I agree on some of your points.  I should have brought this entry up in
my last post but I had forgotten about it when I wrote that message.
    First of all, its not the nudity that bothers me.  The IRTC should not
be limiting artistic freedom, and that may mean some viewer discression is
needed.  What does bother me is that this entry is off topic.  One can
usually overlook any sort of controversial edge or distastefulness an entry
has if the concept behind it is strong.  A good example would be the couple
having sex submitted during the Night round.  Perhaps a little lewd, but
more comical then pornographic, the image was on topic and had a funny
concept.  Although the image scored low because of its lack of technical and
artistic merit, it was a valid entry.
    This image does not have a strong concept or any sort of backing
description for justification.  You should be able to look at the picture
and have a good sense of what is going on and how it relates to the topic.
Look at the image and then ask yourself, "What is the Great Invention here?"
Is it nudity?  Bathroom tile grout cleaner?  Porn shoots?
    Going to the text we get: "Photography opens our eyes to the world and
ourself."  Ah so the Great Invention is photography.  Is this an example of
how photography is enlighting?  I don't buy it.  The brownie camera image
was photography, this is pornography.  I think the image would score better
if the descrition read: "Pornography opens our eyes to smut and
masturbation."  The sensitive viewer isn't going to like reading that one,
but you'd agree it fits the image better?  Yes, it could be interpreted as
an artistic statement, but it can be interpreted erotically just as easily.
    Postive notes for the image: the lighting is excellent.  A little dirt
and something more creative then a poser model would have done this image
wonders, on par with the highest entries of the round.  However, if you are
going to put in the hours on such a project... spend at least 15 minutes
writing up a good storyline.  A descriptive narrative behind the image
really accents the concept.  You go into the image expecting a Great
Invention, but instead you get a controversial image with a very vague
reference.

Skip Talbot

Post a reply to this message