Studio lighting!

blissed · 06-06-08 00:57:50

phexy wrote:

Makes me wonder if Bill Henson ran to the toilets to cry when his latest photographic exhibition was accused of being porn... I know I did!

Hey thanks for mentioning Bill Henson, I think I may have seen one thing by him before but google is like a gallery of his work. http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en … a=N&tab=wi he needs to turn the lights up a bit tho. just kidding :)

http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/

His stuff isn't largely overtly sexual but our minds take the opportunity to make it so. So we kind of ogle it. well I do :) so as to his controversy http://www.medindia.net/news/Australian … 7157-1.htm This is just my opinion not seeing the banned pictures, but if the pictures are of people simply being naked (which is our natural state) and that includes pictures of naked children then the sexuality is in the mind of the viewer. But I think the child protection officer has a point in that if I'd taken the pictures for the reasons he's stated, I wouldn't exhibit them publicly until the people in them had reached 18 or 20 so I could get their informed permission first and if someone who's aggressively pedophile sees the picture and their minds make it sexual, there's no longer a child to possibly target. But anyway, all that aside I think most of the stuff I've seen of his is really good!

.

kirejos · 06-06-08 04:53:56

momentextase wrote:

This site is not about art.
It is about SEX!!!! Women's orgasm to be specific!!

I think sex is art.

gala · 06-06-08 04:57:26

I think sex is everything. I've recently realised that unless you can frame something to me in terms of sex, I actually won't understand it.

kirejos · 06-06-08 04:59:32

Passion is a good thing.

kirejos · 06-06-08 05:01:13

btw, I'm sorry about the Penguins.

gala · 06-06-08 05:12:31

Oh, thank you, but I am just happy that they reminded themselves that they exist. It's been quite a drought and it was looking like it wasn't a 'great day for hockey' anymore. But as it turns out, it still is.

I remember crying when they won the first of their back-to-backs in the 90s. I must have been about 8 or something. Now that, my friend, is passion.

I'm sorry, what are we talking about? Sexxxxxxxxxxx....

kirejos · 06-06-08 05:50:00

jwhite · 06-06-08 22:01:26

I get sex and hockey- it's fucking boring, so it makes sense3 to fuck while the game's on. Now, Celtics-Lakers- there's something to get passionate about.

BTW- lights, no lights, bright lights, headlights, whatever- watching women get off is awesome. Even hearing it must be awesome, or BA would have no commerce.

Gala- sorry about your Pens, but hockey is still a bunch of farm boys wrestling, with occasional outbreaks of skill. It would be way cooler (in so many ways) if they would do like ancient Greeks, and play nude. Unlikely to be much clutching and grabbing then, eh?

kirejos · 06-06-08 23:04:56

momentextase wrote:

The light on their sets is always too dark, and why can't they use harps once in a while?? Or a tuba?

Hey jwhite,

Do you know of any bands that feature a tuba?

Last edited by kirejos (06-06-08 23:09:36)

blissed · 07-06-08 02:33:02

Ooh! I remember someone who uses Tuba's from a couple of weeks ago.

Bjork wrote:

Because I love trumpets, trombones, tubas, and the noise they make can be like a sad voice, ... Like on Wanderlust – making brass sound like ship flutes,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8ZPV4RzG4M

I think you could actually use a Tuba in the bass area of a rock band in the same way Bruce Springstean used a sax.
.

jwhite · 07-06-08 10:28:54

Kirejos-
You can't go wrong with Hew Orleans- Dirty Dozen, for example. The best, to my mind, though, would be the Alan Toussaint=arranged horns (Howard Johnson on tuba) on the Band's Rock of Ages.

dandan · 09-06-08 07:37:46

bobby wrote:

Yes I agree with this but it should be constructive and not aggressive, not that I'm suggesting that's how you personally sound but as you would know when we talk about the lighting it more then often is. We also get quite annoyed because most of the time people suggest changes that would make us just the same as a lot of what is already out there!

Criticism, especially mine, can often be both. As long as its constructive, I don't think the tone invalidates it. If someone just simply says "man this site sucks!", obviously that's not criticism, it's antagonistic whining. However, to express pointed displeasure with a certain aspect of the site (or with whatever one might be criticising in a generic sense) and then takes the time to explain why they dislike a particular element and how they think it might be done better, well I think it's valid. The artist doesn't have to follow the critic's advice, but (s)he should expect it and tolerate its expression.

bobby wrote:

To be honest dandan, if you did then you'd know that harsh critism often sends them (me included) running to the toilets to cry!

Eh... hypersensitive ones perhaps. The ones that are driven to improve themselves take it in stride. I can brush off the harsh tone of a criticism while still extracting something of value from it.

dandan · 09-06-08 07:43:15

momentextase wrote:

Well... there's your problem.
Not meaning to be too didactic, too argumentative or too keen to point out the obvious... I invite you to consider:
This site is not about art.
It is about SEX!!!! Women's orgasm to be specific!!

The theme may be sex, but it is presented as art.

Last edited by dandan (09-06-08 07:44:00)

dandan · 09-06-08 07:45:11

phexy wrote:

Makes me wonder if Bill Henson ran to the toilets to cry when his latest photographic exhibition was accused of being porn... I know I did!

I don't know the particular case you're talkng about, but I don't think porn and art are necessarily mutually exclusive.

CousinWayne · 05-12-08 11:50:21

Good Lord!

bezebee4 · 27-01-09 16:23:37

I think IFM is all about subtlety. Instead of grabbing you by the throat and head-butting you on the nose, she gently cups your head in her soft tender hands and kisses you on the brow. In both instances there is face to face contact but, the outcomes are poles apart. One results in a warm smile and the other, a broken busted nose and swollen blood-splattered face. I think this discussion could do with a little more of the IFM philosophy, more kissing and less head-butting.

Having said that, I actually agree with CousinWaynes initial argument however, I would have opted for the kiss approach rather than the head-butt.

blissed · 27-01-09 18:34:56

CousinWayne wrote:

Enough, already, with the cutesy-poo studio lighting! .

Yeah your right, the thread didn't start well :)

I love the studio lighting, it creates some really beautiful images that bring out the best in the contributors and illustrate how wonderful these experiences are, so why not have an aesthetic that celebrates that.

.

#151 06-06-08 00:57:50

Re: Studio lighting!

#152 06-06-08 04:53:56

Re: Studio lighting!

#153 06-06-08 04:57:26

Re: Studio lighting!

#154 06-06-08 04:59:32

Re: Studio lighting!

#155 06-06-08 05:01:13

Re: Studio lighting!

#156 06-06-08 05:12:31

Re: Studio lighting!

#157 06-06-08 05:50:00

Re: Studio lighting!

#158 06-06-08 22:01:26

Re: Studio lighting!

#159 06-06-08 23:04:56

Re: Studio lighting!

#160 07-06-08 02:33:02

Re: Studio lighting!

#161 07-06-08 10:28:54

Re: Studio lighting!

#162 09-06-08 07:37:46

Re: Studio lighting!

#163 09-06-08 07:43:15

Re: Studio lighting!

#164 09-06-08 07:45:11

Re: Studio lighting!

#165 05-12-08 11:50:21

Re: Studio lighting!

#166 27-01-09 16:23:37

Re: Studio lighting!

#167 27-01-09 18:34:56

Re: Studio lighting!

Board footer