San Francisco Photographer

[caseywb14]

Can anyone tell me what the name of the san francisco photographer is, that used to post on matts site. thanks a bunch.

[soundless_space]

The one who posted pictures of the half naked women?

 

Or was that someone else. I noticed that those pictures haven't been up in a while. I think they caused too much of a fuss.

[trufflepigs]

you mean Merkley???....?

[Crusader]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/merkley/

 

Not safe for work.

[caseywb14]

Hey thanks it was Merkley. I was just wondering what had happened to his posts. I kinda figured they caused to much of a fuse but I was wondering if anyone what the story was.

[Crusader]

Maybe. I liked him actually. Especially his "I bet you're ugly" comment. What a guy.

[AnOceanPearl]

Merkley is awesome.

[Shiri]

His pictures are awesome.

[primetime_deliverance]

He's an idiot. Anyone can do that.

[soundless_space]

Yeah, I can't say I'm a big fan. But maybe that's because I'm not a guy or lesbian.

[primetime_deliverance]

Yeah, the whole "I'm going to do something risque and claim it as art to fight the man" movement is really getting old.

[nerd glasses]

Yeah, the whole "I'm going to do something risque and claim it as art to fight the man" movement is really getting old.

To me, it wasn't even really risque ... anyone can drop their pants (or take pictures of such) and get attention. It was terribly obvious.

[primetime_deliverance]

Yeah you're right.. it was pretty transparent. I'm a little surprised (never really understood why?) Matt Good would support his work, but to each his own.

Edited March 21, 2007 by primetime_deliverance

[nerd glasses]

Yeah you're right.. it was pretty transparent.  I'm a little surprised (never really understood why?) Matt Good would support his work, but to each his own.

'Cause it was full of naked 'hot' chicks, I reckon. It ain't all deep with him.

[Crusader]

what's wrong with hot naked chicks? if its really easy for you to convince women to strip down and pose for you, more power to ya.

[primetime_deliverance]

there's nothing wrong with it... everyone loves naked hot chicks.

 

its just stupid when people start praising his work as having some kind of artistical merit beyond tits and ass when they are ashamed to simply state they're digging the tits and ass.

 

anyone can be a "successful artist" if that's the kind of pictures they're going to take. it doesn't make them an artist, it makes them a failure because they've had to resort to taking these mediocre naughty photos in order to get their jollies from others approval of their work.

 

anyways, i'm just being argumentative.. obviously it doesn't have to be as deep as this lol

Edited March 21, 2007 by primetime_deliverance

[nerd glasses]

what's wrong with hot naked chicks? if its really easy for you to convince women to strip down and pose for you, more power to ya.

Powermongering/manipulation, for any reason, is not respectable, and not a trait that should be praised or practiced. But I know that I'm a minority with that line of thinking.

 

I guess I should make it clear that I don't think all nudity in art is sexual objectification. I'm not religious, either. I didn't necessarily see overt objectification in that Merkley guy's stuff so much as it was trying too hard to be 'out there'. That and the pretentious set of question marks at the end of his name.

 

 

In the immortal words of Homer J. Simpson, "Less artsy, more fartsy."

[mrs jesus]

That and the pretentious set of question marks at the end of his name.

is that a joke? you're trying to be funny, right? because if you're serious with that statement, then i have just read the stupidest thing ever said on this board and i want a screenshot of it or something.

[Shiri]

I'm not seeing what he's doing is art, I'm just saying it's eye-candy ;)