Who's right and who's here folks?

I cant help wandering how this thread would be going if it had been a mosque.

Regardless of your religious views the church is an inapropriate place for "art" shots of any kind without the permission of it's custodian (minister/priest) even before a wedding a TOG will visit the church to speak with the man in charge.
 
am i too cynical in thinking, "nice promotion"
sex and churches have gone hand in hand since the dawn of religion
Nudes and ancient stone, it's working for me on an art level.
should he have got permission?
would it have been given?
does TP encourage trespass by hosting derelict shots threads?

my view is bugger, he got caught

er how exactly did he get caught?
which parishioner recognised his place of worship whilst perusing
fetishist and erotic photography.
Click to expand...




btw if two andys are put in 100 meters of each other they will always fight :p
 
I think the church should turn the other cheek.....is that what they preach?

Some of the shots are great and I really like them but there are a number of weird ones too.
 
Shame that some people know that the fast lane to fame and riches in today's society is not only via hard work and dedication. This sort of calculated but irresponsible behaviour could probably end up with some open churches closing their doors to casual visitors to protect themselves from **** like this setting up and trying to make a name for themselves. I don't think it will help photography in general in the long run.

"I never wanted to offend. This is done as art and shows the beauty of women."
Click to expand...

You don't need a church to show either of the above.

If this attempt fizzles out watch out for his next assault, possibly
draped across the alter in Westminster Abbey?
Click to expand...

I think he has been silly from a business perspective *possibly*. He does weddings, and I can see a lot of churches banning him.

However, as a marketing stunt, it could prove to be extremely clever (Ignoring the effect on his wedding clients).

Gary.
Click to expand...

Registry office and the park for photos it is then :LOL:
 
On a lighter note does anyone know which website template he uses? :help:
 
make sure you lock your doors and close your gates folks or your castle might well be his next location. Maybe he will pose his naked man in your favourite armchair and his naked women over your TV........or maybe he will use your bedroom.
 
Venomator said:


You can fix that by clicking on the "Go Advanced" in the bottom right of your Edit pane Badger... ;) ... you can then edit the title as you wish... :D



Ahh. Thanks for that info Venomator. I've had that little problem a couple of times now. Excellent. Badger :)


:p
Click to expand...
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

Spot on IMO.
I'm also quite anti-religion myself, and tbh if we looked hard enough we could find historical record of things in the church much much more seedier and sexually depraved than this, so the moral high ground just does not cut it IMO.
However, it's about respect. I may not share their views and beliefs, but they have a right to hold them, and it's just downright bloody rude for someone to **** all over them like this.
Using art as an excuse doesn't cut it either. It doesn't matter one jot for what reason it was done. The fact is, anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that it's disrespectful to do something like this.

I mean, you wouldn't like it if I was invited to your grandmothers house for her 80th birthday tea and decided to jump on the table, drop my pants, get my nudger out and started doing the birdy dance, would you?

It's about respect for other people, simple as.
 
The first thing that springs to mind with this, regardless of whether it's right or wrong is...

why didn't anyone stop him during the shoot?

Did he just wander into a completely empty church, mill around with a few naked women for an hour or so, then wander off with no one seeing him? It's got a few houses right by it so it's not exactly secluded.

Or maybe it was a Sunday.
 
What, and all the churchgoers were down the pub? :D

The thing is, this sort of behaviour is stupidly irresponsible for someone from the photographer community. Like has been said, it only goes to help give photographers a bad name.
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

+1
 
EdinburghGary said:
The church is wrong. It is simply Art, and it's just an other example of religious NUTJOBS causing grief.

Do we really think god is up their thinking "Tut, Tut, Tut - what a silly photographer"?

The church is old, outdated, and needs to get a grip on reality before it becomes an even bigger laughing stock.

Gary.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Sorry Gary, he took shots he knew he'd never get permission for and I'm with the church on this one, no religious nut jobs about it. Trawlling round his site there are one or two photos that cut pretty close to the mark for me and I can imagine a religous organisation finding them deeply offensive - I'm sure thats why hes shot them.

Outmoded and outdated or not the church still has the right to say how its land and buildings are used, same as a hotel, stately home or any other privately owned building does.

Do I think going to court is a good idea - not unless they are doing so with their eyes very wide open. eta I don't think blasphemy is the way to take to court - but wouldn't the National trust take you to court over copywrite issues if you did this

Hugh
 
However, I'd like to add.....

If he had set these shots up in his own home. Created his own religious looking setting, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
I agree with everyone who has said it's a matter of respect. Personally I am not remotely religious, but a church? ffs, it's pure, tasteless, publicity stunt, imo. Also, the images are not all simply 'art nude'. Whacking something into black and white does not an art nude image make. they are simply soft porn with a religious bent.

L
 
Marcel said:
Spot on IMO.
I'm also quite anti-religion myself, and tbh if we looked hard enough we could find historical record of things in the church much much more seedier and sexually depraved than this, so the moral high ground just does not cut it IMO.
However, it's about respect. I may not share their views and beliefs, but they have a right to hold them, and it's just downright bloody rude for someone to **** all over them like this.
Using art as an excuse doesn't cut it either. It doesn't matter one jot for what reason it was done. The fact is, anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that it's disrespectful to do something like this.

I mean, you wouldn't like it if I was invited to your grandmothers house for her 80th birthday tea and decided to jump on the table, drop my pants, get my nudger out and started doing the birdy dance, would you?

It's about respect for other people, simple as.
Click to expand...

Can we arrange a meet to see Marcels Dance ..:LOL: everybody would be there I bet cameras at the ready, NO they are banned !


ps I agree with you 100% Marcel..... the dance just made me laugh.
 
I dont think it matters what type of photos they are. He should have asked .. I dont care for religion , never have.. waste of time.. and dont get me started on them evil little nuns.. However I am sorry but even a first day photographer with 0% experience would know to ask.

Church 1 v 0 Photographer
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more mate.

I dont care what your beliefs are, you should be responsible enough to respect other peoples beliefs. What he did was down right irrepsonsible and offensive and he deserves everything he gets.

I mean come on, a semi naked woman sat in the baptismal font is outragous...
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

I understand that this is the view that every decent, normal individual should probably take, but I can't help thinking about the alarmingly high amount of incidences of actual sexual abuse, which have been perpetrated by vicars and priests over recent years inside these very same 'sacred' buildings :(. Like so much to do with religion; the hypocrisy of these (so called) 'holy men' beggars belief sometimes :thumbsdown:.

End of rant.
 
Marcel said:
I mean, you wouldn't like it if I was invited to your grandmothers house for her 80th birthday tea and decided to jump on the table, drop my pants, get my nudger out and started doing the birdy dance, would you?
Click to expand...

That sounds like a great birthday bash idea....are you taking bookings? :LOL:
 
I may be missing something here but whats the difference between his work and say for example....this.........
2634_1111865950192_1033174275_37078.jpg

other than the lack of a camera in them days of course
 
I see a big difference but that my opinion and not really what this is about. The issue is somebody when into a private property and didn't ask permission knowing that said permission would be refused. Nothing to do with art - more a publicity seeking egotist

Hugh
 
I'm as rabidly anti-religion as they come, and I think the photographer in this instance is a total tool.

Taking overtly sexual photographs in a church...without permission? I can completely disagree with virtually everything the church is about, but that doesn't mean I can't show some respect.
 
Maybe I'm being cynical, but the whole thing just screams "publicity stunt" to me - and it sounds like I'm not the only one.

I'm as anti-religious as anyone else and I've got no problem at all with erotic photography. But come on . . . if you take those sort of photos inside a church what sort of reaction do you think you're going to get?
Common sense tells you that it's going to be offensive to a reasonably large percentage of the population.

Of course he knew what the reaction would be, and I suspect it's just the sort of reaction he was looking for.

Marcel said:
I mean, you wouldn't like it if I was invited to your grandmothers house for her 80th birthday tea and decided to jump on the table, drop my pants, get my nudger out and started doing the birdy dance, would you?
Click to expand...

Actually, knowing my grandmother, that would have really made her day. It was her 100th birthday back in March, so just missed out on that one too :LOL:
 
paseodj said:
I may be missing something here but whats the difference between his work and say for example....this.........
2634_1111865950192_1033174275_37078.jpg

other than the lack of a camera in them days of course
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the photographs? because the difference is quite evident. It's nothing to do with nudity, and all to do with context

L
 
paseodj said:
I may be missing something here but whats the difference between his work and say for example....this.........
2634_1111865950192_1033174275_37078.jpg

other than the lack of a camera in them days of course
Click to expand...

LOL. Come on - that was a commissioned work by Michelangelo which took him years to complete, cost him his eyesight due to paint dripping in his face, and it depicts Old Testament Bible stories. It was never intended to to titillate in any way. You can't seriously draw a comparison with this guy.
 
neo2810 said:
Alot of his shots are indulgent tosh, but the 3rd from the left, top row here takes the buscuit :wacky:
Click to expand...

That's okay, it's "art" :p

Blatant publicity stunt.
 
ho hum... can argue from several angles but at the end of the day I agree with the church, primerially (in no specific order) because he used sacred ground for soft porn which I agree is blasphemous and didn't seek the landowners permission.

However, it can be argued that a church is not a building but a body of people worshiping God, it just so happens that the building is their meeting place and has been sanctioned. (In accordance with RC tradition, specifically GCSE teachings of papers for Religious Studies, Papers B1 and B2 in relation to RC Church)

IMO though, he's in the wrong, but has pulled a great publicity stunt. If it gets people talking, right or wrong, it's all free advertising...

...and BTW I adore soft porn gothic shots!
 
JasonRS said:
It's actually a photograph of a piece of Portland Stone sculture in St Martin's in the Field. It's called the Christ Child, is by Mike Chapman and was commisioned in 1999 for the millenium celebrations.

http://www.mikechapmansculptor.com/
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I figured it was a sculpture, but in the context of his other shots, he's managed to depict it in an entirely different way to the intended interpretation of the creator.
 
the church have got their cock (jesus/vicars etc) on display all the time, so what's wrong with a nice bit of lady lumps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top