Well, me again.

    I know I will come across as a bigot but I think something should be
said about this. I intend to put together a workshop for school age kids on
raytracing (mixing art and mathematics with intro to programming).

    I am afraid I will have to write off the irtc site with the rise in
off-topic nudity picture that seems to force their way into the competition
(and I really don't want that to get back to haunt me from angry parents).
We are on poser model away from getting our first porn entry, and it appears
that someone would probably find a way to submit it even if the theme was:
"Your grandma's ball of yarn".

    I'm not saying that I want anything to be done about it. But it may be
worth starting a discussion on the topic on this list since the judges
comments last month were pretty cold to the penises entries (So I am
probably not the only one annoyed by this).

cheers,

Christian

Post a reply to this message

bongotastic wrote:
> Well, me again.
> 
>     I know I will come across as a bigot but I think something should be
> said about this. 

Bigot no.  Self-righteous control freak yes.



I intend to put together a workshop for school age kids on
> raytracing (mixing art and mathematics with intro to programming).
> 
>     I am afraid I will have to write off the irtc site with the rise in
> off-topic nudity picture that seems to force their way into the competition
> (and I really don't want that to get back to haunt me from angry parents).

Why is the IRTC absolutely necessary to your raytracing workshop goal? 
And don't talk to me about access to advise etc. When you are dealing 
with a broad base of beginners you will have questionable success just 
tossing a website at them.  You need to take much more responsibility 
for what you are doing beyond limiting the sort of images that might be 
encountered.



> We are on poser model away from getting our first porn entry, 

And I guess you would know what "porn" is.



n.

    1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose 
primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

So you get aroused by poser models?  And I thought I was a perv!  What 
about storefront manikans?  Are they a dirty thrill for you?


>     I'm not saying that I want anything to be done about it. But it may be
> worth starting a discussion on the topic on this list since the judges
> comments last month were pretty cold to the penises entries (So I am
> probably not the only one annoyed by this).
> 

So are you 'annoyed' at references to genitalia, or are you trying to 
teach raytracing in a school setting?  I am confused and I suspect you 
maybe too.  I see this as nothing more than an transparent attempt to 
manipulate the situation as much as you possibly can by pandering to the 
stated intentions of the server owner.  You have little other intention 
than to promote your own values to the exclusion of others.  Teaching 
'raytracing' in the school setting is certainly an admirable thing and 
turning the IRTC into an elementary school sandbox has a lot to be said 
for it.  But lets call a spade a spade.  I know you for what you are.

Post a reply to this message

First, relax dude, I think you are a bit uptight here.

Second, I have no agenda. I sure know what porn is and I have no intention
to insult you back because I don't know you. I hardly care about your issues
with sexuality.

Third, if someone cannot bring up a topic of discussion without being
moronically stonewalled like you did to me, what is the point of having a
newsgroup? So we can all agree with your patronising opinion?


Cheers,

Christian

FYI:
Stonewall:
obstruct or hinder any discussion; "Nixon stonewalled the Watergate
investigation"; "When she doesn't like to face a problem, she simply
stonewalls"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Post a reply to this message

bongotastic wrote:
> First, relax dude, I think you are a bit uptight here.

Perhaps I am.  If certain content annoys you, the use of a certain word 
annoys me!  And I am intensely frustrated by the fact that when it gets 
used, these newsgroups get blocked, so I cannot in good conscience argue 
the point with those who use it as a bludgeon whenever they please.

> 
> Second, I have no agenda. I sure know what porn is 

Well realize that the intention of sexual arousal is necessary to 
satisfy the definition.

and I have no intention
> to insult you back because I don't know you. 

I apologize for insulting you and commend your restraint
My name is Jim Charter.  You will find I have made numerous entries in 
the IRTC.  I have also written posts to this group commenting on peoples 
work and attempting to elevate the importance of the enterprise.

I hardly care about your issues
> with sexuality.

But you may be very concerned with your own such issues to my 
diminishment and that is what bothers me!  I have been victimized in the 
past when people use their own dirty minds to cast aspersion in my 
direction.

> 
> Third, if someone cannot bring up a topic of discussion without being
> moronically stonewalled like you did to me, what is the point of having a
> newsgroup? So we can all agree with your patronising opinion?
> 
And I am saddened to find I have slipped into these tactics.
Keep clear distinctions and you do not deserved to be patronized.
Someone's feelings about content, what may be purient, and whether they 
find it 'annoying', is a completely separate concern from the arbitrary 
difficulties of presenting the IRTC in a public school context. I 
thought you were blurring that distinction. If I think someone is 
exploiting the virtues of the one concern, (education) to prosecute the 
fallabilities of the other, (their personal definitions of morality), 
yes I tend to get uptight and patronizing.  My challenge of your 
intentions was unilateral and proactive. You say you have no agenda. 
Then I take you at your word.  Please accept my apology.

These are delicate issues and dangerous times.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

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