Images Of Dead People

,

I choose not to view that thread, but had no problem with someone opening it. It's their choice as it was mine. I wish more people here could see it the same way.

Mario, why are you posting pictures of dead people if you find pictures of dead people repulsive?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Is that little boy deceased or sleeping in between loved ones grave sites?

Dan, it's not that I find dead people repulsive, I find using the pictures of dead people as Art repulsive, it's a form of exploitation.

I think photo's of dead people should only be utilized for purposes of criminal investigations i.e. identifying a deceased, criminal prosecution, but not for any commercial use or even exhibiting as Art of any type.

-----> insert soap box sculpture here

OK, just went back and read the thread and even viewed the link. I'm not a big fan of viewings at funerals. I don't kiss cheeks or hands or rub foreheads of the dead. But that's jsut me. I've seen some dead relatives that looked like they were asleep and others that didn't even look like them. My high school friend, at age 33, looked like he did when he was 17. That was freaky. Having worked in the media before and seeing how the media can be covering the death of even an unknown if they die in some newsworthy way, I have told my families how I want my funeral to be carried out. (No media, whatsoever.) Now it occurs to me that I should give some thought as to whether I want a public viewing or not.

The link in the other thread is not cup of tea. I would not wish to be a part of it as either the photog or the subject. But that's just me. I didn't find it offensive or repulsive. Willing participants, each of them. (The baby one was creepy though.)

The thing that fascinates me is that we as photogs and artists often have contradictory views on what are actually similiar topics. Not naming names, but one participant who rightfully (IMHO) argued for shooting a fatal car wreck (albeit not showing the victim) was adamant that the photos in the link were offensive. I believe the exact words were "morbid sensationlism." That's his right to have that opinion and more than one person agreed with him. But it's actually pretty easy not to have to deal with this kind of photography -- don't take these kinds of photos, or allow them to be taken of you, and don't view them on line or buy them. Another forum participant who was, as I recall, against shooting a fatal car wreck, seemed not to have a problem with this as is his right.

Here's another interesting point to ponder. The subjects in these photos agreed to have them taken. But victims of crimes do not... and yet their pictures are taken all the time, obviously. In the end, it seems an odd thing to get all up in arms about.

Again, not for me, so if it's your cup of tea, that's fine.

Melissa, this one? lol

LOL Mario. You have such a great sense of humor! love it

It's strange the other thread was closed without any reason offered.....am I even allowed to say that?? who knows?

I'm with you on this Mario.. I think it was nothing more than sensationalism... really poor show. But...it's work! so who cares..point me to the cadaver and show me the money money money!!!!

edit: joke...not for me..

Thanks Melissa, some times a little humor helps us get through thought provoking subjects such as death.

I would also include fetus images in my "images of dead people" be it for or against abortion, those images should not be used as a means of protest one way or the other, again the important thing is respect for the human life unborn or still born at what ever stage.

lol..

Philip, I might agree if the dead person gave permission and his wishes are being honored for some purpose. That's about the only thing I find worthy of addressing, with regard to your religious remarks, it's not the topic of discussion here. I suggest taking it to Barry's Group where you are allowed to discuss it. You seem to have a double standard you want to apply to me if you claim my opening statement or the image is repulsive and an insult to existence as you say. I sense a great deal of anger and disdain, I'm not so sure what set you off, Me, Religion which we are not talking about or this subject? think about it and maybe come back and enlighten me.

Philip, what difference does it make to you? is it not your position that it's ok to use dead people images? what are you all upset about?

http://fineartamerica.com/groups/everything-in-moderation-including-moderation.html?tab=overview

3....2....

Philip, are you on any medication? what in GOD's name are you talking about?I really am trying to understand the source of your anger, but this discussion has nothing to do with religion. I would hope you get off that subject, and deal with the subject at hand, read my OP again. Jeeez

Philip..So you opt to waste your time debating it where it's not ok to do so....? hmmmm... that's irrational.

Philip, I think the joke is on you .LOL, Peace!!!

Their are other reasons for using dead people photo's which I had not given much thought to and that is for medical research purposes.But I think for it to be ethical it has to be done with prior written permission.

Philip, I dedicate this song to you my friend..........enjoy......it's a classic.

Hey Mario.... interesting topic.. but difficult to discuss with the current forum restrictions..

Q1: What difference would there be [ assuming consent ] from photographing a living person or a dead person?
Q2: What line is being crossed in regards of decency?
Q3: If you were to find out that those photos were actually of people sleeping, would they suddenly become decent? The photo would not have changed.

I might understand a controversy if they were photos of a violent death, but there is nothing shocking about those photos [ to me ]. They mostly seemed very peaceful and maybe sad.

As usual just my humble opinion.. nothing more. ;O)

bob

I don't see why it's difficult to discuss.

First we must to some degree define decency, lets say we take the generally accepted definition: behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.

Q.#1 The difference is the person is dead.

Q.#2 Respect for the dead, exploitation (unless the deceased had a specific intent for the image) one should be able to decide for themselves.

Q.#3 Yes, of course your not disrespecting the dead.

Did I ever state that my opinion IS fact???

I think people who care nothing for other peoples opinions are the epitome of ignorance. They go through life disregarding everything and everyone..except their own(parents,state,media?) opinions. I think this retards personal growth. A mind which is completely closed to other opinions is a very small mind indeed. I often wonder what causes this retardation. Is it hereditary? Are some people simply born with tiny little minds incapable of expansion? I wonder... anyhow.. this is just my opinion!.. each to their own... I love to hear other peoples opinions on matters. I wonder if any of the photographers took up this line of work (i mean the grieving pics..not the art) whether faa would print the work off and show it on the sales announcement page?

Barry.. I certainly back families and photographers photographing the deceased.. I just can't see them being marketable on FAA..
BUT.. having said that.. when I look at the recently sold page.. I have to say.... who the H*LL knows ;O)

lol...yeah I don't think scruples is a word used here much Bob!

edit: John's link to the charity which provides a service for grieving parents was an interesting take on this whole discussion.. good share and another opinion worth heeding... but to call it art..? I still wonder!

Barry,

I used to think my opinions mattered when I was in my early twenties. Now that 20 plus years have passed I know now that our opinions only really matter...to us.

I listen to others. I am here. I just know that opinions aren't worth much. My own included.

You are vocal about your opinions. Nothing wrong with that. But you should expect to be "singled out" when you do that.

Like I said, if we just live our own lives based on our opinions and ignore people doing something we may not agree with but that really doesn't HURT anyone the world would be better off. Don't photograph your dead relatives and don't get your kids' ears pierced. Simple as that.

As far as FAA printing them. The images, taken away from the article, look more like people sleeping. I imagine FAA would print images of people sleeping.

John... you obviously still DO think your opinion matters...hence all your posts here...haha! doh!

"Don't photograph your dead relatives and don't get your kids' ears pierced. Simple as that."

But is it John?.. I didn't want my daughter to get her ears pierced.. My wife did.... Direct conflict of interest with a third party.. my baby daughter didn't have a say and she didn't know what was coming... So is it really that simple? I believe piercing something through a baby's earlobe for the sake of fashion is horrific.. and it's traumatic for the child.. should it be allowed in this so-called civilized society??? you seem to think so..which to me is the same as saying "we can do what we like to our kid's"...? Is this right? Can we? What's your opinion ..lol

I wont be taking any pics of dead folk either!

actually....i'll start a new thread for people to discuss and share their opinions on all matters fashion industry(involves alot of artists) including the issue of punching holes in live babies :-) I wont expect you to contribute John..... (sorry Mario;-)

"John... you obviously still DO think your opinion matters...hence all your posts here...haha! doh! "

They matter to me, like I said. I don't get upset when people disagree with my opinions because I know they don't matter to other people.


Sounds like her ears got pierced. Wife wins.

So what? Horrific? Come on. Dramatic much?

Do you know the things that can happen to children that truly are horrific?

Traumatic for the child? Come on. They are over it in less than an hour. Like I mentioned, I pierced my own ears in class because I was bored. Just used a starter earring and pushed it right through. Have you had your ears pierced Barry? If not, how can you say it is traumatic and horrific? I am sure we could ask all the women here that have their ears pierced if they think it was traumatic and horrific. If it were, I doubt it would be as common as it is.

It seems we CAN do what we like to our kids if it doesn't hurt them. No, piercing doesn't hurt them. Nobody grew up to be a serial killer because they had their ears pierced as a child.

Gentlemen, let's not forget we have a gathering place known as "Do you want a piece of me" for the more interesting type discussions, let's not risk a public scolding by the moderators.lol

Again with your opinions John....lol you tell me if i've had my ears pierced...! you should know.. Assuming wife won....again with the ass umptions..

You think that hurts try circumcision. Ouchhhhhhhh!!!!!!

I ASKED if you had your ears pierced Barry.

I deducted your wife won by your own comments...

" I didn't want my daughter to get her ears pierced.. My wife did.... Direct conflict of interest with a third party.. my baby daughter didn't have a say and she didn't know what was coming..."

Then in response to that I said "Sounds like her ears got pierced. Wife wins. "

Then you responded by totally ignoring what I said about ear piercing not being traumatic and horrific.

lol...chill dude...seriously...life's too short!... let it go! :-)

the image I posted addresses this point..... "Then you responded by totally ignoring what I said about ear piercing not being traumatic and horrific. "

you deduced wrong... and yes I have 2 holes in ma lobe... like you..diy style.. a potato and a needle..

It shows a baby crying.

Doesn't mean it is "traumatic and horrific". Maybe think of a less overly-dramatic term for something so simple and mundane.

By definition it's mutilation.... :-) Downright horrendously horrific and brutally traumatic permanent mutilation and disfigurement.....actually...


ahhh...lol... you take great pleasure of making a point of missing the point of the point.... through the baby's ear!!!

I'll be looking for you guys here------------------------->"Do you want a piece of me" http://fineartamerica.com/groups/everything-in-moderation-including-moderation.html?showmessage=true&messageid=2118170 popcorn and front row seats for all! lol

""Their [sic] are just some things that should be respected and not exploited, for me that is the dead. I know that lots of things are done in the name of Art, but shouldn't we draw the line demarcating decency some where? "


EDIT @ Mario, fyi.................."Sic is Latin for So or Thus. It is used to denote that a grammatical error, mistake or specific formating in a quoted section is in the original quote and the quoted ..." thus, I wrote 'sic' to denote that 'their' is your spelling, not mine, in my quote.
"Their" vs (correctly:)"there"......nbd.........I'm fanatical about grammar and spelling.

Sorry Vivian, I'm not understanding what you mean with [sic]................

lol Mario... alas I must go to bed.. I'm really trying to bury the hatchet but I don't think John's willing...so..the face off may happen yet...lollllllllllllllllllllllll

I wouldn't miss it, it's about time....lol

Oh, ok.....thank you! I'll try to be more carefully next time, spelling was never my best subject.

Vivian, you make me laugh because I know what you mean about how their should be some standards. LOL! Thank you.

LISA ! Sheeesh...........I'll be up all night (yours - it's only midday: 12.30 pm here,lol) if you keep doing that, lol, lol...............Their's a good girls.....lets' drop it, huh??, xoxoxo Am I THAT pedantic to have that hangup? Oh well, could be worse.

Glad it stopped the rot/conversations rot, I mean.

I have never found the use of sic to be pedantic. Such use is for the protection of those that would be considered by some to be unaware of proper grammar.

I would suggest that if one does not understand such a fundamental tool they be careful when calling another out for their own lack of fundamental grammar.

It is not meant to be an insult, unless of course, one becomes defensive of their own grammar.

Now to return to the topic.

“I guess this entire organization is built on poor taste...”

( http://www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org/families/services-for-families/?gclid=CLSvyuK1h8ECFQqQaQodUmYAxw )

Not at all John. This use has already been covered. I invite you to scroll up and read.

All this talk of proper grammar, over a misspelled word that can't be corrected after 24 hrs., I don't really understand, a little research into this [sic] and I find that some times it can also serve as a sneer, an unseemly tool to mock a trivial error or an utterance of questionable pedigree. I'll give Vivian the benefit of the doubt since she kindly explained it to me saying she is fanatical about spelling and grammar.

I guess when it comes to grammar and spelling I am guilty of letting it take 2nd place to the importance of what I'm trying to say, especially online, where the language is riddled with chat slang and the likes.

btw, it should be a requirement that if one is to correct anyone's grammar in a thread, that least they also take the time to address the subject at hand. Lol

Walter,

I am not sure what you mean. I scrolled up and did not see mention of this group before I posted the link.

John, Walter clearly stated the use was covered, not specifically the group you posted a link for.