Digital BW, The Print

Adults only. If sexual art gives you a bad feeling, read no further.

I'm a long time lurker/learner/questioner on this list, announcing the publication of my 
fifth photo book, Vanilla Sex: Explicit Fine Art Photographs, available as a PDF for free 
download from http://www.michaelrosen.com

This PDF is a reprise of a 2005 show at the Center for Sex & Culture in San Francisco. It's 
my latest and best work. For me, "vanilla" means the spectrum of my community's 
sexuality; what we normally do. So, some photographs are of acts generally considered 
normal and standard (missionary position sex, for example), while others are of acts 
considered normal and standard only within the radical sex community. The 53 black-
and-white photographs are soft and romantic images of explicit sex that challenge the 
banality of pornography. And, check out the introduction by the preeminent photography 
critic, A.D. Coleman.

Think of this as an advertisement for myself and my work. For me, publication has always 
been about putting my point of view out in the world in the most effective manner. Last 
century, I chose printed books for sale; so far this century I choose a free PDF.

Support this work. Buy my art prints. Buy my books - Sexual Art, Sexual Magic, Sexual 
Portraits and Lust & Romance - from Amazon and other online vendors, or from me at my 
website, http://www.michaelrosen.com

I'm in San Francisco and am always looking for people to photograph - individuals, 
couples and groups - for a variety of sexually oriented projects. I pay and/or trade prints. 
Tell your friends!

Michael

Disgusting. And I only went to your web site. Almost lost my breakfast

vinny
www.wulfsden.com



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "michaelrosensf"
<Michael@...> wrote:
>
> Adults only. If sexual art gives you a bad feeling, read no further.
> 
> I'm a long time lurker/learner/questioner on this list, announcing
the publication of my 
> fifth photo book, Vanilla Sex: Explicit Fine Art Photographs,
available as a PDF for free 
> download from http://www.michaelrosen.com
> 
> This PDF is a reprise of a 2005 show at the Center for Sex & Culture
in San Francisco. It's 
> my latest and best work. For me, "vanilla" means the spectrum of my
community's 
> sexuality; what we normally do. So, some photographs are of acts
generally considered 
> normal and standard (missionary position sex, for example), while
others are of acts 
> considered normal and standard only within the radical sex
community. The 53 black-
> and-white photographs are soft and romantic images of explicit sex
that challenge the 
> banality of pornography. And, check out the introduction by the
preeminent photography 
> critic, A.D. Coleman.
> 
> Think of this as an advertisement for myself and my work. For me,
publication has always 
> been about putting my point of view out in the world in the most
effective manner. Last 
> century, I chose printed books for sale; so far this century I
choose a free PDF.
> 
> Support this work. Buy my art prints. Buy my books - Sexual Art,
Sexual Magic, Sexual 
> Portraits and Lust & Romance - from Amazon and other online vendors,
or from me at my 
> website, http://www.michaelrosen.com
> 
> I'm in San Francisco and am always looking for people to photograph
- individuals, 
> couples and groups - for a variety of sexually oriented projects. I
pay and/or trade prints. 

> Tell your friends!
> 
> Michael
>

Rosen, screw you. 

You're a jerk, ripping this group off, using it merely to promote your
own work. You've contributed nothing, now you want to take. It's a
character issue: you'd do that no matter what you chose to photograph.
Everyone here would do it except that we respect each other.

John Kelly



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "michaelrosensf"
<Michael@...> wrote:
>
> Adults only. If sexual art gives you a bad feeling, read no further.
> 
> I'm a long time lurker/learner/questioner on this list, announcing
the publication of my 
> fifth photo book, Vanilla Sex: Explicit Fine Art Photographs,
available as a PDF for free 
> download from http://www.michaelrosen.com
> 
> This PDF is a reprise of a 2005 show at the Center for Sex & Culture
in San Francisco. It's 
> my latest and best work. For me, "vanilla" means the spectrum of my
community's 
> sexuality; what we normally do. So, some photographs are of acts
generally considered 
> normal and standard (missionary position sex, for example), while
others are of acts 
> considered normal and standard only within the radical sex
community. The 53 black-
> and-white photographs are soft and romantic images of explicit sex
that challenge the 
> banality of pornography. And, check out the introduction by the
preeminent photography 
> critic, A.D. Coleman.
> 
> Think of this as an advertisement for myself and my work. For me,
publication has always 
> been about putting my point of view out in the world in the most
effective manner. Last 
> century, I chose printed books for sale; so far this century I
choose a free PDF.
> 
> Support this work. Buy my art prints. Buy my books - Sexual Art,
Sexual Magic, Sexual 
> Portraits and Lust & Romance - from Amazon and other online vendors,
or from me at my 
> website, http://www.michaelrosen.com
> 
> I'm in San Francisco and am always looking for people to photograph
- individuals, 
> couples and groups - for a variety of sexually oriented projects. I
pay and/or trade prints. 

> Tell your friends!
> 
> Michael
>

I am, quite frankly, more shocked by the strength and quality of the 
responses on this list than I was by the rather lurid quality of the 
photographs that were presented to us.

As somebody who has posted very little on this list, I still have 
felt that a single notice of a show involving my black and white work 
would be tolerated or accepted.  (I'd not expect to announce color 
shows, which is most of what I'm doing now.)  It appears that the 
issue is not a lurker trying to post an ad, but something more 
related to the content of the images.

Yes ... the images in question certainly stretch my definition of 
"art".  But I can easily choose to ignore them, and to look at or 
create other images instead.  I did notice some nudes that were much 
less sexual than the other images.  Had those be presented by 
themselves, without the sexual/erotic photography text, I doubt that 
they would have created any significant stir.

Back to monitor calibration, step wedges, and Epson's monopolistic 
practices. . .

Arthur Fink

	A r t h u r  .  F i n k  .  P h o t o g r a p h y
	-------------------------------------------------
	Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
	Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
	www.arthurfinkphoto.com  . af@...

	More dance images  www.f64gallery.com/arthur.html
                    www.arthurfinkphoto.com/BatesShow2007

--- djon43 <djon43@...> wrote:
> Rosen, screw you. 
> 
> You're a jerk, ripping this group off, using it
> merely to promote your
> own work. You've contributed nothing, now you want
> to take. It's a
> character issue: you'd do that no matter what you
> chose to photograph.
> Everyone here would do it except that we respect
> each other.
> 
> John Kelly

I've watched this thread with a mix on incredulity and
amusement, but this post takes the biscuit.

All the guy did was send out a post promoting his
work, clearly labelled as self-promotion and sexually
explicit. Many have done so in the past. And yet this
guy seems to have riled a fair number of folks...

If the concern is inappropriate postings (and by
inappropriate I mean self-promotion) then how
appropriate is an insulting post like the one above?

Perhaps people should exercise some self-restraint by
either using the delete button for posts that hold no
interest for them or take their petty squabbles
offline?

Rob



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

Arthur,

I was one of those who posted a negative reaction.

The gist of my remarks was that this was totally artless, indeed amateurish,
pornography, from a photographic perspective.  There have been artists
throughout history who have created ³pornographic² works that are valued
artistically.  Beardsley and Mapplethorpe immediately come to mind.  There
are legions of others, and from many different cultures.  But there is no
way that I can ³stretch my definition of [photographic] Œart¹² to include
the work under discussion.

I should add, as well, that I hold no special brief against pornography
involving freely consenting adults.  I grew up with the expression, ³It¹s a
free country.²  And in spite of present conditions, I still subscribe to
that.

Harry


On 9/27/07 11:31 AM, "Arthur Fink" <af@...> wrote:

> I am, quite frankly, more shocked by the strength and quality of the
> responses on this list than I was by the rather lurid quality of the
> photographs that were presented to us.
> 
> As somebody who has posted very little on this list, I still have
> felt that a single notice of a show involving my black and white work
> would be tolerated or accepted.  (I'd not expect to announce color
> shows, which is most of what I'm doing now.)  It appears that the
> issue is not a lurker trying to post an ad, but something more
> related to the content of the images.
> 
> Yes ... the images in question certainly stretch my definition of
> "art".  But I can easily choose to ignore them, and to look at or
> create other images instead.  I did notice some nudes that were much
> less sexual than the other images.  Had those be presented by
> themselves, without the sexual/erotic photography text, I doubt that
> they would have created any significant stir.
> 
> Back to monitor calibration, step wedges, and Epson's monopolistic
> practices. . .
> 
> Arthur Fink
> 
> A r t h u r  .  F i n k  .  P h o t o g r a p h y
> -------------------------------------------------
> Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
> Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
> www.arthurfinkphoto.com  . af@arthurfinkphoto.com
> <mailto:af%40arthurfinkphoto.com>


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rob, this is a forum for the purpose of discussing B&W prints. It's
not a self promotion forum. 

Rosen knowingly violated standard forum ethics by not having indicated
any interest in the purpose of the board or the rules. That you
consider collegial issues petty is unfortunate. 

The content of the product he's peddling (perhaps it's really his
photography, perhaps not) is entirely irrelevant.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Krawiec
<robk64@...> wrote:
>
> > Rosen, screw you. 
 
> > John Kelly
>  
> 
> All the guy did was send out a post promoting his
> work, clearly labelled as self-promotion and sexually
> explicit. Many have done so in the past.
 
Wrong, few have done anything like that in the past. 

Almost all posts have contributed topics for discussion: questions,
answers, suggestions, experiences. Contributors, not jerks.

That he "labelled" (sic) it for what it was is irrelevant. Using your
values he could as readily have advertised a weight loss scheme or
political campaign. Got it?

John, you've been a valuable contributor to this forum for a long time, and certainly been more visible than Michael. Nonetheless, let me say this more pointedly than I did before. 

You were out of line. Inappropriate. Making a personal attack. 

Please stop this thread.

-matt


> Rob, this is a forum for the purpose of discussing B&W prints. It's
> not a self promotion forum. 
> 
> Rosen knowingly violated standard forum ethics by not having indicated
> any interest in the purpose of the board or the rules. That you
> consider collegial issues petty is unfortunate. 
> 
> The content of the product he's peddling (perhaps it's really his
> photography, perhaps not) is entirely irrelevant.
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Here's a long-one. Didn't think I would end up writing this much.  
Jeez. Now I'm getting flutters in my stomach as I'm get ready to hit  
send . . .

All of this brings up very interesting questions for me. I am  
conflicted about my thoughts on the issue after reading later posts  
and also Jon Cone's post on PiezoBW about looking at "difficult" art.  
That's a great read and is something I'm interested in exploring  
more. In the end, our reaction is entirely our own and not created by  
another person. I see now my post from before was my filtering of the  
situation. As I look back upon my reaction part of it seems childish.  
Who am I to write off a photographer without a second glance? And  
part of it seems valid. Who is this guy who's using a free megaphone  
to trumpet his work to the hot-bed of bw minded photographers out there?

And it brings up more stuff for me. As this forum has expanded and  
become a launching-pad for new technologies and ideas about printing,  
does it also need to cover the other half: the content of what we as  
photographers create? As 2D black and white "dies," transforms, and  
re-grows how does this forum, as a flash-point of that process,  
fulfill the other itch? How does it validate our obsession with a  
process thought of by many galleries and curators as "stuck in the  
1900s"? I would argue that bw is having a resurgence in part because  
of this forum and it's great momentum. I see it every day for the  
many galleries that I print for. But I also come against the wall  
where galleries are only interested in large color-glossed photos* of  
weird people in weird places. *and a lot of those photos are well,  
damn good in their all-the-same-it's-a-movement kind of way.

So how does my ramble above connect with the first post on this  
rapidly more angry thread? I guess I see now a call for critical  
response as well as self promotion by the originator of the thread.  
Maybe if he had asked first about our opinions of the images and then  
explained he was having a show, I would have looked at it  
differently. I am deeply deeply interested in the artistic works of  
the people who contribute to this forum (both content-wise and  
technically) and want to see this forum support that work as well as  
the technology that makes it happen.

I think the people who are here have more rattling around in their  
heads than dot-gain and dither-patterns (I see it every day on the  
forum to a limited extent) and that maybe it will be a joy to let  
some of that critical content-oriented response out. The best  
critique I've ever got (most hard hitting) has been from  
photographers who consider themselves printers. I don't know why that  
is. Maybe someone here can explain the reason.

This has all been touched on before as it's such a large forum. I  
feel like I've blathered on long enough now,
all the best,
Walker




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"The best 
critique I've ever got (most hard hitting) has been from 
photographers who consider themselves printers. I don't know why that 
is. Maybe someone here can explain the reason."

 

Walker it could very well be that we, printers that are also picture takers,
understand the entire statement; both the act of capture by a sensor or film
and by the art of placing it on the receiving medium. And I suspect that you
would also appreciate this critique more knowing that the person sharing
their views understands the totality of the process. 

 

As for the difficult art.   I took a quick look at the photos. Nothing to
get one's short in a wad about there. I thought that there were some nice
compositions and some "so what" it has been done before better.  I don't
really care if the person contributes some, more or a lot. I could easily
have blown it off no matter what. Listening to difficult music is not so
much fun or enjoyable and neither is looking at difficult art. You are not
required to do so. Is it noise or art? 

 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Walker
Blackwell
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:07 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Shameless self promotion - Cross Posted

 

Here's a long-one. Didn't think I would end up writing this much. 
Jeez. Now I'm getting flutters in my stomach as I'm get ready to hit 
send . . .






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Liked some of the images and not so much others, just like i happens with
many other books and exhibitions. Some zenital compositions were very
interesting indeed, and I bet that many much more people would find them so
If models just happened not to be involved in explicit homosexual or
sadomasochistic sexual acts.

¿Disgusting? Maybe, depending on the viewer. But... ¡so many extraordinary
war/famine/refugees/poverty images are!

-- 
Ricardo Cubedo
Oncología Médica, Clínica Puerta de Hierro
c/ San Martín de Porres, 4
28035 Madrid (Spain)

Tel. +34 913 445 000
Fax +34 913 730 535


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good point. I think the guy's stuff is poorly done and garbage. If  
the people where hills and trees I would say the same thing. His  
approach is more like "well this is happening so it doesn't matter  
where I place my camera. I'll just take any-old photo and that will  
do."  My last post was partly about what such a self-promoting post  
in support of such bad work did to make people bicker back and forth  
(me included). My last post was a softy and should have been edited.  
I had a bunch of stuff slamming around in my head last night that was  
only sparked by the conversation and not directly related. Should  
have started a new post entitled: "Can this forum be a place for the  
criticism of content as well as technique?" But it's no matter.

I'm driving to Chicago and going to stop posting/reading on this  
forum for a while. Gotta buckle down and print.
over and out,
Walker