Message Center Performance Upgrades
The Great Valentine Exchange!
The Resource Roundup #4
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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?
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!
Currently I have almost 500 "artists" blacklisted; mostly for posting low-quality, cheap porn.