How far is "too far" in the creation of art?

[ken1953]

Because of the current discussion over Steve Jones' "Gasoline Art", I felt it might be a good topic for this forum. HOW FAR IS "TOO FAR" IN THE CREATION OF ART? What would you do or not do to create your art?

Over the years, I've seen and heard many forms of art that totally disgusted me, but, to each his own I usually always felt. For example, in todays society, we accept a lot of artistic license, such as extreme body piercing and tatooing, desecrating of national and religious icons, the use of disgusting materials, etc. all in the creation of "ART".

It's very obvious that we, as artists, must always make a decision as to "how far is too far"!

It would be interesting to see what everyone thinks. I don't want this to become a flame thread, but would like some serious discussion on the subject. Remember, we all have our own opinions on things, and although, Steve did something we all feel was very improper, he did achieve his goal of shocking us all and invoking a very heated discussion and he did create some interesting photos. Was it "too far"? Did we carry it "too far" when we allowed the subject to go beyond a discussion of art and how it was created to a religious discussion? How far would you go to create a project, and how far would you go to argue your point or right to produce your art?

Let's hear what you have to say!!!

Ken

[swmdrayfan]

Ahhh, Ken---a discussion of the perception of art and how far would we go to create it---a marvelous topic. This should be pretty stimulating, and I hope a lot of people put in their 2 cents worth. As for me, my perception is...how does the particular piece I'm seeing speak to me? I don't think you can limit it to strictly photography or paintings. John Ford, for example was a master craftsman as a director. His panoramas in "The Searchers", "Stagecoach", "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" , and most of his other westerns were truely works of art. He used the landscape as his canvas. Ansel Adams...well I don't think I have to expound on him. Picasso, Dali, VanGoh...all great painters. Mozart, Beethoven, and the great composers created master works that speak to everyone.
How far does one go to create art? Good question---speaking strictly for myself, I want to photograph something that evokes some kind of emotion. I haven't gotten there yet, but I know I won't need to desecrate the land to do it. I think photographers as a whole (at least the ones I've seen here) look for something that strikes a positive chord with those who look at their pictures. Avant Garde is one thing---intentionally polluting the evironment is another. I'll stand on my head, lay sideways, hold the camera over my head, or put weird filters on in my imaging software if I think it will evoke a response. I think we all have to live within the boundaries we establish for ourselves, and certainly those within the law. If I feel uncomfortable doing it, people are going to feel uncomfortable looking at it. A picture of my beagle might be art---a picture of my beagle's poop isn't. But then again, who's to say? Pictures of people having sex is considered porn--pictures of animals having sex is considered nature photography. Perception is everything. Sorry to be so verbose.

[ken1953]

Your reply is very similar to my point of view on the subject, swm...and it is exactly the type of thing I am looking for in this thread. I for one, to steer a different direction than just Steve Jones ideas, have a real problem with bondage and sadomasochistic art. I have to wonder what these peoples real lives are like. However, I am not opposed to sexual art, as I see sex as a beautiful expression between 2 people. That said tho', I really don't like "porn". I think it's the manner in which it is presented. Much porn is done by people who got into it by other than "artistic" means, and the intent is to produce a sexual reaction not an artistic reaction.
Any more ideas out there...let's hear them.
Ken

[darkman]

[/font] Pictures of people having sex is considered porn--pictures of animals having sex is considered nature photography. Perception is everything. Sorry to be so verbose. [/QUOTE]


This is a tough topic not to be verbose on! To me, perception in our society (I'm considering the US) is bizarre. I've shown people nudes in which nothing can be seen that offended them. Then, those same people talk about some prime time TV show they saw and how great it is. For some reason that I don't understand, when they showed a nude of an actor it was OK! I guess being naked on a set isn't nude? However, not only is it nude, it's usually involved with the direct act of sex.

Conversely, I was looking through a very popular photo site that has lots of risque photo's. Later, I was then walking through an airport in Zurich and saw a girl in one of the photos I liked on the cover of a porn magazine! I picked up the mag and looked through it. Behold, the pages were filled with girls that I saw pictures of on this site. Should I not like this, or any other, photo(s) anymore? Should I not visit that site? I don't, but not necessarily for this example, but for other work which I do consider porn. I suppose, in a way, being enlightened by that mag broke the camel's back. It's a strange dilema indeed. Obviousely, whatever the reason the photographer was taking pictures for, they're talanted.

I must confess I don't know the answer to how far it too far. It's like some of the other "what is art" discussions. For some people a photo needs to be dark like an E. Munch, others need some serendipitous capture, others it has to be b&w, and some need it to be a something that's done to the image after capture. The list goes on. Probably more so when people try and argue something can't be art! I don't think there's a clear answer. And even within these answers there's shades of gray.

Mike

[payn817]

Ahhh...IMO, too far is simple enough. If it physically harms a living creature, it is too far. If it could offend, then it should be shown in acceptable venues, and shown to people that are willing to view the material. If it destroys another's property, it is also too far.

Porn in itself, again IMO is likely never even slightly considered art. However, I appreciate some of the "bondage" art I have seen. Not the really wild stuff, but nice gritty b&w with interesting lighting, etc..

I believe that if an individual really feels that they are creating art, they will try to find a group that accepts their work. For example, this steve guy, if he were truly trying to impress with art he would have found a specific group, not just a forum with a large variety of photographers, as he should know many photographers are nature lovers, and would be angered by such an act. Many of my works are never shown on the internet, because it is controversial (and has been called evil and many other things), and often times looked upon in a very negative manner. However, I do show and sell that work, but to a target audience.

So, the answer...

If it doesn't harm anyone, or their property, and controversial content is kept in a manner in which people cannot see it unless they wish, then by all means, the sky is the limit.

[swmdrayfan]

Ken, Mike, and Payn...

These opinions now are leading us to the matter of tastes and style. And that goes hand in hand, I think, with the original question presented by Ken. Each of us is governed in some way by what we percieve to be in accord with our personal preferences. I am not put off by tastefully done nudes, or photos of a sexual nature such as referred to by you Ken...I don't think any of us are. Payn has a specific audience that he caters to, but in deference to those here who may be offended, doesn't post that work in this forum. (Hey, in my Navy days I was known to look at some questionable material myself...I'm no angel ;) ). Mike you make a good analogy with your statement regarding showing nudes, and the reaction from people who think nothing of nudity on TV.
As for style, well, I'm pretty much a meat and potatos guy, but I'm not so closed-minded that I won't look at what others have to show. There's a guy who was on another forum and his gallery consisted mainly of grainy b&w photos of stairwells, subway car interiors....stuff like that. Now, to me it was just a bunch of blurred, grainy stuff--not what I'd consider wall-hanging material. He did have a large following who ooooooh'd and aaaaaaaah'd over his stuff. Different strokes/different folks. I've seen a lot of mountain biking stuff here, and although I'm not into that, some is pretty good. I do baseball, and not everyone is into that, so I can understand. This forum has helped me come a long way in how I view what others want to express in their work. Is it style over substance, or the other way around?
The one thing everyone is 100% in accord with though, is that the end does not justify the means, as displayed by our misguided friend with the gasoline art.

[ken1953]

Taste vs. Style....no question about it. But we can't forget experience, ethics, morality, society, acceptance, reality, and many more I can't think of right now. Having been childless and mostly single until I was almost 30, I had different views on nudes and pornography, but since, I have raised 5 daughters, several foster daughters, and now have 3 granddaughters not to forget the several foster sons and my 4 grandsons, needless to say, my views now are quite different, but also tolerant. If one of my children were to decide on a life as a model, regardless of the venue, I would try to be accepting of them, whether I agree with it or not. However, if they were forced into that lifestyle by unscrupulous individuals and her life was in jeapordy, look out...someones gonna get hurt!!!!
To change the subject from nudes and porn because I don't want this to become a morality discussion...an example of something I'd never do, but, wouldn't deny a persons right to do it...is to burn the Flag. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but here in the US it's a pretty big deal. I support the flag in everyway, but when it comes down to it, the flag is only a piece of cloth. It is abused on a daily basis by good meaning Americans whose attempts to display the flag are actually desecrating it. I keep thinking of doing a series of "Desecrated American Flags on Display". These would be flags displayed not only by individuals and companies, but also, all government facilities who improperly display the flag!
In Wisconsin, my next subject could get me hung!!! haha...Hunting! I hunt with a camera. I despise hunting and hunters. Yes, I tolerate and love many of them...but I don't like the hunting aspect of them. As a photographer, I would never follow a hunting party, just to shoot their kills for posterity. Yet, this is perfectly acceptable to thousands of professional photographers. Just thinking of the life draining out of a beautiful creature, purely for sport, and then photographing everyone celebrating the kill...just will never happen for me.
This is just a few more things to think about for this topic. Any others?????
Ken

[darkman]

As for style, well, I'm pretty much a meat and potatos guy, but I'm not so closed-minded that I won't look at what others have to show. There's a guy who was on another forum and his gallery consisted mainly of grainy b&w photos of stairwells, subway car interiors....stuff like that. Now, to me it was just a bunch of blurred, grainy stuff--not what I'd consider wall-hanging material. He did have a large following who ooooooh'd and aaaaaaaah'd over his stuff. Different strokes/different folks. I've seen a lot of mountain biking stuff here, and although I'm not into that, some is pretty good. I do baseball, and not everyone is into that, so I can understand. This forum has helped me come a long way in how I view what others want to express in their work. Is it style over substance, or the other way around?
The one thing everyone is 100% in accord with though, is that the end does not justify the means, as displayed by our misguided friend with the gasoline art.

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication! But as I pointed out, many people like this kind of capture and see it more "artsy" than, for example, a well composed landscape. Especially if it's done in BW.

For my more "creative" work, I did one nude that my wife disliked. Yet, I've been asked to show it in several shows.

What I'm leading to is what others have stated. No matter the subject of the photo, in general it need to shown to the correct audience. Each person has their own likes and dislikes that aren't right or wrong, just different.

Mike

[swmdrayfan]

Interesting point about the flag, Ken. Something we see nearly every day, yet so easily taken for granted. How do we feel when we see people in foreign countries burning it, and so often ... as you say, we ourselves desecrate it by improperly displaying it. Still the flag is but cloth and thread, though the ideals behind it are what commands respect. Photographers have given us indelible images of the flag...hanging limply from the stern of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, the raising on Mt. Suribachi, and the three firemen at ground zero on 9/11--photos that convey the indomitable spirit of this country.

Mike, what you say about sports photography is right. I've taken some shots that others like, so I know I've done something right, but in general terms I wouldn't call it art. Nothing I've taken really stands out in the same context as say, the photo of Babe Ruth at his last appearance in Yankee Stadium before he died, or Cassius Clay standing over the prone Sonny Liston, or Y.A. Tittle, knees down on the ground, a line of blood trickling down the side of his head.

[photophorous]

Creating art is just like anything else we do in life. My motta has, and always will be, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's that simple. You should not harm anyone or anything, but if you are causing harm, you better have a good reason. And even so, getting into the 'ends justify the means' way of thinking, is particularly dangerous with something as subjective as art. You have to be pretty arogant to think whatever harm your causing with your art will have a net positive influence. Still, you should be free to affect the mood of the people experiencing your art, in what ever way you choose (disgust, outrage, etc.). They don't have to be part of it...as long as they know what they are experiencing is intended to be art, and not...say, actual Martians invading Earth.

This guy with the gasoline "art" is a whole different story. He's not an artist. I doubt he's even practiced much of what he preaches...if he's a photographer at all. I personally think he created that website and posted on this and other sites, just to stir up controversy. He gets pleasure from reading all the angry replies. His responses have been nonsensical. I can't fathom that he really believes what he says, unless he has very serious psychological problems...more serious than just taking pleasure in other peoples anger.

Back to my point on the ends justifying the means. Maybe Gasboy is a real environmentalist and thinks that by creating this controversy he'll make people think about polution more. Well, what if there's a bunch of kids out there taking his suggestions to heart and pouring gasoline in their neighborhood streams? Didn't work to well for him then. Trying to affect people in such a way is a very dangerous and irresponsible game to play. The risk is not worth it.

just my two pennies,
Paul

[swmdrayfan]

Paul, I have been thinking that very thing the last day or so. The guy probably is just jerking people around, and laughing at the responses. We're probably better served by not responding to his posts.

[adina]

And now he's got another thread started about his post.


As far as how far is too far, it varies on the individual. How far would I go? Not to far, but I don't think I'm making art. Few and far between I'll get a photo that seems like more than a child's portrait. Not that I'm dismissing portraits as wasting my time. But for me it's not about making art, it's about making a connection.

Is Irakly around? Ask him how far he'd go. Sure as hell a lot farther than I would. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe he fled his country for it. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

How far did Van Gogh take it? Well, he cut off his ear (although I happen to believe Gaugan drove him too it)

There is no right or wrong answer, or any limit or line that you can't cross. It all depends on your convictions and your beliefs.

[mjs1973]

There is no right or wrong answer, or any limit or line that you can't cross. It all depends on your convictions and your beliefs.

I think that sums it up pretty good.

You are right about Irakly too. Here is his Bio.

[ken1953]

I think that sums it up pretty good.

You are right about Irakly too. Here is his Bio.

I have not had a chance to really study a lot of Irakly's works, but most of what I've seen is fantastic. I'm wondering where he would be if "government" hadn't sidetracked him. It is extremely sad that a government can stifle anyones creativity. As a veteran, I "joined" to protect human rights, although, I'm not sure what good it did with the loss of freedoms we are now suffering even here in the United States. I do agree that there should be no limits, but, I also agree there should be a line drawn somewhere when it is actually detrimental to anything, including art. Where that line is...??? For some, damaging the environment, for others, defiling innocence, and then for some there is no line!!!!
I'm not an eloquent writer and have a hard time putting into words all I want to say, but I like where this thread is going, and I hope to hear lots of personal ideas on what is too far for them.
Ken

[mjs1973]

I almost hate to post these articles because I love this guys work, but I think they fit well with this discussion. I have a few of his posters hanging in my house and stop at his gallery everytime I go to Zion National Park.

Photographer admits fire role


By Angie Welling Deseret News staff writer Friday, December 7, 2001


The nature photographer accused of setting fires at Delicate Arch last year pleaded guilty Friday in federal court. Michael Fatali, Springdale, also pleaded guilty to setting two fires in Canyonlands National Park in August 1997. The 36-year-old professional photographer faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for each of the seven misdemeanor counts. Fatali also agreed to pay full restitution to the National Park Service for damage caused by the fires. Restoration is estimated at more than $16,000. On Sept. 18, 2000, Fatali led a group of amateur photographers to Delicate Arch to photograph the famous four-story sandstone arch, which is the backdrop of some Utah license plates. At his direction, Fatali's assistant and others from the group set two fires, one directly under the arch and another to the east of the structure. Aluminum baking pans brought along to contain the fire failed, and the flames scorched and discolored the sandstone. Fatali tried to stomp out the fires, but one was still burning when the group left the area.


Park visitors reported the damage to rangers the next morning. Officials were able to remove some of the scorch marks immediately, but remaining scars from the fire could not be removed because an oily or waxy stain had penetrated the rock. Fatali on Friday also admitted to starting two fires in Canyonlands National Park, the first on Aug. 12, 1997, at Horsehoof Arch and again on Aug. 13, 1997, at the Joint Trails Needles District. He used wood from within the park to start the two fires, he said. According to prosecutors, in November 2000 Fatali sent an e-mail message to members of the photography community apologizing for what happened, saying he "seriously regretted" the incident. "I simply screwed up," the message said. Defense attorney Kristine Rogers declined to comment Friday, saying Fatali would make a statement after his Feb. 1, 2002, sentencing hearing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Wayne Dance said Fatali fully acknowledged his criminal conduct by pleading guilty to all seven counts as charged. "It's a matter that's very serious," Dance said. "All of our national parks are for the enjoyment of future generations."

And one more...

Photographer Fatali Pleads Guilty in Fires Saturday, December 8, 2001


BY MICHAEL VIGH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE


Springdale nature photographer Michael Fatali pleaded guilty Friday to seven federal misdemeanors for starting fires in two Utah national parks, including a blaze that marred sandstone underneath Delicate Arch -- the state icon that graces some license plates.


Fatali, who started the fires to achieve dramatic lighting effects during photo shoots, faces up to 6 months in federal prison and a $5,000 fine on each count when he is sentenced in February. Fatali has agreed to pay restitution to the National Park Service, a sum that prosecutors estimate will be $16,000.


Fatali lit the fires with Duraflame logs on Sept. 18 and 19, 2000, to demonstrate to amateur photographers "nighttime photographic techniques," he admitted in a statement to prosecutors. The unauthorized fires scorched and discolored sections of sandstone beneath and next to Delicate Arch in Arches National Park, prosecutors say.


Fatali also admitted Friday that in August 1997 he set two fires at Canyonlands National Park that also damaged park resources.


Prosecutor Wayne Dance said Fatali's crimes have untold victims. Thousands of tourists visit the parks each year.


"Our national parks are here for the enjoyment of current and future generations," Dance said. "It's a matter that's very serious."


Fatali declined to comment and his attorney, Kristine Rogers, deferred comment until her client is sentenced on Feb. 1, 2001.


In his statement to prosecutors, Fatali said he brought aluminum pans to the shoots to contain the fire. The pans failed, however, and the Duraflame logs burned directly on the sandstone, causing damage directly under and to the west and east of the arch.


Fatali also said some of the sooty, oily residue was tracked onto the sandstone after he stomped on the duraflame logs. Fatali told U.S. Magistrate Samuel Alba he did not have a permit to light any of the fires.


Park visitors reported the damage to rangers the next morning.


Officials were able to remove some of the scorch marks immediately, but remaining scars from the fire have proven difficult for park service employees to eradicate.


On Aug. 12, 1997, Fatali used wood from Canyonlands National Park to build a fire at Horsehoof Arch. The next day, he did the same thing at a slot canyon known as "The Joint Trail."


Fatali, 36, who is known for his stunning images of Utah's desert landscapes, operates a gallery outside Zion National Park in Springdale and a photography school in nearby Rockville.

[ken1953]

Michael, I was watching The Travel Channel yesterday and they had a marathon of National Parks in the West and I kept being brought back to this post by you!! I feel that Mr. Fatali's motives were honorable and I know many fires have been started in these parks for millenia. I'm sure Mr. Fatali learned a very expensive lesson about thinking about the consequences before doing the action.
That being said, many people don't think and are only trying to create. I'm wondering if Steve Jones "knew" what the consequences were, but intentionally damaged the environment, or whether he just didn't think about his actions and was just trying to "create" an effect. I'm not trying to be diplomatic about this situation, but how many of us have done something stupid simply because we didn't think it out fully! Me for one!!
Ken

[JSPhoto]

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication!
Mike

Mike,

Interesting comments, especially since the sports editor I deal with the most calls my work art. They almost always use the ones I point out, and in most cases I could just send them those and nothing else. There are odd times those when they use the mundane shots over the spectacular jusat because of who is in the shot.

JS

[darkman]

Mike,

Interesting comments, especially since the sports editor I deal with the most calls my work art. They almost always use the ones I point out, and in most cases I could just send them those and nothing else. There are odd times those when they use the mundane shots over the spectacular jusat because of who is in the shot.

JS

Hi JS,

I'm not sure you took my comments in the context it was written in. Nor do I understand what your point is? I can generally tell what images the sports editors like. I know when to supply "mundane" shots because they'll want a picture of a person I didn't get a "spectacular" shot of.

Of course it's art. Almost any click of the shutter is IMO. So, yes, there's an element of art to it, but to me it's not "art." I liken it to comparing craft to folk art to fine art and all the shades in between. To me, sports photography falls in the craft to folk art range. Converseley, I 100% disagree with Adina saying her portrait work isn't art. It's just a different viewpoint. There's no correct answer.

mike

[masdog]

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication! But as I pointed out, many people like this kind of capture and see it more "artsy" than, for example, a well composed landscape. Especially if it's done in BW.

For my more "creative" work, I did one nude that my wife disliked. Yet, I've been asked to show it in several shows.

What I'm leading to is what others have stated. No matter the subject of the photo, in general it need to shown to the correct audience. Each person has their own likes and dislikes that aren't right or wrong, just different.

Mike

Darkman,

I also shoot sports for a college level Athletic Department, but I would have a hard time calling the images art. The school displays prints of some of the images, but they're not really artistic in any sense of the word.

Sean

[Michael Fanelli]

After reading all these comments, I just have to say: If art doesn't upset you it isn't doing its job. So much art we consider great today started with a vision that was often derided, ridiculed, and declared garbage. Good artists are brave people. Artists who are timid are forgotten.

Yes, if someone destroys other people's property, prosecute him/her. But that is such a minority that its no more than a footnote.

[megan]

have a real problem with bondage and sadomasochistic art. I have to wonder what these peoples real lives are like.

Hm, sometimes that sort of subject matter can be allegorical to other aspects of life. But in a realistic sense, I've got friends into BDSM who are very healthy and happy people. "Whatever floats your boat" and all that. Either way, it sounds that bondage/SM in art certainly strikes a chord with you, albeit a disturbed one, and has made you think.

[megan]

If it could offend, then it should be shown in acceptable venues, and shown to people that are willing to view the material.

Ah, yes, keeping things safe. Preaching to the converted, if you will. Keeping everyone satisfied with their complacence. WHY?? I ask. Being challenged causes dialogue, dialogue causes people to learn something about themselves and others, the world around them. Granted, I wouldn't take a 5 year old to, for example, some of the more risque Surrealist's work (as surrealists glorified the concept of bondage, sadism & masochism) because it might be too disturbing for a child's mind to process, but why NOT challenge the masses?


Megan

[ken1953]

Megan...thanks for your comments. To quote your last sentence to me "Either way, it sounds that bondage/SM in art certainly strikes a chord with you, albeit a disturbed one, and has made you think." The reason I started this thread was to get people to "think"! I, like you, have many friends and relatives in alternative lifestyles, including BDS&M as probably most of us do, whether we realize it or not. Some of my friends and family are in these lifestyles for the wrong reason, just as some of my "normal" friends are "normal" for the wrong reasons, probably including myself, and to emphasize, I may be considered normal on the outside, but far from it on the inside!!! hehe...
After many years of being involved with people from just about every walk of life, I hope that my tolerance is what I have learned most. I hope that the gist of this thread comes through that any thing is acceptable as long as people are not being hurt (against their will), and nature and wildlife is not being harmed in the production of art. It is however true, that BDS&M is not my cup of tea, but, I do accept it as an acceptable art form. And as long as you are enjoying whatever and you are not being forced into it for the wrong reason, then I support that decision whole-heartedly.
Tolerance and understanding is something I strive to live in my everyday life. That doesn't mean that I don't have opinions or that I should not state my opinions if they differ from others.
I'm really glad you responded as it did give me a chance to let you and others know that I support all artists and art. But I also have a few limitations on that support, none of which include the taking away of a persons right to choose.
That is what this thread is about, the right to choose to damage or not, to force or not to force, to choose or not to choose to participate or perform or view. This last sentence is very awdward and I apologize for my inability to word it better.
In closing Megan...and others...How far would you go in the creation of "art"????? I for one have not yet fully discovered exactly where my boundaries lie...but I look forward to the journey and hope I always make the right decisions. And if a photo session of a bds&m (or some other art form) ever presented itself correctly to me...I can't honestly say what I'd do...at this time!!!!
Ken

[payn817]

Ah, yes, keeping things safe. Preaching to the converted, if you will. Keeping everyone satisfied with their complacence. WHY?? I ask. Being challenged causes dialogue, dialogue causes people to learn something about themselves and others, the world around them. Granted, I wouldn't take a 5 year old to, for example, some of the more risque Surrealist's work (as surrealists glorified the concept of bondage, sadism & masochism) because it might be too disturbing for a child's mind to process, but why NOT challenge the masses?


Megan

Megan, perhaps you have taken that wrong. I don't mean to say people who already would be interested, but with people who are willing to view it. IOW, I wouldn't pass out fliers to an exhibit of erotica at a church or a pre-school. Nor would I lead people to think there would be no nudity in the exhibit. Simply, I would use descriptive words to give a hint (not totally give it away) at what may be seen.

If I know a photographer is known for wildlife photography, I expect to see wildlife at his exhibit (not that he doesn't do other work), but unless told otherwise, that is what I expect. I would not feel good if a bunch of elderly conservative people came to an exhibit with their grandchildren expecting to see flower macro (just an example) and I have a guy in a rubber mask with safety pins on his testicles being shown.

Perhaps, I am thinking of this in the wrong manner, as the only thing I see that could really offend would be sex related. All other topics are a different story. If you want to take pictures of dog crap and exhibit, Kudos and send em all an invite!

For what it's worth though, I do not consider myself an artist.

[megan]

Ken - thanks for your response, and thanks for not taking it offensively, but more as the sort of observation that it was!

How far would I go with my art? As a side note, I have tried the whole bondage theme thing with my work, and - well - to gank a word from one of the other threads here, it was "pretentious." It's not me, not what I'm about, but it was a good experiment, and I learned from it.

In my own personal approach to art, hm - Okay. There are the artists out there whose purpose is to blatantly provoke, shock, offend - they create art with the full intent and knowledge that it will cause some sort of outrage or sensation. Like that British conceptual artist who invited a whole bunch of A list people to a gala opening and they showed up and the gallery was closed, padlocked dark. They were furious, yet his intent was to demonstrate facets of privileedge and being left out. And that's okay, that is their thing. There are also artists whose intent is not to cause sensation, but end up doing it because of the power of their work/talent/other reasons. I think I'm the latter sort. Taking my work to the edge and then pushing those boundaries *for me* is a more personal thing; it's about my own internal boundaries than challenging society's boundaries. I'm not smart or clever enough to be the intentional provacateur. I recently did a series that I titled "new_venus" with which I updated the image and perception of how women are depicted in art through the centuries. I did an African America Venus de Milo, a smiling/anguished Medusa and several other themese. I don't think, all in all, it was offensive, but I did push my OWN boundaries in the sense that I went all out for the photographs, reshot, and got the images I had planned/went beyond the images I had planned in my mind instead of accepting the so-so results from the first shoot. I took nudes, which I had never done before. (I really need to put these up on my site.) While some people may have been repulsed by some of the images (color was intentionally off to influence mood, some of the models that I picked - on purpose - had nipple piercings etc.), and some were bold images, I didn't do it to cause sensation. (I need to find this guy's thread and see what the conversation is about!) I think that in order to truly achieve anything in your art whether you're an unkown like myself or a famous artist, you have to go as far as you can for your art - whether it's an internal or external struggle, you know? My thought is - why *wouldn't* you go all the way for your art? (Of course, as long as cute furry things or other people aren't injured) I think you should go as far as you can - and unfortunately, that's pretty ambiguous, and I've blathered on and answered abosutely nothing!