Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 125 posts

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#31

Post by v64 »

yawaramin wrote: post #21
iamleppert wrote: post #12

What’s wrong with female beauty? It’s not like it’s porn or a nude image. I’m not even a straight male but I can still appreciate female beauty and I don’t think it’s sexist. The photo is more artistic than anything. I wonder if the same people who complain about this photo lodge similar complaints when they visit art museums that have female nudity in oil paintings or nude female sculptures? I know nudity and even a…

Because it's not about you. It's about the women who see the image, understand its history, and see it as another reminder of how tech is not just male-dominated but thoughtlessly so (having Playboy issues lying around in the research lab) and where women are literally reduced to objects. From the article: > “As silly as it sounds, they were surprised she was a real person,” he told me. Women notice stuff like that,…

I think it's important to keep in mind that Lena Forsen (and the other models of Playboy) made the decision to be photographed nude and to have those photos published as a creative expression. To portray the exhibition as exploitative robs them of their agency and demeans their decision.

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#32

Post by lawrenceyan »

yawaramin wrote: post #21
iamleppert wrote: post #12

What’s wrong with female beauty? It’s not like it’s porn or a nude image. I’m not even a straight male but I can still appreciate female beauty and I don’t think it’s sexist. The photo is more artistic than anything. I wonder if the same people who complain about this photo lodge similar complaints when they visit art museums that have female nudity in oil paintings or nude female sculptures? I know nudity and even a…

Because it's not about you. It's about the women who see the image, understand its history, and see it as another reminder of how tech is not just male-dominated but thoughtlessly so (having Playboy issues lying around in the research lab) and where women are literally reduced to objects. From the article: > “As silly as it sounds, they were surprised she was a real person,” he told me. Women notice stuff like that,…

You assume that the women who choose to model in Plaboy do so not out of their own free will and choice. That is somewhat diminutive of these women wouldn’t you say?

Who are you to say anything about their character or quality as “objects”? It seems uncharacteristically harsh to just make an assumption like that.

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#33

Post by BurningCycles »

underwater wrote: post #19
iamleppert wrote: post #12

What’s wrong with female beauty? It’s not like it’s porn or a nude image. I’m not even a straight male but I can still appreciate female beauty and I don’t think it’s sexist. The photo is more artistic than anything. I wonder if the same people who complain about this photo lodge similar complaints when they visit art museums that have female nudity in oil paintings or nude female sculptures? I know nudity and even a…

Because it makes a significant portion of the population feel objectified? This is literally what happened to "Lenna" - the image didn't celebrate or honour her as a person. It was an image protraying an unrealistic "beautiful thing". People didn't even know her real name, or what she's achieved as a real person. It's perfectly reasonable and rational for women to say this makes it harder for them to be perceived as…

So when my two sisters were plastering their walls with very good looking males to which they masturbated, it was making it harder for me as a male to be percieved as being equal ?

Or the fanservice aimed at females in current-day shows like Riverdale where these hot guys throw off their shirts at the hint of an opportunity ?

This idea that it is somehow wrong to appreciate and find pleasure in the physical appearance of people is something I find very hard to understand. Are we going to ban makeup ?

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#34

Post by crankylinuxuser »

v64 wrote: post #31
yawaramin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not about you. It's about the women who see the image, understand its history, and see it as another reminder of how tech is not just male-dominated but thoughtlessly so (having Playboy issues lying around in the research lab) and where women are literally reduced to objects. From the article: > “As silly as it sounds, they were surprised she was a real person,” he told me. Women notice stuff like that,…

I think it's important to keep in mind that Lena Forsen (and the other models of Playboy) made the decision to be photographed nude and to have those photos published as a creative expression. To portray the exhibition as exploitative robs them of their agency and demeans their decision.

As long as a "gun" is held to our collective heads stating 'you will surrender your bodies to work or starve on the street', there is no such thing as making a voluntary decision like what you say. Look no further than the article:

> “I didn’t really know what that was,” she told me. “But my husband, he thought it was kind of cool, and it was money, and I didn’t have a lot of money.”

And what did she get?

> After her centerfold photos were published, Lena, green card in hand, got a divorce and a new boyfriend.

Even faced with lack of money for food and rent, still got a divorce out of it. Which in '71 , was still considered an abomination.

Don't get me wrong. Men also trade their bodies for the same existential threat; being deprived of food and shelter. But instead of being valued for beauty, we're valued for our utility. And too, our bodies break and rot under harsher conditions.

Only ones who automate and make others' lives meaningless get further than the rest - which I think adequately explains IT in a nutshell. Frankly, its only time until we're also due the same fate.

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#35

Post by crankylinuxuser »

Pharmakon wrote: post #15
iamleppert wrote: post #12

What’s wrong with female beauty? It’s not like it’s porn or a nude image. I’m not even a straight male but I can still appreciate female beauty and I don’t think it’s sexist. The photo is more artistic than anything. I wonder if the same people who complain about this photo lodge similar complaints when they visit art museums that have female nudity in oil paintings or nude female sculptures? I know nudity and even a…

Personally I’m not bothered, and while the image isn’t pornographic, it is from Playboy which does make it at least porn adjacent. I see it’s use less as a matter of offensiveness or some headfuck of “intersectionality” and more as just immature and unprofessional. Sexuality is great, it’s everywhere, and I think it has literally nothing to do with this issue. I can understand not wanting a Playboy model to be the st…

I would have expected something more algorithmic out of experimentation, to easily compare compression errors and otherwise interesting issues.

Nope. They chose porn from Playboy. And this trend continues on to today with "brogrammers". No wonder why women feel inferior in tech.

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#36

Post by patrickg_zill »

yawaramin wrote: post #21
iamleppert wrote: post #12

What’s wrong with female beauty? It’s not like it’s porn or a nude image. I’m not even a straight male but I can still appreciate female beauty and I don’t think it’s sexist. The photo is more artistic than anything. I wonder if the same people who complain about this photo lodge similar complaints when they visit art museums that have female nudity in oil paintings or nude female sculptures? I know nudity and even a…

Because it's not about you. It's about the women who see the image, understand its history, and see it as another reminder of how tech is not just male-dominated but thoughtlessly so (having Playboy issues lying around in the research lab) and where women are literally reduced to objects. From the article: > “As silly as it sounds, they were surprised she was a real person,” he told me. Women notice stuff like that,…

So all of the women who have been in Playboy have no agency? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote then... !

Is it not also significant that she then was a model and became a "Shirley" at another company also?

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#37

Post by yawaramin »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #36
yawaramin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not about you. It's about the women who see the image, understand its history, and see it as another reminder of how tech is not just male-dominated but thoughtlessly so (having Playboy issues lying around in the research lab) and where women are literally reduced to objects. From the article: > “As silly as it sounds, they were surprised she was a real person,” he told me. Women notice stuff like that,…

So all of the women who have been in Playboy have no agency? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote then... ! Is it not also significant that she then was a model and became a "Shirley" at another company also?

No one said anything about the agency of Playboy models, only about the inappropriateness of using Playboy or other NSFW materials in professional environments making women uncomfortable. In the privacy of your own home, do whatever you like (legally). But don't bring it into the office!

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#39

Post by v64 »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #34
v64 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to keep in mind that Lena Forsen (and the other models of Playboy) made the decision to be photographed nude and to have those photos published as a creative expression. To portray the exhibition as exploitative robs them of their agency and demeans their decision.

As long as a "gun" is held to our collective heads stating 'you will surrender your bodies to work or starve on the street', there is no such thing as making a voluntary decision like what you say. Look no further than the article: > “I didn’t really know what that was,” she told me. “But my husband, he thought it was kind of cool, and it was money, and I didn’t have a lot of money.” And what did she get? > After her…

I disagree with the characterization that it's comparable to a gun to the head. In Lena's case, she was offered a way to make money, she considered the decision, took it, then used the money she made to start an independent life for herself. She declines Hugh Hefner's offer because that crosses a line for her. How does any of this suggest the desperation of starvation?

At the end of the day, her perspective matters the most:

> Lena doesn’t harbor any resentment toward Sawchuk and his imitators for how they appropriated her image; the only note of regret she expressed was that she wasn’t better compensated. 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.

She's proud of it. Don't deprive her of that.

Re: Finding Lena Forsen, the Patron Saint of JPEGs

#40

Post by yawaramin »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #32
yawaramin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not about you. It's about the women who see the image, understand its history, and see it as another reminder of how tech is not just male-dominated but thoughtlessly so (having Playboy issues lying around in the research lab) and where women are literally reduced to objects. From the article: > “As silly as it sounds, they were surprised she was a real person,” he told me. Women notice stuff like that,…

You assume that the women who choose to model in Plaboy do so not out of their own free will and choice. That is somewhat diminutive of these women wouldn’t you say? Who are you to say anything about their character or quality as “objects”? It seems uncharacteristically harsh to just make an assumption like that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19182950
Post reply on HN