Obviously I Am a Depraved Pervert

Submitted by deke on 26 September 2008 - 3:38am.

Let's start with the good news: lynda.com has made available fully half of my Photoshop CS4 New Features series, seven movies in all. Members have access to all seven of these movies (shown below). Non-members can watch the first (Working with panels) and last (Content-aware scaling).

(Non-members: Don't forget, you can sign up for a 7-day free pass to all 30,000+ movies in the lynda.com library by logging in here.)

As recently as yesterday, Adobe was barring us from posting more than two movies. Now we're up to seven. I credit us -- all the quite sensible bitching we did on this very site! (Who knows if anyone from Adobe looks at this site, but still.) Gosh, we rule.

What's equally interesting about the new videos is what's missing. As recently as Wednesday, LDC (lynda.com) was offering a movie called "The new tabbed window interface," which introduced you to the revamped CS4 workspace. That movie has mysteriously vanished. Why? B/c it contained nakedness. Allow me to show you:

Warning to those venturing further: Provocative photographs and sitcom references coming up.

The image above appeared briefly in the video as we switched between multiple open windows. Yes, it's provocative. Which is a good thing, yes? The excellence of life spurs us on to make excellent things! This is a classic young, fit, beautiful, study-of-the-idealized-human-form nude. Plus, she's rendered in dark makeup. For which I named her "I Am Petroleum," in keeping with l'events du current.

Sadly for me, within 48 hours of the video going live, LDC received a steady stream of ardent complaints. Which is why the video has been yanked. (No knock against LDC. I agreed to rerecord the video next week. Get psyched for puppies and lollipops, 24/7.)

Quite reasonably, we all worry about the images that appear on our systems at school and work. So I suppose it's predictable that the complainers say, "Good lord, I'm at school/work! I'm trying to catch up on CS4 and my colleagues think I'm surfing porn." My reaction: If this is your idea of porn, you are one amazing Thurston Howell III of masturbation, with your pinky extended and calling out loud to Lovey and fantasizing about Gilligan and everything. In other words, you are one hifalutin gets-turned-on-by-the-Sistine-Chapel pornographer. You ashamed? You should be proud of how evolved into the next order of primate you are. Homo Elevatus!

But see, it's not pornography. It's art. Let me 'splain: That somehow controversial Petroleum girl is just the first whisper of the work from my beloved Alexandra Alexis of iStockphoto.com. She captures some amazing images, including:

and:

and also:

My thinking is, they're all harmless enough. Someone with a dirty mind could say, "That woman with a bare bottom has a bare bottom!" Or "That woman covered in chocolate is really enjoying her chocolate!" Or "Those two women . . . ." Um, okay, there might be some subterranean context behind that one.

But they're all stunning, shot with loving, meticulous, deviant care.

And yet here's my point: I didn't use the pics that would obviously offend half of Americana. (Not me. I could learn an awful lot looking at that beau'ful butt.*) I used the one that is, without question, a lovely photograph of a lovely human being.

So here's my question: Why is what would be considered a work of obvious beauty in a coffee table book regarded as smut when delivered online? Why are we offended by the best of our bodies? Why is everything we are somehow everything we shouldn't see?

----------

* Original sorry-ass a cappella. Feel free to chant it.

  • share this...
. Tagged with:

Comments

Wow, this has been some thread

Submitted by deke on 5 October 2008 - 4:23am.
I'm glad to see such a vigorous (and thus far amicable) discussion. It's gotten a little kooky, but there's some good stuff here. I'm glad to hear SM comment on how the censorship approved by one group ends up messing things up for the folks who aren't offended. To wit, I've recorded the chihuahua version of the movie. But it takes time to edit and post the darn thing. So as I write this, LDC has no coverage of the tabbed window interface. (Not so bad as having no plan for stabilizing the economy or solving the health care crisis or exiting Iraq, but the tabbed window interface is a close fourth.) Blame the complainers, blame LDC for caving, blame me for my naiveté in using the image in the first place. Or blame God for inventing this merry assemblage. ;-) I eagerly await someone complaining about the chihuahuas. I mean, those tiny creatures were forced to wear dopey little outfits. Pamela Anderson, where are you? Anyhoo, in the name of keeping the peace (I love sex, but I hate war), I'm going to turn off commenting on this page for now. It sorta seems like we've talked this one to death. But if you feel like waxing poetic about Genesis or your sudden outbreak of DPs, take it to the chihuahua page. And to all, as usual, my thanks. You make this site a home. (A really fractious, dysfunctional one. But hey, mom's a tart and dad's a ho. You love 'em both cuz home is home.)

When I grow up...

Submitted by james on 5 October 2008 - 12:24am.
I want to be a depraved pervert. Is there a school for this. What kinda job opportunities are out there right now for "DPs". Is it good pay or just the good feeling you get form the job? How about advancement opportunities? Is it a 9 to 5 thing or are you always on call? Can you specialize or is it a holistic approach covering all depravity? When do you really know you made it as a "DP" Do you need an accent? Where are the biggest opportunities, outside of Congress to excel? I just know I have what it takes, if you could just get me them "Glen Gary" leads I will be off in a new York minute! Hook me up Dog!

I've tried to stay out of this but...

Submitted by SM on 4 October 2008 - 5:26pm.
I can generally see the viewpoints on both sides of this discussion but the nonetheless people who wrote in and complained, in my eyes, were ideologically misguided (not wrong, because that to some degree means blame). To that end we need to realize the medium in which the photo was used; the internet. As a social, networking, "idea" free zone where any amount of information can be passed by the push of a button, under the consitiution no bodies can sensor, constrain, or punish those who seek/ display that information (except for the recent Mp3 and legal ownership issues earlier in the decade and what legal LAW sees as indecent for a certain age group). So, then where does that leave us? Self censorship. This is an issue that has been at the heart of every medium since the advent of film (see MPPA guidelines of the 20's-50's). Almost every instance it has hindered not only the creative processes but also what can be viewed by the viewer without the viewer ever viewing the censored material. So basically, no choice. When companies /industries start self censoring it really does start to become their downfalls, even more so when it lay it the realm of education, creative inspiration and technology. In the case of this particular image, what LDC stands and what Deke does for all of us, it was wrong for them to pull the video. Again, it wasn't wrong for the viewers to write in and voice what they felt but to self censor based on an image that was barely considered indecent (in legal terms that is) will have negative effects on LDC in the future. Now, since this has happened everyone recording an video will always have in the back of their heads wether an image is decent and not letting their teachings and workings matter most (something they all did already, but now magnified ten fold). In the same fashion what if the image was the only image Deke could have had the same outcome with (I know, rare, but still). On the other end for LDC, where does the censorship stop? How do you limit on what is considered right and wrong in an educational/ creative atmosphere without alienating some of your customers? Can you really "subscribe to a world of knowledge" with these type of things going on, or does now knowledge become secondary to the ideology of a few? Now, on a more personal level the image, in my eyes was fine. I thank you Deke for re-recording it for all of us who rely on your training, something I don't know that I would have done. Let's be real here for a moment: we ALL PAY for the LDC service and to have something taken offline like that stops the flow of knowledge directly and very unfairly. Just because X number of people thought it was naughty now EVERYONE cannot see it even though we ALL pay for it. I'll end my rant on this note: Have your kids/wives/you ever saw an Herbal Essence commercial? An Ad for CK jeans? An underwear billboard? These things are mass produced and for the most part FREE. Which means you little choice in viewing them or not, they are just there. You should be writing your letters to the people who create these images etc,. for they have a much greater negative effect of society (eating disorders, distorted self image, low self esteem etc.) than any image Deke chooses to include in his teachings (the key word being choice).

General Audience

Submitted by waffer on 4 October 2008 - 10:13am.
Personally, I took McClelland's Illustrator CS3 course on Lynda.com. I really liked it. It is better than reading a book. I liked the course because I never made me feel uncomfortable. I was reluctant to take this kind of courses as for not to find unpleasant surprises on the way. The course was funny and down to the point. However, as I moved to Photoshop, I decided to undertake the CS4 road instead of the CS3. Again, I chose McClelland as the trainer based on my previous experience. Sadly, to my dismay, the General Audience environment of Lynda.com was broken. Yes, I am a Christian. Yes, I am a moralist. Yes, I think waiting to have sex till marriage is a blessing and a possible healthy choice. We use Lynda videos at school. I know of local high school that use Lynda videos. I felt comfortable having the kids on the studio while I was learning. I felt comfortable showing them how the computer can assemble great graphics. I felt comfortable showing and talking to my church about the videos. Until, I saw what all we saw. The trust of keeping it clean was broken. Yes, some will argue clean is relative. But, I think we need to be diplomatic. Let's make a compromise that does not hurt any party. I know McClelland has kids. He mentions them on the Illustrator course a great deal. I liked that part a lot. I thought he is child-conscious. I just think all of us that use those courses do it with an educational purpose. All of us open our homes and offices to the content. We need to make sure is safe for ALL eyes. Yes, some people said well not do it at the office do it at home. Someone already replied to that. Offices pay for the content. But, I also pay at home. My home is a temple as well. Kids walk around. I don't see why I should block my kids unlimited access to my space just because someone is teaching with sensitive images. My wife would not enjoy the sight either. Someone people think Playboy is art. I think is porn. Some men think it is OK to see other women naked. My values are different. I will look forward for seeing upcoming courses being relevant and appropriate for any background and environment. It is not about who pays for what and how much money. It about respect for all minds and hearts out there.

Throwing stones @ the seat of Judgement

Submitted by james on 4 October 2008 - 12:51pm.
I appreciate your comments and your reasoning for shielding your family against the human body. It's a natural progression from viewing, to lust and desire. My brother has moved into an area of the country where he has kept his children away from Blacks, Muslims, Jews and other such radical peoples, in hopes of shielding them from the obvious harm these cultures can cause to a young mind. They don't have TV or the internet, and all in all, are pretty isolated from any of what may be called corruption. My nephew was allowed to come to the City this summer as he just graduated from home school. In NYC, we have the people of the world, and any and everything you can imagine, or maybe can't imagine. He was in shock and awe being here. At 18 he had not seen people of color, except in books. He had not seen any Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Mormon. He had been so isolated in his life, that he was in actual, "harms way" as he tried to navigate this City. At 18! On many occasions I have spoken with my brother about his choice in bringing up his family this way. On the one hand, I see wanting to protect your family, on the other, raising children in a bell jar, is far from helping them, to be fair and balanced Adults. You are incapable of protecting your family every moment of their lives. To try and do so jeopardizes their individuality, and gives them the short end of the stick, when they are eventually free to pursue a life outside of your home. It is my belief children should be given all of the information you can possibly manage to give them, in the time you have. Tell them the truth from both sides of the story, without bias. And ask them questions as to their thoughts on any and all topics. Allow them to develop in a way, that when given the opportunity to make a choice, they choose wisely, because they have the knowledge of choice. In today's society we are bombarded with information. Good, Bad and Ugly! The more my parents gave extreme views on topics the more interest I had as a kid to know what was the opposing view. Consequently, I went out as an adult, and found out that many of the views of my parents were based on false information and fear. Fear of the unknown! If you see evil then it is real, but real for you, not for others. To place your evil and immoral interpretations on an image or conversation is to create the very thing it is you fear. Where as I see the conflict in the lower images, the top image is of a women unclothed, the composition and lighting is competent, and the subject matter is appealing as a natural creation of God. If this were a boy or man would you also find it as offensive? I feel this women would be viewed as naked, if you saw her private parts. If you were on a beach you would see more of the woman's body then this picture shows. In judging this image I believe you are showing your own personal demons. For it is what you interpreted, when seeing it. When it is stated. "Not to covet your neighbors wife." I believe the person writing that, was coveting his neighbors wife. He didn't say your neighbors sister in law, daughter, son, husband, sheep or dog. When we bring our judgment to the attention of others, we reveal what it is, that is truly in our hearts and minds. I wish you and your family the best this life has to offer, and would ask that you consider my words as those of a traveler with a pocket full of stones.

Between the lines

Submitted by waffer on 4 October 2008 - 5:41pm.
A. Men or women on those pictures... Not appropriate for me, my family, my school and my workspace. B. There is always the excuse that the pervert one is the one that finds it offensive. Everything you point something as sexually unnecessary, you are the perv who finds sexual motifs on the subject. Well, things are interpret as they are also expressed. You express violence, people feel violent. You express sexual desires, people read you. C. Ok... A bit extreme for the example. I won't put my kids on a bubble. Those burst. I pray God to shield them - that last forever. They may see horrid things on TV or the streets, but I know they have a radar to pray and steer away. Does it mean I have to show my kids how to do drugs, show them every evil in the world to make them mature? No. I don't think so. If I don't want it for me, I don't want it for my kids either. D. Many of us live by different standards - some low, some high. What some people think is great, others find trashy. Some are democrats, others republicans. Some are pro-life, others think it is just tissue. E. I don't think no one is throwing stones at anyone but the content and the place where is was posted. The complaint has been to be sensitive to everyone and it has been very clear. I don't think being "open-minded" is accepting whatever is thrown in front of you. Wisdom and intelligence are a process of discrimination between that is good or evil, edifying or destructive. F. The point about all nudity being art and not alarming about the human body because is nature itself. Well, anything is art nowadays. That is the new excuse for all... It is art... Well at some point at the Genesis all changed. Because the man now desires woman. and the naked body is the layout and peak of sexuality, we are being commanded to cover it up. Cover it not to produce what you produce to your husband or wife into the whole world. And let's be real ... most of the people that gets naked publicly do it for money to satisfy the media appeal that "sex sells". Having one dangerous wolf looking for a sheep is enough for me to secure my fifteen sheeps - even if the other wolves around are vegetarians.... G. Lastly, the controversy is not why, what on when, but WHERE. Where? Lynda.com. Now.... we can't introduce Why not? Lynda.con, Terms and Conditions, for Users and Trainers, Prohibited Use: Post obscene, defamatory or illegal material on the Site or OTL. The video just does not make it my friends. If McClelland had post it here on deke.com .... Well, it is his space... Lynda.com is not... God bless you all. Again, I hope the CS4 course is cleanly completed and also there is an InDesign and Illustrator. I am not here to condemn anybody. God is the only Judge.

ConTroVersy

Submitted by james on 4 October 2008 - 8:45pm.
Now I am not one to travel down controversial roads, but ... Actually, I generally take the side of issue to bring out the dialog. Sometimes I don't really believe in my rant sometimes I do. I live, by what you would consider "low standards". I am a breeder, and I like to look at beautiful women and men. I spent almost 30 years as a hairstylist and make-up artist working with fashion photographers as a dealer in Vanity. I am that person who created a false image to promote clothing, toothpaste, make-up and a thousand other products. Not by putting "lip-stick on a pig", but by taking pretty people and making them even more attractive using my expertise in hair and make-up applications. So it's my fault women and men want to have nice hair and skin and look better in clothing, or out of it. I am a perpetrator of fantasy! And it's just that objective that brought me to Adobe Photoshop and, Deke's ol Photoshop Bibles. Yes it's true I have sinned, I have cast out the lowly pimple and made clothing fit better and O, so much more! I didn't invent the "sex sells" concept, I am not that old. But to disregard this idea and give your students, children, wife, neighbor's sister in-law, the idea, if you put your head in the sand it will go away. Or that to stand on a soap box and tell people we are going to be judged by your God for our buying suntan lotion, and perpetrating the idea of "one truth" (yours) seems kinda ... lofty. I believe if all drugs were legal we wouldn't have a drug problem. If prostitution were legal we would be able to reduce significantly, the abuse of women and children. It's by editing the media that we create problems, not reduce them. If everyone has the right to do what they want, without endangering another. Then there would be far less crime in those areas. I am far more offended by the state of our financial system, and the crooks raping every American, in this country, then I am about a child seeing what a man or woman's body looks like. When I was a little boy I laughed at the pictures I found in my dads secret box. Kids are confused by the message sent out today, and it's because they only get one side of it. Thats not doing our children any good at all. And who do you think should be the arbiter of what is controversial? I am kinda busy this week, but next week, I got some time to sit my ass down in the comfortable seat of judgment, and hand down some wisdom's. But then I am just a low life with some stones in my pocket. And since it say's "he without sin, may cast the first stone". And I figure some right leaning religious people just let loose a handful of them I got a chance to throw some now. Right?

Please...

Submitted by SM on 4 October 2008 - 6:02pm.
Just be weary of the words you use. The question is where, your right (seeing that your here seemingly fighting for your beliefs). Actually LCD is Deke's space and that is partially the point: the internet is everybody's space. Take the time and fully read my post or look up what in legal terms (LAW not yours) indecent means and what the internet is as a medium and what you can freely do with it. Viewpoints aside it may do some good to know that your comparing moral issues with legal issues and where your from that might fly locally, but nationally and legally government and religion don't mix. I always enjoy new discussions on this topic and how people perceive the issue at hand. Thank you

Thanks Deke

Submitted by brian on 2 October 2008 - 10:08pm.
I'd be happy to have a good discussion of this topic, and I'm completely open to discussing it further. I simply thought you misstated our reasons for complaint, and wanted to clarify why we wrote. I will try not to take it personally, but I did feel your post was demeaning and off the mark. I tried to be cordial, but I'm a bit of an opinionated hothead at times. Be warned =P BTW that Bungalo sounds awesome.

Okay, I think we're good

Submitted by deke on 3 October 2008 - 6:04am.
Brian, I believe I understand your perspective. I used to approach it this way: No nipples, no pubes, no hints of the nether regions. Skin is okay. Provocative is playful. Fun is fair. But don't dive too deep b/c every company/institution has rules, and we have no desire to put a subscriber into a compromised position. All that remains true, except: The very premise of nudity (in other words, a whole body exposed) even if in modest repose, can also be dangerous. Lest I seem to be poking fun, I am dead serious. It's been a long time since I worked for a company whose moral compass seemed bound and determined to narrowly thread itself through the eye of an inhospitable needle. But looking back (and pardon me for shuddering), I twice did. Which gives me pause. I of course reserve the right to employ the tools of double irony, but I never for a second do I employ them at the expense of a student. My understanding: At lynda.com, play it safe. But here at deke.com, feel free to express. If so, Brian, I think we have a deal. PS: Yes, the bungalow is beautiful. At night, I see the Milky Way. In the morning, I am surrounded by an encroaching amount of nature. Meaning, not a human being in sight for miles. It is good places like this still exist. Even if they slightly unnerve me.

Sounds perfect

Submitted by brian on 3 October 2008 - 9:27am.
Thanks for your response and consideration Deke, your compromise sounds totally fair. I just have one of those desks that faces out into the library, and have a constant stream of people walking behind me. As the in-house graphic designer I frequently have people ask me about the images on my screen I'm creating or just check out what I'm working on. That includes Faculty, Staff, and Students at UNLV. As a newish employee, I just don't know what everyone's moral compass looks like, but I know what my employee handbook says. My original letter to Lynda was bemused, not angry, embarrassed, moralistic or righteous. I just thought, "Woa-hoa, that woman is pretty much naked. This is probably 100% cool in a lot of places, but perhaps not in my situation or that of a middle or high school. I'll write a quick heads-up." When I can't watch a work-related training video UNLV pays for, I did feel the right to ask for it to be a bit more SFW. That said, your personal site is totally your playground, and I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade or censor you in any way here. Thanks for your consideration, and I'll make sure to check your site from home or with the images disabled at work =P

You know, it totally makes sense

Submitted by deke on 3 October 2008 - 3:28pm.
I'm not loving the sense it makes, but it makes it. Brian, you just painted a picture that I 100% get. Your employer pays, you're in a public space, you're new to your job, and you have no idea what the people who talk to you think of what you're looking at. Philosophically, I have a problem with a public library being a place of placid morality while a few miles away the great commercial epicenter of the city tries way too hard to be as over the top as humanly possible. I'd much prefer that the library were daring and the commercial center were repressed. I fully realize that misses your point, but it's impossible to dismiss out of hand. In any event, as a firm believer that provocation (of all varieties) inspires recall, retention, and comprehension, I like to stay right next to that line that cannot be crossed. Now I have a better sense of where that line is. Thanks for humanizing this.

The lines are certainly shifty...

Submitted by brian on 3 October 2008 - 5:33pm.
"I have a problem with a public library being a place of placid morality" It's a weird balance. In fact the UNLV Library actually has a digital collection online about the Las Vegas Showgirls... True story (but a story fraught with contention and disagreement from what I understand). http://digital.library.unlv.edu/showgirls/ I totally understand your philosophical disagreements otherwise (although I love the commercial center being as zany as it is, like nowhere else I've lived), and I'm sure there are stacks and stacks of art books in the library here that contain even more nudity than what you've shown. I just don't know who's seeing what I'm seeing and what their level of comfort is. I don't like being censored or to be overly careful looking at artistic photos, but it's certainly something I'm cognizant of on the job with my monitor's level of exposure. Thanks again for this conversation Deke! You're a great teacher and I just wanted you to understand why we wrote so that I could continue getting the fantastic info you provide.

From a complainer...

Submitted by brian on 2 October 2008 - 7:19pm.
Deke I really enjoy your various series on Lynda, but this blog entry really misses the mark and as a complainer quite frankly pisses me off. I think you're blaming the victim in this post (those that had to complain because we were at work -- where our coworkers might not have the same ideas about art as we do). Let me take it point by point: "Good lord, I'm at school/work! I'm trying to catch up on CS4 and my colleagues think I'm surfing porn." My reaction: If this is your idea of porn, you are one amazing Thurston Howell III of masturbation, with your pinky extended and calling out loud to Lovey and fantasizing about Gilligan and everything." *I* don't think it's porn, but the people around me would (one coworker in particular), and I have a sexual harassment handbook that also considers it too risque for work. Thank you for calling me a wild sex-crazed pervert though, that was a necessary touch. You lashed back meanly at the complainers, obfuscating us with the people at our work who would actually become offended, and unnecessarily labeling us. "But see, it's not pornography. It's art. Let me 'splain:" Thank you for patronizing us with a basic explanation of the photography of the human form. Once again, you belittle the complainer and miss the point: I don't want to "'splain" to my offended coworker and boss why this is art during a Sexual Harassment sit-down. I've only worked at my current job a few months, and quite like it. "Yes, it's provocative. Which is a good thing, yes?" Yes, but with one major caveat: NOT AT WORK! I completely agree with you, they're beautiful photos. Just not for work. And that isn't based on my tastes or lack of art appreciation, but on those of a rigid coworker who would vehemently complain. "But they're all stunning, shot with loving, meticulous, deviant care." You should reread that sentence and ask yourself, "Is 'deviant' the kind of photography I would want to look at working in a cubicle next to a 55 year old hyper-conservative?" Those women are stunning, but deviance is for the fun, playful, naughty, wild times I have at home. "And yet here's my point: I didn't use the pics that would obviously offend half of Americana." No one said you did, and in my email to Lynda I specifically asked that you not be fired or demoted in any way because of how good your lessons are. You're clearly a good guy with a fun sense of humor. You just missed some context to these photos (which even you called both deviant and provocative -- really work safe?). "So here's my question: Why is what would be considered a work of obvious beauty in a coffee table book regarded as smut when delivered online?" Probably because in Avenue Q there is a song called "The internet is for porn." There's a general bias in some of my coworkers against the internet as a degraded, smut-trading, amoral playground for pedophiles. Does it make any sense? No. Does that mean I want to risk my job over making an intellectual point which will not change anyone's mind? Absolutely not. "Why are we offended by the best of our bodies? Why is everything we are somehow everything we shouldn't see?" These are great general questions, but they miss the point of some complainers. We aren't all offended, but we can't control the tastes of those around us who might be. The irony with this post is that I'm writing defensively to your defensiveness, because I feel you've attacked those that were FORCED to write Lynda. You made an editing mistake (as pointed out by Colleen) using those photos and reacted petulantly to rightful criticism. You should have said, "I'm sorry some of you work with crazy wackos who don't know how to appreciate the female figure! For those of you who complained about the pictures themselves..." Instead, you lump everyone who complained into a generic category, called us perverts, with little understanding of art, and who can't distinguish between a book and the internet. I wrote this because I really felt you misunderstood the work-safe criticism, granting us a little bit of common sense by saying, "Quite reasonably, we all worry about the images that appear on our systems at school and work." However, the very next line and the rest of this post you basically slam us for thinking sensitively about our workplace environment. You also let your commenters run wild all over the complainers, as if we were backwater morons without any basis for complaint. That's bullshit. UPDATED EDIT: I'm actually the dude from UNLV as well, ironically (didn't see that comment before I wrote my post). I'm honored that I was the first. Also, while it might seem crazy that a person from Las Vegas would complain about these images, you must also realize there is the Las Vegas Strip (for tourists), and there's Las Vegas (for locals who work in LIBRARIES, etc. and who live up to 25 miles away from the strip where's there's basically no risque business going on). For locals we only occasionally encounter these types of images (b/c we're never on the Strip). Furthermore, it doesn't help my case that the types of images you see on the "SHOWGIRLS DIRECT TO YOU!!!" signs are the types of images on my screen at work. It lends more credibility to the idea that it might be inappropriate.

Complainer

Submitted by davep on 3 October 2008 - 12:27pm.
Well, I'm brand new to this site but I love the irreverence - and the semi-nudes. My two cents is that if people are offended by the pics, or are afraid of "getting caught", then don't visit the site at work or school. Why is that not obvious? Geez! Deke, I have watched all of your LDC PS CS3 courses and think they are the best teaching out there. I have learned so much. I just discovered deke.com and love the no-holds-barred attitude. I don't come here to learn I come here to be entertained. Maybe I will pick up a few pointers along the way but I like the crazier side of Deke. Keep it up. davep

My work PAYS for those lessons

Submitted by brian on 3 October 2008 - 1:47pm.
"My two cents is that if people are offended by the pics, or are afraid of "getting caught", then don't visit the site at work or school. Why is that not obvious? Geez!" This topic is in reference to material on Lynda.com, a pay-for-content site, not Deke's personal site. In my email to Lynda I specifically said I would have no problem viewing the Lynda videos at home, but that my employer pays for the lessons, as do a number of other schools, graphic design houses, etc. If we pay for educational content to view at work, we have the right to request it be edited for a work and school appropriate environment. You're "it's obvious -- GEEZ!" line really missed those points. "I don't come here to learn I come here to be entertained. Maybe I will pick up a few pointers along the way but I like the crazier side of Deke. Keep it up." I, personally, go to Lynda.com only to learn, and Deke.com for a mix of entertainment and education. I wasn't criticizing Deke's personal site, and encourage him to do as he pleases here.

Thanks for your input!

Submitted by deke on 2 October 2008 - 9:46pm.
Brian from Las Vegas, Man, you are the guy I wanted to hear from. I'm grateful that you wrote. Thanks for your detailed feedback. Don't take my reaction to the censorship personally, I won't take your reaction to my reaction personally either. I'm at work myself right now, but tonight when I go back to my hotel/bungalow (it really is a bungalow!), I will respond. B/c I want to spend some quality time muling this over. Brave of you to jump into the fray like this. (Gang, be civil to Brian!) More TK.

The P word!

Submitted by james on 29 September 2008 - 9:40pm.
It would be interesting to see the demographics from Lynda.com, as to who was writing in complaining. Age, Gender, State, Favorite sexual position, ect. Can you post those? Seeing how a lot of the religious right is in over their heads speaking out about morality and then getting outed, you wouldn't think they had the time. But the first image is really not as big of an alarm as the Miley Cirus photo Anne took for the cover. Like that was hardcore! The people screaming the loudest about impropriety are the closet perverts. Quick to see evil and point fingers. I am reminded of "Why can't I own a Canadian" http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html Was it the fact that the woman was nude? or that they used the Petroleum word? Try and get me them stats, and put me down for downward facing cow!

Downward facing cow, huh?

Submitted by deke on 29 September 2008 - 9:59pm.
I'm trying to picture that. And then I keep failing. On purpose. Funny post, tho.

thanks for pulling

Submitted by goDonato on 29 September 2008 - 9:31pm.
Deke, love all you've done. You've kicked podcasts up a few notches! Hope other people get it. Love you're enthusiasm. I'm glad the podcast was pulled though. I work for a church. My Lynda account is for work. Luckily I haven't viewed the series yet, but looking forward to it. If these photos were on my work computer, I'd have big problems! Not everyone appreciates this kind of stuff. Leave these images for a fun site like deke.com but please keep Lynda clean. Thanks for listing! You rock! -dMR

Thanks for the feedback

Submitted by deke on 29 September 2008 - 9:57pm.
But a lot of religious art depicts nudity. Adam and Eve being cast from the Garden of Eden comes to mind. How do you reconcile that? Is it b/c Adam and Eve tell a story and my naked woman is just sitting there, with no purpose to her nudity except to tell: The Great Tale of the New Tabbed Window Interface! If we had a boy's choir singing in the background, would it fly?

Just because some guy

Submitted by goDonato on 4 October 2008 - 8:01am.
Just because some guy painted it and called it religious doesn't make it right. And just because someone says they are religious, doesn't mean they are. For the religion thing, I'm not into that. It's just a bunch of man-made rules that God never said we need to have. Maybe I could do my own "deke" style podcast on that :o) Final thought, Deke you're cool. I respect you and what you do. Rock on dawg!

The Sensitive Deke

Submitted by campphotoshop.com on 29 September 2008 - 11:18am.
Deke, I’m sorry I’m just getting to this fun topic (so many blogs so little time). Per your comment to Keith, I do some training to company in-house communication types. Many of these people I know because they are also design clients. But, I would feel a bit uneasy in that environment to use “I Am Petroleum” as an example. Given that there’s such a diverse range of personalities I deal with, the chances of crossing the line are pretty good. On the other hand, if we are talking about adult education in say a university environment I think any of the images you posted could be options for Photoshop work. The issue for super trainer Deke is that your audience is vary large and worldwide (I’m making this assumption based on all your book sales etc.). There’s no way you’re going to please everyone. The question is, do you care if you don’t please everyone? I think deep down inside there’s a sensitive Deke that doesn't get to speak much. Roger Head Camp Counselor Camp Photoshop http://www.campphotoshop.com

Is it insensitive

Submitted by deke on 29 September 2008 - 12:02pm.
To show a beautiful image? Now you've got me worrying I come off as Asshole Guy. The Ben Stiller of graphics training, perhaps. Plenty entertaining but liable to severe your corroded artery. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the in-house communication types, who are presumably adults, and the adult education group, who are, what?, more free thinking? Less uptight? If I hear you correctly, you're saying there's this other group of people -- they aren't creatives, they're closer in nature to the pencil pushers -- but they too have a vested interest in Photoshop. And they see an image like this and they think, "My, that's scandalous," or words to that effect.

Do the Taliban use PC's or Mac's

Submitted by james on 29 September 2008 - 9:49pm.
I wonder if the Taliban are going to be able to use the new 64 bit unlocked RAM options or if they are stuck with the old architecture, of the MAC?

I'm flabbergasted.

Submitted by liberty on 28 September 2008 - 4:16pm.
Who are the people complaining about that image? I'm a 54 year old, married, conservative female, and I think that's a beautiful, creative, g-rated photograph. I assume most of the people watching Deke's videos are younger, hipper and edgier than I am, since almost everybody is these days. But I don't know anyone, including my 76-year old mother, who would be offended by that photograph. Let's hope whoever's complaining doesn't venture out to any art museums, because they'll start demanding that we lock up masterpieces where decent folks like them (or heaven forbid, "the children") won't stumble upon them unawares. Criminy.

Editing or Censorship, kinda comes down to motivation

Submitted by colleen on 27 September 2008 - 11:44pm.
Editing in my opinion is maintaining a sensitivity to your intended audience or client, so as to prevent them from distraction, embarrassment, or psychological trauma. (Like the time I had to tell Dan Gookin no bare breasted women in his Windows XP screenshots: "Dan, I'm not offended by breasts. In fact, I have breasts. But my job is to look out for people who can't handle the site of them and still keep learning how to operate their computers.") Censorship seems more about individuals or institutions revealing their own self-loathing, bias, or repression (often a repressed self-loathing of their own bias, I've noticed). In this case, the lynda people seemed to be practicing the most sensible form of editing they could, in the face of some people who clearly are disturbed by their own Bad Thoughts (which we'd all agree are pretty close to the surface if they can be spurred by such tame visual stimulation). Of course, here in dekeTown we just have a problem with sanctimony in general. I mean, the mayor is a notorious reprobate, and we love him for it.

That's all there is?

Submitted by kjphotog on 27 September 2008 - 11:33am.
Yo Deke http://files.lynda.com/files/marketing/cs4/pscs4_nf/pscs4_interface_promo.mov That's it? That's all there is to this caper? Gosh there aren't even any dancing girls with chain saws nor fruit involved. They're simply beautiful, stunning photos. Like found in the front pages of any fashion/glamour 'zine, well better than that but... For just that er those --- you need to spend your time & dime redoing the sample photos using puppys and flowers or whatever. Is it just me, or is it tempting to line up a group of us whiners that like the photos to contact lynda.com + put up a billboard in Vegas with same images. keith www.thephotoshopguy.net

Keith, Yoyo, Thx 4 the links

Submitted by deke on 27 September 2008 - 5:09pm.
I hadn't actually watched the movie since I recorded it, and now that I see it, there really isn't a darn thing wrong with it. It's rated G. It makes Everybody Loves Raymond look filthy. Problem is, the lunatic fringe is the more likely to go postal when you offend their sensibilities. It's one of their defining attributes. It's the same reason no one has tried to assassinate Bush and conventional wisdom has it that someone will go after Obama. The people who dislike Bush have brains and barometers. The people who can't tolerate a black man in the White House are crackers. (Of course, I'm simplifying and projecting. Hopefully nothing like that will happen.) I'm not interested in seeing a contrary email campaign directed at LDC. It'd just put them in a no-win situation. I don't know a single person in the company who believes the photograph is authentically vulgar, and they really fretted over how to handle it. I have two movies in my Getting Started series that feature a woman showering, just head and shoulders like on a shampoo commercial. So far, they're slated to go live. We'll wait and see how the loonies respond.

Freedom

Submitted by andrewk on 27 September 2008 - 12:26am.
We are artists! That is one of the last realms of personal freedom. Rock on Deke! Fuck the censors!!!
12next ›last »