intended but if that was my wife's vag**a I would have kept it covered up