Jump to content
caseywb14

San Francisco Photographer

By caseywb14, in Matthew Good

Recommended Posts

Join or sign in to the forums to disable this ad!

caseywb14

caseywb14

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

nerd glasses

nerd glasses

Posted
Posted
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.

nerd glasses

nerd glasses

Posted
Posted
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

Crusader

Posted
Posted

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

primetime_deliverance

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by primetime_deliverance
nerd glasses

nerd glasses

Posted
Posted
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

mrs jesus

Posted
Posted
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.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.