# Tackling controversial issues



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

The adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is often true, and is more often an understatement. I'm kicking around ideas for my final project for this semester, and one of my ideas has to do with various controversial subjects.

As I've mentioned before in other threads, I've done a bit of writing and public speaking on certain issues for which I hold very politically incorrect views. I'm considering putting some of these views into photographs. I'm positive that I will loose popularity points among a few who will shout me down and call me everything short of human. But I also know that there are quite a few who share these views.

Right or wrong, these opinions are mine, and have been assumed only after experience and evaluation has shown me the way. These photos that I have in mind will move some to tears, some to anger, and may even inspire hatred. 

An example of what I have in mind is a diptic. Scene one will be a woman lying on her back wearing a skirt with her panties down past her knees with her shirt torn clutching a cell phone with an electrical cord around her neck. Standing over her, only visible from the waist down will be a male figure holding a knife in one hand. Scene two will be the male figure lying on his back bleeding from several holes in his chest still holding the knife in his hand his face covered with a ski mask. Standing over the male figure will be the female subject from scene one only visible from the waist down with a pistol in one hand with the slide locked to the rear and smoke rolling from the barrel.

I'm not afraid of taking on touchy issues, and this one is one of the more tame ideas that I have (it is a scary place inside my head). I'm just wondering if perhaps I might be taking it too far for the sheeple in general to grasp.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

IMO, these are a little obvious and heavy-handed.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 9, 2007)

Wow ... first of all, to create the images you have in mind will be a tough task, not easy at all in terms of composition and .. light!
You have to make sure that they come across serious and not ridiculous/set up. They have to look real to carry your messages.

I guess seeing this might not be for the faint hearted or those who do not want their minds disturbed, so such photographs on this forum should come with a warning in the thread's heading.

I do think this could be art, art with a strong message, maybe even political  .. but that does not mean it cannot be art.

However, depending on the outcome, how graphic it is, it will be debatable if it is suitable for public display. 
As an example:
I have seen training clips for first aid on the battlefield, which were filmed in real combat in the Falkland war. And I have to say I am glad those are not available on public display anywhere since it might cause serious mental disturbance with some people, and certainly with youngsters.
They serve a good purpose when used educational for military personnel, but they are just too graphic and real for the general public.

So if you want to reach a broad audience, then be careful it does not get too graphic (without looking fake)


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 9, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> IMO, these are a little obvious and heavy-handed.



I agree the outcome might very easily give that impression.

It would be better maybe to get the message into one single image, not like a cartoon of 2 or 3.


----------



## TomHuck-wa (Mar 9, 2007)

I say go for it. Part of whats wrong with the world is that people are far too complacent. They need to have their minds disturbed. We have become a world of citizens with our heads in the sand. "IF I DONT SEE IT IT DOESNT HAPPEN".  There are no violent acts, there is no terrorism, there is no tragedy in my world if I dont see it.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 9, 2007)

TomHuck-wa said:


> They need to have their minds disturbed.



But within limits. (not saying here that Efergoh would necessarily stretch the limits too far, it really depends on the outcome)



> We have become a world of citizens with our heads in the sand. "IF I DONT SEE IT IT DOESNT HAPPEN".  There are no violent acts, there is no terrorism, there is no tragedy in my world if I dont see it.



Well, maybe this is different in the US? But most places where I live are rather flooded with information on violence and misery, sometimes rather graphic. I have the feeling that sometimes it is this overload of graphical information which makes people ignore things ...


----------



## TomHuck-wa (Mar 9, 2007)

You may have a point there Alex B. Its just that I know dozens of people that will not watch the daily news because it upsets them, as well it should. However they will not get involved and write to a congressman or senator, or make any move to help remedy the situation. Most of them wont even take the time to vote. This is a sad state of affairs, and the main reason behind our countries downhill slide. (my opinion of it)


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Hmm... as far as capturing images are concerned, I don't think that there is a problem in taking controversial pictures. 

However, the intended scene you have planned out doesn't do anything for me, even assuming they come out great.

For one, the first picture is a bit cliche'd, but even I can deal with that. Personally I would do a close up of the knife, dark, and the girl exposed but soft focused in the background. But when you add the second picture, of the girl's revenge, it borders on cheesy. Sure I get the idea of revenge and just desserts, but I think it's overdone here.

I personally don't see the message, social or political? WHat is it? Rapists deserve to die? Hardly a message... 

Perhaps a series of pictures that depicts a guy robbing someone blind, only because he has to feed his sick children has a message, Or a reverse time series that shows a guy getting murdered, but the photos go back in time and reveal that the murdered man is actually the killer of the other guy's wife... that has something to it.

Your other picture, of the soldier who is commiting suicide has a message.

To me, this idea, while not very offensive in itself, becomes offensive with it's lack of motive and comes off as an amatuer moviemakers horror movie scene.

But that's my 2 cents.

EDIT: After reading them again I can't help but think of Shock Jock's who do nothing but create controversial shows for the sake of causing a stir. I don't think that is your INTENTION here, but I think it definetly comes off that way!!! Ask yourself this. Does your series of photographs help bring to light a problem or crisis you want to help? Would a victim of rape look at these images and feel that you were somehow helping?


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh, it sounds like your ideas could make compelling and thought-provoking images.  I agree that such serious issues could come off as as cartoonish if not done well, but it's up you to make the piece reflect your intent. 

If your work comes from somewhere scary inside you, as you say, I think your sincerity will be communicated in your images.  Likewise, if you're just trying to get a reaction (I'm not saying that you are, but just to argue the point) it will probably come off as obvious and heavy handed.  The only way to know if people in general will understand it is if you give them the chance to. 

And I like the way you described the diptych.  It sounds a bit like a graphic novel, but those can be quite dark.  (Sin City, anyone?)


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

TomHuck-wa said:


> However they will not get involved and write to a congressman or senator, or make any move to help remedy the situation.



Encouraging vigilante justice isn't remedying any situation, it just makes society more chaotic.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

...and this is where I tend to go off track and my points are missed.

This isn't about revenge. It is about prevention.
For the photos I described, the areas I want to have as the biggest players are not the victim or the criminal, but rather the cell phone and the pistol.

It isn't about vigilante justice (which I do think has a place in the world - if the powers that be refuse to act, society has a right and obligation to do so), it is about empowering women. It is about giving women food for thought about their own safety.

In the past, I have taught self defense and firearm safety classes. more than 2/3 of my clientel were women.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

Your points aren't missed.

I just think they aren't good and this discussion is drifting off into a discussion of political ideas under the guise of talking about your intended images.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

well...the intended images have political messages. 

Does that mean that they cannot be discussed on TPF?
If that is the case, a moderator can lock this thread, and I will no longer discuss these ideas, nor will I post them on the forum once they are shot and printed.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> ...and this is where I tend to go off track and my points are missed.
> 
> This isn't about revenge. It is about prevention.
> For the photos I described, the areas I want to have as the biggest players are not the victim or the criminal, but rather the cell phone and the pistol.
> ...



We can talk about 'Triumph of the Will' without discussing Hitler.

You gave your ideas about the images, people responded. Now you want to justify your ideas. That's not photography that's politics.

Let's stick with photography.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> .
> It isn't about vigilante justice (which I do think has a place in the world - if the powers that be refuse to act, society has a right and obligation to do so), it is about empowering women. It is about giving women food for thought about their own safety.



And I thought it was about the fact that violence and crimes of passion can be committed by either sex.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> And I thought it was about the fact that violence and crimes of passion can be committed by either sex.



It could be about that as well. This is one of the things I enjoy about photography is that we all bring our own baggage to the table with us when we view photos. Our photos, like our children, take on lives of their own once we release them to the world. It is up to us as the creator (or parent if you will) to shape them as best we can so that that they won't be corrupted into something we did not intend, or send a message that is counter to the one intended.


----------



## TomHuck-wa (Mar 9, 2007)

Writing a congressman or senator or being aware of whats going on around them is encouraging vigilante justice?


----------



## terri (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> well...the intended images have political messages.
> 
> Does that mean that they cannot be discussed on TPF?
> If that is the case, a moderator can lock this thread, and I will no longer discuss these ideas, nor will I post them on the forum once they are shot and printed.


You're doing all right so far. Take it easy. As long as objective discussion is maintained _while discussing the making of certain images_, even ones with your personal messages, you're in safe waters. We're not here to engage in political discussions, of course, so just refrain from allowing things to slide that way. You're aware of the forum rules, I know. 

Stay on track here, all.    He's working through creating some images for his class and he's asking for feedback.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh,

When you listed the original ideas, in no way did you say the FOCUS of the image would be the cellphone, or the gun... 

From a photography standpoint, I don't see how you could do this, with all the other image around it, without using something like selective color... and that sounds cheesy. 

From a political standpoint, I don't think the message is justified by the gory images. Seeing a stark, in-your-face of an image of a woman about to be raped and the message is "Always bring your cellphone and carry a 35mm?"... I don't think it works.

The image, in that case, is too big for the message. I could easily tell women to bring their cell phones by having a picture in a dark alley with a woman in a car that has a flat tire. Same message, and less disturbing to get there... the "disturbing" part doesn't add anything.

Furthermore, and here is where we might differ, I don't see the NEED to create such images unless you were asked to do so for a place that might be posting these images. It sounds like you are trying to make some posters that you see in Health Department, like "Don't do drugs" or in your case "Carry a gun and a cellphone in case your raped by a knife weilding psycho"... Merely creating these images, even if the photograph and message match up, doesn't mean that:

a. women will see them

and

b. Women will respond to them.

If you *REALLY* are interested in helping women's struggles, call someone and ask them about your idea. Offer to create posters with your theme, and see how they respond. 

I have to agree with The Traveler here. Your bringing the politics in to justify the photo, and while talking politics would be OK in this sense, it should be the other way around... Take a picture to talk about the politics. That's justified!


----------



## brighteyesphotos (Mar 9, 2007)

I think the message behind the images will be powerful. As you had said, each person brings to the picture their own baggage. I'm not sure how I would react upon seeing the actual image. I'm going to echo Alex_B about looking fake. I know your methods and work well enough to know that you will take great pains to avoid looking fake. I wish you luck with your ideas and shooting.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> Efergoh,
> 
> When you listed the original ideas, in no way did you say the FOCUS of the image would be the cellphone, or the gun...


You're right, I did not, but I did mention them as part of the scene.



> From a political standpoint, I don't think the message is justified by the gory images. Seeing a stark, in-your-face of an image of a woman about to be raped and the message is "Always bring your cellphone and carry a 35mm?"... I don't think it works.



Actually it would be carry a cell phone and a 9mm. A 35mm wouldn't do much more than document your demise.

But if you go back and reread the idea, the woman who was the victim was armed only with her cellphone. The woman who thwarted her attack was simply armed.

This would be shot using an 8x10 and black and white film, so much of the gore would be negated by the lack of color. Selective focus would be used to put emphasis on the tools used by the subjects.



> Furthermore, and here is where we might differ, I don't see the NEED to create such images



I'd love to discuss the need with you, but it would bring in politics. To me this is about self defense, but others might see it as a gun control issue.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> I'd love to discuss the need with you, but it would bring in politics. To me this is about self defense, but others might see it as a gun control issue.


 
How? How is taking a picture helping ANYONE with self defense? You want to help? DO more courses on self defense. Taking a picture to help self defense is ridiculous.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 9, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> How? How is taking a picture helping ANYONE with self defense? You want to help? DO more courses on self defense. Taking a picture to help self defense is ridiculous.



It does not help self denfense, no, but I guess Efergoh's idea is to raise awareness, to alert people... if I got the idea right

Help only comes from action/precaution of couse, not from the image itself


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

Alex has it.

No bumper sticker has ever changed the world, but has raised awareness. That is my intent.
Now, I'm off to go take my ridiculous pictures...


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Alex has it.
> 
> No bumper sticker has ever changed the world, but has raised awareness. ..




As far as I can see, there is plenty of awareness about rape, violence and guns.  What awareness are you promoting?


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Alex has it.
> 
> No bumper sticker has ever changed the world, but has raised awareness. That is my intent.
> Now, I'm off to go take my ridiculous pictures...


 

WOAH! Easy buddy, I never said the PICTURES were ridiculous. Read again.

By the way, a bumper sticker placed on the back of a Yugo in a car lot in Greenville Kentucky does very little to raise awareness. Again, my argument is not your INTENT, but how you plan to achieve it.

Place that same bumper sticker on a Mercedes or a City Bus in New York, and maybe some people might see it and take notice. I don't understand how you plan to BROADCAST this to the "needy women" who need their awareness raised about the joys of carrying a gun in their purse?!

Furthermore, I don't think there is a lack of awareness for victims of rape, at least not the kind you're taking a picture of. Want to show a powerful image that protrays a contraversy? How about marraige rape, a growing and silent crime where husbands take advantage of their own wives, or date-rape, or pre-teen rape, where the victims rarely come forward because they thing they've done something wrong? The version of rape that you are portraying,(random single victim using deadly weapons), occurs at less numbers than other forms.  

Here is a quote from the National Crime Victimization Survey 2005:

Contrary to the belief that rapists are hiding in the bushes or in the shadows of the parking garage, almost two-thirds of all rapes were committed by someone who is known to the victim. *73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger*  38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.


To me your entire idea is cliche'd, almost a "Hollywood" version of rape, and an affront to victims that didn't have cellphones or guns with them. I really don't agree with what you are doing, although I do agree with the idea of trying to raise self-awareness and help out defenseless women... which is why I said you teaching a self defense class would be much more useful.


----------



## PetersCreek (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh

Being a staunch advocate of legal, responsible, and armed self defense, I can relate to your project in principle and spirit. However, I have some doubts about how effective the photos you proposed will be in communicating your message. Assuming that you're tying to raise awareness among women, do you really think they'll _connect_ to those images in the way you wish? 

Both images are pretty grisly and I can imagine the some/many women might be so uncomfortable with either of them that the message will be lost or diluted. Of course, no woman wants to be raped or worse. But then, most don't want to kill anyone either. They might if they have to but they don't want to...and I'd hazard a guess that they don't even want to think about it, either.  One big obstacle to overcome in this area is the mindset, "that'll never happen to me". If your images are too graphic, too clichéd, or too Hollywoodesque, I think you just might drive your intended audience to the "not me" zone.

In my opinion, people...with women being no exception...can sometimes be more easily moved to action by perceived benefits than by potential or remote consequences. 

Do you think you could be more successful by showing the positive side of the self defense training you provide? Maybe you could illustrate how average women...young, middle-age, and older...sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers...are quite capable of getting out on the range and taking control of a firearm...and their safety...and they can even have _fun_ doing it. Portraying safer, stronger, and happier women just might be the ticket...rather than just offering images of two traumatic scenarios.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> As far as I can see, there is plenty of awareness about rape, violence and guns.  What awareness are you promoting?



That a woman has a choice. She can choose to not be a victim.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> That a woman has a choice. She can choose to not be a victim.


 
I hate that. That statement indicates that victims CHOOSE to be victims, which is not true. Surely some, and I emphasize SOME, victims could do more to protect themselves, but in no way did someone choose to be raped or murdered. (Im most cases).

The simple fact is that a woman, even walking in naked down an alley at three am, is not "ASKING" for any crime to be commited to her. The idea of victim's responsibilty in a crime is uterrly ridiculous, and needs to be stamped out.

The person doing the raping/killing/robbing is the person at fault. They made the decision to do this activity, regardless of the victims clothes or lack of personal defense. 

Your mentality of choosing to NOT be a victim would lead to a world filled with weapons, knives and guns.

Furthermore - your pictures still don't create awareness.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

PetersCreek said:


> Do you think you could be more successful by showing the positive side of the self defense training you provide? Maybe you could illustrate how average women...young, middle-age, and older...sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers...are quite capable of getting out on the range and taking control of a firearm...and their safety...and they can even have _fun_ doing it. Portraying safer, stronger, and happier women just might be the ticket...rather than just offering images of two traumatic scenarios.


 
See, that is a responsible and effective idea. How about a hand breaking a board in a karate chop, and then the next picture we see that the class is of all women, who are enjoying themselves. Then the next picture is of the same woman being attacked, and her defending herself. Not of her half naked on the ground clutching onto a cellphone and the finding a gun in her purse.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography

*Extreme Pornography* is a term introduced by the UK Government to refer to pornography depicting acts of serious violence, necrophilia or bestiality. Serious violence is defined as that which "appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury". The term covers "actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts", which is intended "to catch material which either is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm". As a specific technical term, it appears to have been introduced in England following the death of Jane Longhurst in 2003 caused by Graham Coutts who was obsessed with such depictions downloaded from web sites dedicated to such content.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759


[SIZE=-0]The traditional definition of *pornography* -- material that is sexually arousing or appeals to prurient interests -- is no longer satisfactory. *The critical feature of all pornography is not that it deals with sexual themes, but that it eroticizes violence, humiliation, degradation and other explicit forms of abuse.* Churches disagree widely over how we might best cope with the rapid and relentless growth of the pornography industry. One possibility, suggested by religious right groups and the Catholics, is censorship. The mainline Protestant churches, by contrast, have urged education and consciousness-raising.[/SIZE]


----------



## PetersCreek (Mar 9, 2007)

I could debate a lot mischaracterizations here...but then, it wouldn't be about the _photography_.  Can we please not cause this thread to get locked down while there's still valid photography discussion to be had on the subject?


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> I hate that. That statement indicates that victims CHOOSE to be victims, which is not true. Surely some, and I emphasize SOME, victims could do more to protect themselves, but in no way did someone choose to be raped or murdered. (Im most cases).



Inaction is a choice. If you do not take steps to ensure your own safety, you have chosen not to do so. No, it does not make it right that anyone should be victimized. I am in no way suggesting that a person "was asking for it."

The simple fact of the matter is that there is only one person that can be held responsible for your safety and that is you. You cannot count on the police to protect you...they are usually the last person to reach the scene of a crime.



> The simple fact is that a woman, even walking in naked down an alley at three am, is not "ASKING" for any crime to be commited to her. The idea of victim's responsibilty in a crime is uterrly ridiculous, and needs to be stamped out.


That is not something I am promoting. You're putting words in my mouth.



> Your mentality of choosing to NOT be a victim would lead to a world filled with weapons, knives and guns.


I don't see that as a problem. I see that as beneficial. Society is much more polite when folks don't know who is armed and who isn't. Criminals prefer easy targets. They prefer small weak unarmed victims who cannot offer resistance. A revolver in the purse of a woman is one hell of an equalizer against a male attacker.



> Furthermore - your pictures still don't create awareness.


We'll see. It is still a rough idea, and needs refinement. I already have a couple ideas to incorporate, and it has grown from 2 photos to 4.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

PetersCreek said:


> I could debate a lot mischaracterizations here...but then, it wouldn't be about the _photography_. Can we please not cause this thread to get locked down while there's still valid photography discussion to be had on the subject?


 
Photography and pornography, in any form, are inherently tied together! It's a valid point to discuss porn and it's ethical implications.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography
> 
> *Extreme Pornography* is a term introduced by the UK Government to refer to pornography depicting acts of serious violence...[SIZE=-0]
> 
> ...One possibility, suggested by religious right groups and the Catholics, is censorship.[/SIZE]



Good thing I am neither British nor Catholic, huh?


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Inaction is a choice. If you do not take steps to ensure your own safety, you have chosen not to do so. No, it does not make it right that anyone should be victimized. I am in no way suggesting that a person "was asking for it."


 
No, inaction is NOT a choice, in fact, inherently it's lack of a choice. Furthermore, most women do take some action, but in your opinion I suppose unless they are weilding an AK 47, it's not ENOUGH of a choice.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

Ah...

I get it. Is it your distaste for firearms themselves that has you so wrapped around the axle here? That is the tone I'm getting.

Is it because I condone violence as a response to violence?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Ah...
> 
> I get it. Is it your distaste for firearms themselves that has you so wrapped around the axle here? That is the tone I'm getting.
> 
> Is it because I condone violence as a response to violence?



Actually for me, it's that you're trying to rope a community of photographers into your own little display of fetishism - and justify it as art.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

hmm. had not thought of it as fetishism. Not sure what kind of freak would consider violence a turn on...

And thank you for using the word "little" to put emphasis on the personal attack.
Attack the message, not the messenger.

Just because you or other don't see artistic value in something of this nature does not mean it is not art. Photos of puppies and kittens don't trip my trigger, but I'm not inclined to attack the photographer who made them.

I expect several things to happen when I publish these photos...

1. Folks will be shocked.
2. Some folks will decry the message
3. Some folks will cheer the message
4. Some will miss the point
5. Good or bad, it will get folks to think


----------



## PetersCreek (Mar 9, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> Photography and pornography, in any form, are inherently tied together! It's a valid point to discuss porn and it's ethical implications.


 
Although it immediately followed, my post wasn't in response to The Traveler's post. I wasn't addressing the subject of pornography. I was voicing my concern that many of the comments are straying far from the OP...and any other photography-related concept...onto purely political and highly contentious ground. And it doesn't look to be improving.

But then, I'm no moderator...don't pretend to be one...and don't even play one on television. Knock yourself out.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Inaction is a choice. If you do not take steps to ensure your own safety, you have chosen not to do so. No, it does not make it right that anyone should be victimized. I am in no way suggesting that a person "was asking for it."
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that there is only one person that can be held responsible for your safety and that is you. You cannot count on the police to protect you...they are usually the last person to reach the scene of a crime.
> 
> ...


 
sorry man, I was all for it until your second response here. To say that you are the only one responsible for your safety is boarderline psychotic. You are introducing the idea that others dont need to be held responsible for their actions because if the victim had done more to protect themselves, it would never have happened.

But as far as the photo goes, it would do a lot more emotionally to have your scene depicted in one picture, and add light on the cell phone and the 9mm, 22, 38, 44, 45 or whatever you decide to use as your handgun.

Also make sure the knife is clearly visable, because without that the scene looses a lot of its feeling.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

PetersCreek said:


> Although it immediately followed, my post wasn't in response to The Traveler's post. I wasn't addressing the subject of pornography. I was voicing my concern that many of the comments are straying far from the OP...and any other photography-related concept...onto purely political and highly contentious ground. And it doesn't look to be improving.
> 
> But then, I'm no moderator...don't pretend to be one...and don't even play one on television. Knock yourself out.


 
I'm sorry.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> hmm. had not thought of it as fetishism. Not sure what kind of freak would consider violence a turn on...
> 
> And thank you for using the word "little" to put emphasis on the personal attack.
> Attack the message, not the messenger.
> ...


 
I can no longer argue with you on this. I personally get the feeling you're only in it because it's shocking, and you're trying to use the mask of "art" to cover it up. I hope that's not true, but it's pointless to go back and forth on this matter.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> sorry man, I was all for it until your second response here. To say that you are the only one responsible for your safety is boarderline psychotic. You are introducing the idea that others dont need to be held responsible for their actions because if the victim had done more to protect themselves, it would never have happened.



Let me see if I can clarify.

You and you alone are responsible for your own safety. There are goblins in the world that will do you harm. You cannot count on anyone else to protect you. Those who would do you harm should b held accountable. But I would rather see the intended victim hold that person immediately accountable and see that person go home to their families that night rather than have a prosecuting attorney and jury hold that person accountable after a successful attack.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

The links listed below are images that were shot by Oleg Volk www.olegvolk.net

These links relate to what I am trying to do. These are a bit more light than what I intend, and I am not trying to emulate his style. These are a bit commercial to me, though...

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5233-2/proportional6909.jpg

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5299-2/deadbeaten.jpg

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5131-2/trumped7562_001.gif


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2007)

I've got an idea.
Why not invite a recognized advocate for women's safety to comment on this kind of 'art.'


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 9, 2007)

Even if you give credit...it's against forum rules to post photos that are not yours.  Please change them to links, or remove them altogether.

I haven't followed this thread very closely, but I'd like to remind everyone to remain civil and refrain from getting argumentative, or it will have to be shut down.


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Mar 9, 2007)

The pictures you posted are MUCH tamer than what you proposed.

And I think... if you're trying to make a point with your pictures... sometimes less is more.  (Consider the shower scene in _Psycho_ vs. the same scene in a _Friday the 13th_ type movie... personally I find the first much more powerful.)

My 2 cents.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> Even if you give credit...it's against forum rules to post photos that are not yours. Please change them to links, or remove them altogether.




done


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> The links listed below are images that were shot by Oleg Volk www.olegvolk.net
> 
> These links relate to what I am trying to do. These are a bit more light than what I intend, and I am not trying to emulate his style. These are a bit commercial to me, though...
> 
> ...


 
1. I don't find these posters informative

2. I don't find them artistic.

3. They are not a bit more light, they are tame comparitively to your intended photos.

Just as I thought though, it comes of looking like the posters in the health department, and less like art than anything I've seen in awhile.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 9, 2007)

Wow.  I think your project can be successful.

I do, however, urge that you do it for the right reason...  with a just purpose.  If you have feelings about this, and have something to say about it, then it should be said...  for your sake.  How it's received will be out of your hands.  I'm sure that you know that.  I don't know if you "realize" it.

When I read "sheeple," and saw some one's follow-up "people ... need to have their minds disturbed," I began to wonder if the desired results might be to deliberately provoke a negative reaction.

I think you should make your images...  for you.  If you persuade some of your viewers to rethink the issue, great!  If they still have views that differ from yours, oh well.  Maybe the image didn't work.  Or maybe they remain unconvinced.  But try to guard against deciding how the should feel about it.  

No matter what the reaction, you will have spoken you piece.  That's a good thing.

Pete


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> Just as I thought though, it comes of looking like the posters in the health department, and less like art than anything I've seen in awhile.


Yes, they are. Oleg is a commercial photographer, and teaches graphic design.

The shots I intend will deal with this subject matter, but hopefully will come off a bit more artistic.
Say nay as much as you will, I'm still going to shoot this, and I will still post them. Rip them apart all you want, you won't hurt my feelings...much.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Yes, they are. Oleg is a commercial photographer, and teaches graphic design.
> 
> The shots I intend will deal with this subject matter, but hopefully will come off a bit more artistic.
> Say nay as much as you will, I'm still going to shoot this, and I will still post them. Rip them apart all you want, you won't hurt my feelings...much.


 
I would not rip you apart for dabbling in this subject matter. In fact, it could be very thought provoking, I just think you're going about it the wrong way, and I think your intent is dead wrong.

Every time I see you create a thread it's about something SHOCKING and "DISTURBING". You're nude photos of yourself, the suicidal soldier, and now the Rape and Revenge.... I get the feeling you're addicted to being a hotbed of contraversy.

That being said... good luck in your endavours.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 9, 2007)

The nude photos of myself was so that I could experience the same thing my models did.
The "suicidal soldier" was also a self portrait. It was something personal, dealing with my own issues.

As for Rape and Revenge...well, I can't say you're wrong, because there is no wrong interpretation. There is only refusal to look deeper. These photos will be more about preparedness than anything else. And if revenge is what you get out of it, then I need to consider composition to ensure that is not the case.

Trust me. I've taken everything you have all had to say on this issue into consideration, and the project has evolved due to your input...but I'll keep it to myself until the photos are printed. :greenpbl:

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with pushing the boundries. I could sit back and shoot the same thing over and over, but that wouldn't be much of a challenge, now would it?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 9, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> SHOCKING and "DISTURBING". You're nude photos of yourself,



It is not really charming to call someone's nude fotos shocking  If I was told that, I would instantly try to find the next large mirror with wrecked self-confidence regarding my body


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Mar 9, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> I expect several things to happen when I publish these photos...
> 
> 1. Folks will be shocked.
> 2. Some folks will decry the message
> ...



Simply discussing the photos has already done all five of these things.  I can't wait to see them.  Also, I was pleasantly surprised to come back and find this thread hadn't been locked.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Mar 10, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> Let me see if I can clarify.
> 
> You and you alone are responsible for your own safety. There are goblins in the world that will do you harm. You cannot count on anyone else to protect you. Those who would do you harm should b held accountable. But I would rather see the intended victim hold that person immediately accountable and see that person go home to their families that night rather than have a prosecuting attorney and jury hold that person accountable after a successful attack.


 
Thanks for the clarification. I see where you are going, but I also think we shouldn't have to live in fear. If our society was stricter on violent crimes there would be less of a problem, but instead we see rapists walking free with a couple months of jail time, and child molesters getting probation.

We need a little less tolerance for these sorts of crimes, no three strikes rule.

I agree with what the traveler has said, about contacting a clinic about this sort of thing. The way I am seeing it though, the people at v-day (http://www.vday.org/contents/vday) as well as most domestic abuse clinics will disagree with your proposal. Im sure they will love that you are trying to convey such a message, but fixing violence with more violence is not answer here.



			
				Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Wow. I think your project can be successful.
> 
> I do, however, urge that you do it for the right reason... with a just purpose. If you have feelings about this, and have something to say about it, then it should be said... for your sake. How it's received will be out of your hands. I'm sure that you know that. I don't know if you "realize" it.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with this 100%, make your photos with the idea in mind that no one will care.  If you put it into that perspective and no longer want to make the picture, you may be doing it for the wrong reasons.  

And as far as what RMTompson said, you do bring a lot of controversy to the site, and that isn't always a goodthing. I say this because when everything you do is "pushing the boundries" and edgy, the main message loses its effect because your photos are seens as conveying a thought so much as made to generate buzz.


----------



## Innocence (Mar 10, 2007)

i dont really understand the aim here. 

you would like to raise awareness? That women can carry weapons to defend themselves? we aren't exactly living in dystopian caveman dog eat dog world.

if all women 'evolved' and started carrying weapons then surely you'd think the people who want to rape the women would 'evolve' too...
where would it end? everyone would be carrying guns. to protect yourself from other things too, robbery etc. hey if everyone has guns, it doesn't mean that everyone is safe. (although an inference from your display pic would suggest otherwise.)

there has to be a better way - and i dont think violence is ever the answer.

And to add to your list of 5 things you can expect, a 6th.

6/ people who will see your message for _what it is _and discard it from their minds without a second though.

maybe your aim is worth championing but your method may not.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 10, 2007)

Innocence said:


> i dont really understand the aim here.
> 
> you would like to raise awareness? That women can carry weapons to defend themselves? we aren't exactly living in dystopian caveman dog eat dog world.
> 
> ...


 
You've said everything I've tried to say much more eloquently.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 10, 2007)

I was just about to suggest that the OP do his photos but use mannequins rather than living females.  That would emphasize the objectification of females by predatory men and would avoid subjecting any female friend to the indignity of lying around with her skirts hiked up.

He, of course, could still be the male figure if he chose.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 10, 2007)

Innocence said:


> we aren't exactly living in dystopian caveman dog eat dog world.


From where I stand, we are.



> ...hey if everyone has guns, it doesn't mean that everyone is safe.


No, it does not. But, it does level the playing field. An armed woman (or man for that matter) can more readily fend off an armed attack than one who is unarmed.



> there has to be a better way - and i dont think violence is ever the answer.


I disagree. If someone were to offer me violence, I have every intention of giving them more violence in return than they can handle. Criminals and thugs only understand violence. Reason and civility does not enter their thinking. If it did, they would not be criminals and thugs.

The late Col. Jeff Cooper (USMC, retired) once said that "a rifle is an inanimate object, and therefore has no will of its own. It is neither good nor evil. And while an evil man will not be persuaded by propaganda, he may certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 10, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> I was just about to suggest that the OP do his photos but use mannequins rather than living females.  That would emphasize the objectification of females by predatory men...



That actually isn't a bad idea. Thanks, I'll consider it.


----------



## craig (Mar 10, 2007)

I love the ideas in your original post. I get the cell phone and cord thought. I picture the violence as the effect that love has on us. I mean that a gun or knife wounds are Disneyland compared to the way I feel when a dear one breaks my heart. Certainly violence is appalling. I think if you convey your feelings as opposed to a message the shots will be more effective. Whatever you do stay away from the examples you posted. 

Sensitive issues on a forum is tough. We go around in circles because no one is right. Gets slightly tough to read. Let us stick to the world of photography.


----------



## JohnMF (Mar 10, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> The links listed below are images that were shot by Oleg Volk www.olegvolk.net
> 
> These links relate to what I am trying to do. These are a bit more light than what I intend, and I am not trying to emulate his style. These are a bit commercial to me, though...
> 
> ...



these look really tacky, you would do well not to emulate his "style"


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 11, 2007)

Innocence said:
			
		

> we aren't exactly living in dystopian caveman dog eat dog world





Efergoh said:


> From where I stand, we are.



It seems to me that you need to realize that no matter how much you miss it, you aren't wearing a uniform and carrying a rifle any more.

This is the real world, not a *Taxi Driver* scenario where you are some on-the-edge Sergeant of Marines warrior against the bad guys. Real life isn't as simple as that, there are few Good versus Evil situations. You will have to understand that or you will grow old and unhappy, hoping for a clarity and a role that doesn't exist.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Mar 11, 2007)

Efergoh,

Do you think that more violent crimes against women could be prevented simply by providing women with assertiveness training?


----------



## morydd (Mar 11, 2007)

I'll not comment on the politcs here other than to say, I'm in favor of both an armed populace and incredibly scrict gun control. If you want to know how I work that, PM me.

Photographically, from the orignial description, I feel that the message you're trying to get across (Active defence can be more effective than passive defence, in my understanding and attempting to reduce it to the most basic level) is likely to be lost to the baggage that _everyone_ brings to the table when guns and/or rape are involved. Unfortunately, I think that no matter how you compose the pictures, the message you would like to send will be overwhelmed by the message that each of us already has in our heads about these aspects of life. What would be most artistically pleasing, and potentially effective in my mind, is if you could portray the same feeling without using sex or weapons. I can't give you the slightest hint how to accomplish that. If I could, I'd (attempt to) do it myself because I think it would be an amazing acheivement.

Regardless of the motivations for taking such pictures, I believe you must do so. From your other work it's obvious that you've found a way, through your photography, to exorcise some of your demons. I wish my photography allowed me to do the same. Best of luck to you. I'll be interested to see the results.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Mar 11, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> From where I stand, we are.
> 
> No, it does not. But, it does level the playing field. An armed woman (or man for that matter) can more readily fend off an armed attack than one who is unarmed.
> 
> ...


 
again I want to point out that your attitude toward violence goes against what you are trying to stop.  You cant be a hypocrite and say, "don't be violent or I'll kill you" it just doesn't work like that.

And guess what, the police have guns and they still get shot at.  Gang members have guns, and they still get shot.  Packing heat doesn't solve the problem, it just means the "thugs" have to be a little more strategic in their attack (i.e. sneaking up on a woman so she doesn't have time to grab her gun, or knock her out so she cant reach for a weapon).


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 11, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Efergoh,
> 
> Do you think that more violent crimes against women could be prevented simply by providing women with assertiveness training?



Absolutely!

I'm not saying that everyone should go buy a pistol, stick it in their purse or pocket and forget about it. It goes way beyond that. To me, the use of a firearm in anger is a last ditch effort. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The #1 way to deter a violent attack is simple situational awareness. I see people every day wandering about either in a fog or wrapped up in their own lives when they are out and about that makes them easy marks. Seeing a potential for danger is the best way to avoid it.

Being assertive is a double edged sword at times. If you carry yourself with purpose, your appearance alone might make a criminal move on to an easier target. But, once cornered, assertiveness alone without the tools for defense could prove disastrous.

Also, the owning and carrying of arms requires a certain mindset as well as the training to employ. If you aren't willing to aquire both, then carrying a firearm is not for you.

The photos described are displays of the polar opposites of the spectrum.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 11, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> Packing heat doesn't solve the problem, it just means the "thugs" have to be a little more strategic in their attack (i.e. sneaking up on a woman so she doesn't have time to grab her gun, or knock her out so she cant reach for a weapon).



And by not having the tools to defend yourself, you will have to be a little more strategic in your retreat (run faster than the bullet)

I didn't say that simply carrying one would solve the problem. But it gives you the same type of teeth as the wolf.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 11, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> This is the real world, not a *Taxi Driver* scenario where you are some on-the-edge Sergeant of Marines warrior against the bad guys.



No, I'm not. I'm just an ordinary person who is willing to do whatever he needs to do to ensure that I get to go home at the end of each day.

Fact of the matter is that there is real evil in this world. I see it in my neighborhood every day. The drug pushers, the drug users, the hookers, the wife beaters. This is a violent world, and that violence is not limited to the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. You are certainly free to live your life with blinders on if you will. I choose not to because I am surrounded by that violent world. No, that isn't paranoia, that is geography.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Mar 11, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> And by not having the tools to defend yourself, you will have to be a little more strategic in your retreat (run faster than the bullet)
> 
> I didn't say that simply carrying one would solve the problem. But it gives you the same type of teeth as the wolf.


 
I just feel you are going about it the wrong way.  Instead of matching firepower, why dont we stop it at the source?


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Mar 11, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> Instead of matching firepower, why dont we stop it at the source?



That sounds good, but how do you suggest we do that?


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 11, 2007)

Efergoh said:


> No, I'm not. I'm just an ordinary person who is willing to do whatever he needs to do to ensure that I get to go home at the end of each day.
> 
> Fact of the matter is that there is real evil in this world. I see it in my neighborhood every day. The drug pushers, the drug users, the hookers, the wife beaters. This is a violent world, and that violence is not limited to the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. You are certainly free to live your life with blinders on if you will. I choose not to because I am surrounded by that violent world. No, that isn't paranoia, that is geography.


 
Prostitution is EVIL?

Crap... there goes my side-job!


----------



## PetersCreek (Mar 11, 2007)

I was really trying to avoid this but there have been so many careless mischaracterizations bandied about, I feel compelled to respond.

Armed citizens, by and large, do not "live in fear"...at least no more so than the anyone else.  I'm one of them and I live a life much like others here.  I don't think I'm Rambo...or a super cop...or a vigilante...nor do I have any other macho fantasy self image.  It's not a fetish object.  It's a tool.  I have fire extinguishers in my home...I have a first aid kit and winter survival gear in my truck...and I carry a firearm for personal defense.  None of that makes me anything more than a guy trying to prudently look out for himself and his loved ones.

It's not about us "living in dystopian caveman dog eat dog world."  It doesn't have to be bad all over to be really bad at just one moment, in just one place.  I live in a great city in a great state and wouldn't live anywhere else.  But like any other community, we have our problems here and there.  Bad things do happen to good people and it isn't always on "that side of town".

We don't always take precautions because an undesired event is _likely_.  Sometimes, we take precautions because the consequences of that event, no matter how remote the possibility, are grave.  If I carry my firearm today and don't need it...yah-freakin'-hoo.  I'll gladly live the rest of my life never having to use it for self defense.  But if I do ever need it...I'm _really_ going to need it.  I know people who had the need, had the firearm, and I'm glad they're still here today.

Now, if you're one of those folks with philosophies about cutting violence off at the source, not answering violence with violence, etc...more power to you.  Good luck.  I mean that.  Just don't ask us to forego our personal defense for the sake of your social experiment.  And while you're at it, please spare us the uninformed stereotypes about gun owners gleaned from too many movies, television, news media, or perhaps your own personal prejudices.  It gets old.  Quick.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 11, 2007)

We keep wandering off point (largely by my own doing).
Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Off Topic forum?


----------



## craig (Mar 12, 2007)

Perhaps this thread should be murdered and or raped.


----------



## Innocence (Mar 12, 2007)

craig said:


> Perhaps this thread should be murdered and or raped.


maybe it will shoot back. jk.
----
it's funny how things condition us.
----
I think there will always be more people who disagree than agree with you but yeah - as you said it is controversial.  Efergoh, I think just go ahead with it. I mean you wont know what happens till you do it right? =)

Wish we could discuss at length the demons you've raised here but I guess it's out of scope for this forum/thread.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 12, 2007)

PetersCreek said:


> I was really trying to avoid this but there have been so many careless mischaracterizations bandied about, I feel compelled to respond.
> 
> Armed citizens, by and large, do not "live in fear"...at least no more so than the anyone else. I'm one of them and I live a life much like others here. I don't think I'm Rambo...or a super cop...or a vigilante...nor do I have any other macho fantasy self image. It's not a fetish object. It's a tool. I have fire extinguishers in my home...I have a first aid kit and winter survival gear in my truck...and I carry a firearm for personal defense. None of that makes me anything more than a guy trying to prudently look out for himself and his loved ones.
> 
> ...


 

The problem lies in the fact that many many many people do think of themselves as a vigalente, and give themselves a macho self image by owning a gun. You're (wrongfully) being judged by the acts of many others.

I personally would never own a gun. The chances of me being able to keep my gun secure enough to keep it out of the hands of my children and STILL being able to use it if I needed are very slim. I can think of very few scenarios where owning a gun would be a good thing, and more where owning it could be terrible.

I can't imagine where you live that you would need a gun walking down the street. Perhaps instead of owning a gun, you should stop walking down those streets, at hours of the night that would entail being robbed or mugged. In any case, if someone shines a gun in MY face, I certainly am not going to pull my OWN on them. I think that would anger them, and increase the likelyhood of them actually shooting... 

In my mind fighting violence with violence is senseless, but for some people a real need. If you work at a job that requires the use, or live in an area that necesitates a gun, be my guest. FURTHERMORE if you just like to shoot a gun at the firing range, and own it for that purpose, I have no problems. If you hunt, go ahead.

I do, however think that we need stricter laws on WHO can obtain a gun and HOW fast they can, (infamous gun show law). Furthermore I think the idea of giving guns to women who would keep them in their purse in case of rape is RIDICULOUS. A gun permit and a concealed permit are TWO different things, and there is a good reason for that. IT takes an attentive, trained, alert individual to keep a gun on them at all times. 

The OP's original idea of bringing attention to the problem of a lack of an armed female populace is madness... sorry if you don't see that.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 12, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> That sounds good, but how do you suggest we do that?


 
One way is to avoid situations that would require the use of a gun. Avoid areas of town that aren't well lit and populated. 

I get by my life just fine and never ONCE have I ever considered owning a gun. I don't live in Middletown USA, I live near St Pete, and Tampa... we have a high crime rate...


----------



## dewey (Mar 12, 2007)

This is a photo forum guys... not sure why the mods are letting this go wild.


----------



## Efergoh (Mar 12, 2007)

RMThompson, your attitude is elitist. Not everyone can avoid those high crime areas. What of the poor who are forced by the economic status to live in low rent/high crime areas?

But, I think dewey is right. We can't seem to stay on task here. I think a Mod should 86 this thread while we are all still on reasonably friendly terms.


----------



## terri (Mar 12, 2007)

Yeah, it's done.

We have tried to let it run its course and be done, but someone keeps picking it up and carrying it off topic, so...   

closed.


----------

