Mature Content
This content is intended for mature audiences
Log in to confirm your age

Deviation Actions

hq's avatar
This content is unavailable.
© 2011 - 2021 hq
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
satriaman's avatar

Art should test the boundaries and provoke discussion

satriaman's avatar

I would rather tolerate bad taste than tolerate censorship ,so long as minors are protected

Chronophontes's avatar

I'd like to suggest another moral criterion: consent/nonconsent rather than explicitness. I do not take kindly to censorship of anything, but it was absolutely necessary to prevent others from seeing what they choose, I could much more easily tolerate censorship of nonconsensual material than of explicit material.

Chronophontes's avatar

I'd like to suggest a different criterion: consent rather than explicitness. Though I'm not in favor of any kind of censorship, if it is absolutely necessary to interfere with people's preferences, I'd be more willing to tolerate censorship of non-consenting images than explicit ones.

Shadow-Walker-22's avatar
Bad vs Good are two sides of a coin. Judgement is by personal taste. I do enjoyed nudes of mostly females and some males. Art has no boundaries and ugly in this world can be good art. Art touching darkness fears and greatest hopes our hearts or minds therefore what's bad or good?
L3M35's avatar
Not an issue. I enjoy a lot profiles of "nude art". And yes, my sexual preferences influences on what I see. What's so bad, to deny it with some random yadayada like "noh it's pure art"? No, it's not pure art: I ENJOY to see beatiful women, and rarely appreciate male nude art (some are great, like "The World in my Mind" shown here). And if the model is gourgeous, and art is great, way better!

Anyway, I don't think it's so hard to define what is art or not. A random naked selfie in front of your mirror it NOT art, it's a show. A selfie well done, with some aesthetic, IS art. What I ask myself is how some models earn something modeling here. For example: I really like a specific model (of course will not say names), she is a stunning woman and some of her pictures are pure art. But others are breasts in the bathroom, with horrible resolution. And she doesn't say the name of her photographers. So what's the point publishing here other than showing herself (what for me, it's fine)?
karllouis's avatar
HANDS ... goes to…
which is not the same pic.
Could you find out why?


KodokuSP's avatar
This can be settled easily: Lots of people uses the nudes as an easy way to make an impact on people. They justify it by saying: "It's art, so I do whatever I want and you're wrong if you think otherwise". Of course, art should NEVER be censored. but here we reach to an impasse: What IS art and what is NOT? If there's a beatifully made piece of art that promotes racism, is it art? most of people would say "no". and would, obviously, CENSOR it. But wait, so you can censor art that may be offensive for a particular group of people? Oh, but nudity surely IS offensive for a certain group of people. But nudity can't be censored or judged. But why? Well, getting back to what I said, because people uses "art" as a justification to do whatever they like. This will change over time. Now nudity is accepted in art, but tomorrow, who knows?
But no matter the case, if you cannot think a way to express an idea and you go to the short way and just use an image that shocks people (like nudity) just because it's effective, then you just don't deserve being called an "artist", you're just a slacker.
Erzsabet's avatar
I think that art that is offensive to a certain group of people should be censored sometimes, if it is based off hate. I view nudity differently, because it is the natural state of our bodies. I think we have grown to have a warped sense of the human body, especially in North America, due to age old puritanical laws.

Or, at least if it is art meant to show off hate, like racism, sexism, etc, it should only be viewed under certain contexts, and by certain people who know what they are seeing going into it. It has its merits, and should be judged for what it is, even if it is beautiful art. It is still beautiful art that carries a message of hate.

Nudity has always been accepted in art, moreso before than it is now, in fact. Look at Renaissance paintings. They had no problem with the naked human form. But in the last few hundred years we have been conditioned to think of the naked body as impure, and not to be viewed in public. And I think we are finally getting back into changing how we view nudity, back to a more practical, logical way, which is that the human body is a beautiful, natural thing.

Now that's not saying that we should be displaying sexual art everywhere, that too, has a place, and it isn't necessarily in public. Sex should, in my opinion, be a private thing. Now whether that means completely private, or just having a limited audience who is mature enough to appreciate the context, that's a different matter, and depends on the context of the art.

Shock art isn't really a negative thing. Sometimes it's necessary to get the point across, because people are so used to seeing things over and over, that it is sometimes needed to really take people, shake them up, and say "THINK!" I think that there is still a difference between shock art and just gratuitous nudity though, and they both serve different purposes, and different audiences, though they often get used incorrectly. Used properly, they can both have astounding effects, but incorrectly, it is just poor taste.
heraclituslive's avatar
art can not be defined and the nude body is a natural part of life and art imitates life?
Grim-Red's avatar
<< When is censorship of art permissible? >>
When it falls under mere pornography and when it breaks the law.

Freedom doesn't mean doing whatever we please no matter what.

Btw i don't see picture of "bad nudes" here.
ViciadoEmGuarana's avatar
"When is censorship of art permissible?"

At no time.
In nowhere.

And definitely not on Deviantart.
TrappedGirl's avatar
Deviant Art was blocked from my school and local library for being a "porn" site. I don't see why an art site would be restricted to either, when I could even access social networking and youtube back then.

Or maybe there was actual pornography passing through DA's radars.

So unless the school mods suspected an actual threat, my only suspicion are the nudes (even underwear photos) that were/are overly sexual and suggestive. Maybe.

If a nude isn't sexual whatsoever, I don't think it needs censorship.

Henriggle's avatar
Personally, I'm not into super explicit nudes.  They're just too much for me.  I'm fine with nudes to an extent, and in fact, I like some of them quite a bit, but ones that show intercourse and stuff like that are too graphic to be to my liking.  To me, an image doesn't have to be that graphic to be sensually pleasing.  It's fine that some people like nudes to be really explicit, but it's definitely not what I personally enjoy.  
There's nothing wrong with peer review.  I'm not talking about the comments area currently available but a section that accompanies each submission with easy-to-use check boxes eg:   Does the workmanship of the submission meet your criteria of finished art?  Do you find the thought behind the submission accessible to you? Does this submission meet your personal criteria as art or should it be displayed in a separate category that recognizes the work as something else?   Rate the overall quality of this work.

Other questions could be composed but keeping the questions few and simple would probably encourage 'judges' to participate.
Scores might give search criteria for those who would like to see well done nudes without wading through masturbation sketches to get to them. 

If this caught on I could see it becoming a reference for professionals to use for pricing their work
don22754's avatar
Must look at that Firefox extension. Would eliminate the vitriolic comments. They are wounding to the photographers-they expose themselves by dubmitting their conceptions of art here.And work very hard. The models sign releases, but they don't sign for abuse.
Elizabeth425's avatar
I find it intriguing how many of these comments classify good nudes as "tasteful and artistic" and bad nudes as "poorly planned and without artistic merit".

Although I agree with these people, we can't judge nudes based on their creator's artistic talent.

I've seen (and yes, created) plenty of awful , emotionless and meaningless "art" that is perfectly acceptable simply because the subject is non-offensive.

Perhaps we need a way to differentiate between bad art and bad nudes.
Yokaimoon666's avatar
Nudity is not an issue for me. I enjoy seeing it being expressed on artistic manner however, and not the crappy cam-whore nudes I see...with mature filter on (might want to start enforcing that rule).

I would like to address the following though: should artist be told to tone it down or be censored?

I believe censorship in any form is wrong UNLESS the subject in question is doing or will do harm, in which case it is justifiably protecting the majority and not person(s) of interest.

People hide behind artistic freedom to get their way and don't think about what happens afterwards. If my friend started walking around naked in my house because he was 'expressing himself', I would kick him out because, he may have this freedom to do this, but he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He walks around nude, he gets kicked out, now he can go home and be naked there.

Point is: no one can tell you what to draw/take pictures of/think/act, but when you're pictures get taken down and you get banned don't be a little emo bitch about it and complain. Don't turn on the art site because you failed to abide by their TOS which you AGREED to when joining. Don't use 'obstructing creativity, freedom of whatever' when you're breaking rules you agreed to, to use this site.

TL;DR? Keep doing what you're doing you attention seeking piles of crap. I hope you can deal with what comes afterwards.

As a side note: dA, why don't you open up a sister site where people can post all their crappy nude pics and leave people who want to appreciate art here? I have a great name and slogan to suggest: dAporn. Tired of feeling like your nude pictures are underrated? Want people to see you and your natural beauty through a .5 pixel lens? Come to dAporn where your body will be appreciated by thousands of strangers!

Cause....that seems to be a viable solution. Your name would be all over that but hey, your standards already sunk low, why not milk it for a while? (insert sarcasm everywhere)
Theneoseraph's avatar
Just my two cents. I don't so much mind the artist nude portion, but the extreme fetish porn that is on this site is a little much at times. Naked lady/guy OK. Close up of naked ladies vagina with really no thought put into it just BAM look at my vagina! Not so much. Also the amount of (and I know I will get shit for this) of furry/inflation/fat/vore/scat/fart/etc "art" *cough porn* is a little overwhelming. I know that everyone says use the mature filter, but seriously, that's not the issue for those of us that want art. It is the extreme stuff that we don't want to see. I don't mind an artistic nude, I don't want to see Disneys Kim Possible with her head shaved getting and enema (yes it is on here). On the same note I don't want to take away from peoples ability to post weird stuff like that. Maybe a third filter labeled deviant?
city-of-chicago's avatar
"Maybe a third filter labeled deviant?"

Or just "porn." The meaning is conveyed, without the company seeming to pass judgment.

Not that I'm saying that I love porn, or that you should, but if DA can avoid drama with a simple choice of words, without giving up anything important in the process, why not? Agreed?
city-of-chicago's avatar
Let's point out the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room. Yes, I'm going to bring up a practical, real world issue. Yes, I know, as we saw below, Matthew Lane doesn't believe that we should be living in the real world, but some of us have insisted on taking up residence there.

Presumably, most of you would like to have your work be seen. Otherwise, why are you posting it? If viewing porn and viewing artistic figure studies goes on being the package deal it has been on DeviantArt, then viewers are going to go on doing as I and others have done, and opt out on viewing mature images on this site, at all. If you've been producing non-pornographic figure studies, you would do well to think about the consequences of that. The people who are here to see porn aren't here to see your image of a woman walking through a field of flowers. They're here to see the image of somebody violating herself with a broken flower bottle. Or something like that. Lose the part of the audience that is open to viewing tastefully done artistic figure studies (but isn't interested in porn), and bit by bit, you can say goodbye to your traffic and your sales.

Are you willing to do that, just to go along with a little hipster posturing? If so, your loss. Seriously. It's a big Web out there, a lot bigger than DeviantArt. The viewer who finds that DeviantArt (and its community) are determined to be stupid and stubborn on this point can easily find what he's looking for, elsewhere, without any need to change the nature of what he is looking at by choice or to accept any diminishment in quality. He can just go over to Flickr, and set his account to allow viewing of moderate (but not restricted) material, and he'll almost certainly enjoy something akin to the choice Lane made so much drama over. In fact, even if he sets his account to allow restricted material, he'll probably not have to deal with the gynecologist and proctologist shots for which DA is becoming known.

Your choice, and your company's and your community's funeral if you insist on making it foolishly. Which, by the way, I'm absolutely in favor of you all doing, if that's what you want to do. When the choices people make are truly informed ones, and they are undone by their own vices, I don't tend to find that tragic, at all. I usually find that hilarious. So go for it, kids!
taiji-tu's avatar
The "DA Ghost" extension for FireFox has been specifically written for DeviantArt to block artists whose work you don't like.

Currently I have almost 500 "artists" blacklisted; mostly for posting low-quality, cheap porn.
city-of-chicago's avatar
Tsk, tsk ... this has all been discussed below, and Matthew Lane has spoken! There is no such thing as porn. Or, probably, quality either, because there is no objective way of defining or measuring that, and if there isn't an algorithm for finding something, it really isn't there. Matt wouldn't lie to us about that.

It is a non-issue for me. I don't really think my gender or sexual preferences influence my answer, because I couldn't care less. An artist needs to, how some would say, "breathe a little." An artist has a right to share what they want to share, regardless of what it is. Censorship should only be permitted based on the model, and the artist. I MIGHT go as far as censoring something that causes harm to the viewers, but frankly, it's the viewers fault for looking, in my opinion. Me, being an aspiring author, I try to put censors in some of my posts that some might find offensive. (I post everything a chapter at a time.) So, yeah, I made posts that were censored. No, I haven't had that situation. The only way I might say that they should tone the work down is if I thought it might be offensive to a model for the artwork, or if it puts her in a situation that degrades him/her, or if it ruins the model's reputation, etc.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In