If artistic nude photography were to be banned here, what would be your reaction?

BULLSHIT.first thing that came to mind. swear. haha!

@A_Beaverhausen You go, girl!

Umm, aren’t there other websites for artistic nude photography?

We actually don’t allow nipples or genitals in avatars here. Butts are ok, though. ;)

You can’t post pictures. You can link to whatever you want. Just say (NSFW).

And yeah. no nudie picks in avatars.

This isn’t Playboy magazine online, it’s Fluther. We don’t need to see artistic nude photography here. My reaction would be to tell someone that if they need or want to view that type of material, seek out websites that feature it but don’t expect to see in in a community forum like this one.

@skfinkel @augustlan @johnpowell @Bluefreedom Suppose I had nude art that I would like examined and critiqued. Would that be banned? Or is that ok just as my last question was?

@boots. You could send someone a personal message with a link to where they could view it. They could then send you a personal message back with their thoughts and opinions. You won’t take a chance of it being banned if you don’t post it out in the open in a thread here on Fluther probably.

I have no interest in seeing your nude art for critiquing here on Fluther I would rather you show it on another site. Thanks, anyway.

You could post a link to it. Just mention what it is. I have linked to that stuff before. I just let people know. Nobody was bothered by it.

@Bluefreedom @johnpowell You two say fairly contradictory things… @Bluefreedom why ask a critique of an art piece from one person when you could ask it from many with the same possible (if not more) knowledge?

@johnpowell That sounds sane and fair.

@skfinkel That’s your personal take. Not all of Fluther’s.

@boots. Obviously I meant more than one person even though my response didn’t exactly read that way. I worded it badly and I apologize. You’d probably do well to carry out your wishes just like @johnpowell described above.

lol @ prudes and people who don’t know the difference between pornographic nudes, glamour nudes and artistic nudes.

Like @johnpowell said, just post links, mark them as Not Safe For Work, and let people know there’s going to be nudity if they click. The easily offended can use that awesome little scroll bar that every computer has, and move on to rainbows and ponies and kittens or whatever else they like more than humans as art.

@Bluefreedom @johnpowell @MacBean If suppose I posted a link to a picture asking for a critique and it got blocked/moderated despite fair warning, what should one do at that point? Give up?

I believe that a moderator would most likely send you a message with an explanation if they felt they had to remove your link or they needed you to edit it for any reason. That’s what they’ve done in the past with other member’s material.

I wouldn’t care.
Artistic nudity quickly turns into outright porn

There’s plenty of sites out there for artistic nudity if that’s what people want

Nudity of any sort will attract the porn freaks and I like that the perverts aren’t here.

Yet

I hope the mods keep it that way

No big.

Linking is fine, so long as there’s a NSFW tag or other descriptor.
We’re not Puritans.

@Bluefreedom When I’ve had questions ‘moderated’ in the past, I’ve never received a message asking me (from a mod) about a particular question and honestly wouldn’t expect one. But that may just be my cynicism shining though.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Yes! You should watch out for those porno freaks like Rembrandt and Modigliani! Them sinners is ripe for Jeebus!!!

You’re jumping to conclusions.

Did you have a question removed or something?

If just the link were modded and I’d given fair warning, I would question the mods about it. Our mods are fair and awesome and very interested in helping to modify questions we want to ask so that they fit the guidelines.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I did, but not anything like this. You came off as a BuyBull thumper. You seem far too worried about Puritan bullshit than you are about true art, which is a wee bit sad. (But ultimately, unblameable[sic], as most people feel that way).

@MacBean That seems totally fair and understandable. I would hope that something with warning could be not bothered by such thing’s it’s been warned about (if that makes sense).

Boots, calm down please.
I’m not interested in fighting.

You asked a question and I answered honestly

Would you rather I pandered to you?

I didn’t censor you.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic No worries. You gave your honest opinion, which is all I could ask. Just don’t worry me when I might question it. It’s and old habit.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic You might not have been censoring, but “Artistic nudity quickly turns into outright porn” is, to put it plainly, ignorant bullshit, and offensive to artists.

Is this about simone?
she is beautiful
her pix are always tasteful
and nothing about her avatar pic is sexual unless that is what is going through your mind, then it is on you for thinking it, not simone
anyway
I don’t see a problem w/artistic naked pix
some of the greatest art in the world which has survived more than a millenia is naked

From what I’ve enjoyed on this site so far, I’m willing to give up posting or viewing any nudity. The positives far outweigh my delight at being gifted a pic of naked Iggy Pop or putting up an avatar of Genesis P_Orridge’s fabulous breasts.

This is a private site run by Ben and Andrew. They can allow, or not allow, whatever they like. It’s their site. I’ve had my own issues with having questions being modded, but I got over it when I came to realize this fact.

I’m tired of all the crying about censorship on this site.

To be fair, the mods were getting hundreds of emails a day about stuff that people felt should, or should not have been, moderated.

I wouldn’t take the past week as an assessment of how the moderation process normally works.

Just keep the main question clean and indicate that the content may not be something that you want you boss to notice as he walks by your desk (NSFW).

I don’t see that nude photography of any sort, artistic, pornographic, or scatological, has really been an issue here. It’s a site about words.

@jonsblond – I’m also getting tired of all the crying about censorship on this site. And I’m an “immigrant” from wis.dm thankful for getting Flutherite citizenship within a few days (in the real world this can take years ;-) and it was my decision to accept the guidelines of my new “home country” and stick by them. I can still have an opinion and express my views while still sticking to the rules. If someone thinks there’s censorship go to the chatroom and discuss it there. Countries have different rules. If you don’t like them, don’t visit them.

@jonsblond D’: Is not how I look.

I’m on the first rocket outtahere. Don’t care where it’s going.

@boots – D’: is a bad look for you. This is much better.

@daloon – like this?

@fireside Yes, I do look better from far away! :)

I think, if we weren’t even allowed to critique pictures that were simply linked to, with an adequate warning posted by the asker as to what the link would take them to… I would think it was absolutely ridiculous. I would probably leave the site because art is art is art. People don’t have to like the same kind of art, hence they wouldn’t have to click the link. I myself am not a huge fan of most artistic nudes (not because of the nudity), but I still recognize them as art.

@DrasticDreamer You hit it right on the nose. My thoughts exactly.

Can you define the difference between art and pornography?

If the intent is to stimulate and arouse, it’s porn.
How is that confusing?

How do you determine intent?

@daloon: You’re a grown man, you know perfectly well the difference between the two. I am not about to google through tons of porn and nude photography to find examples, I’ve got college to attend. :)

99% of the time, it’s fairly obvious what the intent was. There’s a bit in one of Nick Swardson’s Comedy Central specials in which he speaks about a photo of him as a child that’s behind him on stage. To some, it might look like the kid was asking for it, and can easily be sexualized by the viewer, something he does himself for jokes. But when you look at it, in the context it was taken, it’s just a beautiful photo of a little boy that his mother took.

No, I think it is much trickier than you make it out to be, @asmonet. I’ve seen many “art” photographs that elicit a prurient response, and I’ve seen art in much that people call porn.

I think the “I know it when I see it” standard has been shown to be a pretty shaky foundation on which to build legal theory. Additionally, there is the “what is art” discussion. Some, like me, would find art to be in every human endeavor. Others are more restrictive.

However, the issue I was really thinking about is that to know intent, you have to be the person. I know that in courts of law, the juries do find intent, but in art and porn, I feel certain the the boundary between the two is large.

It is quite conceivable that someone would have no intent to create porn, and yet create a work that to most people, is obviously porn. On the other hand, a person might intend to make porn, and actually create a compelling story, almost by accident. I believe there are porn directors, as well as porn actors, who later made it to the mainstream.

So maybe other people’s intent is obvious to you, @asmonet, but it’s not so much to me. I’ve made a reputation here by offering alternative explanations for behavior. So I am wont to see things in a different light. However, it’s not just because I want to be contrary; I really do see things differently—right or wrong.

It’s also worthwhile to look at boundary cases, like some of the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe. If you ignore the subject matter, and look at just the technique—or you look at some of his other photographs—there’s no doubt that he’s a master photographer, and he’s creating art. (Look for “Self-Portrait with Death’s Head,” for instance – not in the slightest pornographic, but absolutely riveting.) So when he chooses male nudes, BDSM activities, and explicit sex for his subjects, what makes that porn?

It’s easy to say that intent makes it porn or art, but Mapplethorpe seems interested in blurring the line, creating art from pornographic subjects or pornography with artistic techniques. And it’s really impossible to know the intent for sure anyway, although you can make a reasonable guess—but at the same time, there are knitters who put pictures of handknit socks on Flickr that have found that they attract foot fetishists.

The answer there, though, might be that art is a question of technique and pornography is a question of subject. This opens the door for something to be both pornography and art, and that seems to me to be preferable to considering everything either pornography or art.

@cwilbur lurve for that! Very clearly explained!

@asmonet why not google through all the porn and give examples;)
I wouldn’t mind
lol

I wouldn’t care one bit.

Censoring the photos would be like putting a Speedo on Michelangelo’s “David”, or a halter bikini top on Giorgione’s “Sleeping Venus.”