4 ms·

People have projected that onto her, but it's not true. https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of-jpegs/ https://www.wired.com/story/finding

People have projected that onto her, but it's not true. https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of-jpegs/ https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of... > In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said. Probably more harm has been done by the internet mob demanding she feel a certain way about her picture, than any harm done by the image itself.

maxbond 4y ago
My mistake on that claim, I still roll my eyes at people who say it's totally normal and okay. How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? There's a leering element to it.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? To be fair, very few other racy pictures of women have been canonicalized like that, either; about the only pictures I can think of are paintings, specifically the Mona Lisa, which is hardly racy, and Boticelli’s Birth of Venus, which I suppose you might look at as racy, though I wouldn’t particularly. There’s a couple other non-picture works of art that are canonicalized in that way, but aren’t themselves pictures – Michaelangelo’s David as mentioned in a sibling comment is a good example. But then, even though the canonicalization makes them into something else, it is usually based on upon perceived artistic importance, the Lenna is a different and arguably sui generis phenomenon.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Racy picture? Wait, what photo are we talking about? Is this still about the one in andrewfromx's article that shows a woman's face and shoulder?
    - EamonnMR 4y ago
      It's cropped from an explicit photograph published in Playboy.
      - ryandrake 4y ago
        But the topic of this subthread is the cropped, non-racy image that got circulated. Is there anyone who actually got offended by a picture of a woman’s face and shoulder? Besides maybe people in ultra-religious societies that insist on women’s shoulders being covered?
        EamonnMR 4y ago
        I think people got offended when they found out the source of the image.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        The original is a nude, but calling it “explicit” is…quite a stretch. [0] [0] a scan of the full centerfold is included in this piece (NSFW, obviously): https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_lenna_edition.php https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_l...
        EamonnMR 4y ago
        Maybe I should have used NSFW instead of explicit, I just don't like to mix initialisms into my speech.
- slackfan 4y ago
  The statue of David comes to mind immediately. It's been canonicalized like that for over over 500 years, yet I don't hear anybody saying that it's not ok, or talking about how it projects an unhealthy stereotype of men.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notch898a 4y ago
The comment you are replying to is simply bad faith white knighting. As soon as I indicated I felt violated by their comment, suddenly it was "different."
- maxbond 4y ago
  You're trying to stir me into anger by, yourself, acting in bad faith. It's a cheap trick which won't work, and patently obvious to most any observer. If you had a point, you wouldn't need to behave this way. (As opposed to some other people who disagree with me in this thread, who do have a point, and don't feel compelled to do this.)
  - notch898a 4y ago
    I think my point is made. You're creating a standard that even you refuse to satisfy.

maxbond 4y ago

My mistake on that claim, I still roll my eyes at people who say it's totally normal and okay. How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? There's a leering element to it.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> How many racey pictures of men have been canonicalized like that? To be fair, very few other racy pictures of women have been canonicalized like that, either; about the only pictures I can think of are paintings, specifically the Mona Lisa, which is hardly racy, and Boticelli’s Birth of Venus, which I suppose you might look at as racy, though I wouldn’t particularly. There’s a couple other non-picture works of art that are canonicalized in that way, but aren’t themselves pictures – Michaelangelo’s David as mentioned in a sibling comment is a good example. But then, even though the canonicalization makes them into something else, it is usually based on upon perceived artistic importance, the Lenna is a different and arguably sui generis phenomenon.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Racy picture? Wait, what photo are we talking about? Is this still about the one in andrewfromx's article that shows a woman's face and shoulder?
  - EamonnMR 4y ago
    It's cropped from an explicit photograph published in Playboy.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      But the topic of this subthread is the cropped, non-racy image that got circulated. Is there anyone who actually got offended by a picture of a woman’s face and shoulder? Besides maybe people in ultra-religious societies that insist on women’s shoulders being covered?
      - EamonnMR 4y ago
        I think people got offended when they found out the source of the image.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      The original is a nude, but calling it “explicit” is…quite a stretch. [0] [0] a scan of the full centerfold is included in this piece (NSFW, obviously): https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_lenna_edition.php https://kevinrye.net/index_files/1972_playboy_magazine_the_l...
      - EamonnMR 4y ago
        Maybe I should have used NSFW instead of explicit, I just don't like to mix initialisms into my speech.
slackfan 4y ago
The statue of David comes to mind immediately. It's been canonicalized like that for over over 500 years, yet I don't hear anybody saying that it's not ok, or talking about how it projects an unhealthy stereotype of men.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

notch898a 4y ago

The comment you are replying to is simply bad faith white knighting. As soon as I indicated I felt violated by their comment, suddenly it was "different."

maxbond 4y ago
You're trying to stir me into anger by, yourself, acting in bad faith. It's a cheap trick which won't work, and patently obvious to most any observer. If you had a point, you wouldn't need to behave this way. (As opposed to some other people who disagree with me in this thread, who do have a point, and don't feel compelled to do this.)
- notch898a 4y ago
  I think my point is made. You're creating a standard that even you refuse to satisfy.