tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post4825757740898181233..comments2023-07-03T04:25:54.358-07:00Comments on Art Babel: Sublime or Shameless: Facebook Censors Nude PaintingsNew York Cityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-48945115561534038982011-04-25T03:55:41.986-07:002011-04-25T03:55:41.986-07:00"Pour 1 changement de réglement Facebook.&quo..."Pour 1 changement de réglement Facebook." this French/English FB group pleaded for censorship rules regarding nudity that were complian with the much more tolerant European laws. The group was de-activated within days.Marc Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556161415985327042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-72078969864724142842011-04-07T05:22:34.895-07:002011-04-07T05:22:34.895-07:00"Facebook censors us, and deactivates accoun..."Facebook censors us, and deactivates accounts as they see fit, without regard to whatever it means or represents to their members. Do they know that in France censorship was abolished in 1974-1975?" More on the site of this group. French, English and German spoken. Translator available.<br />http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_138940176175156&ap=1 Name of the group: "Pour 1 changement de réglement Facebook."Marc Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556161415985327042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-31393945030271709962011-02-24T11:07:35.662-08:002011-02-24T11:07:35.662-08:00Brilliantly written! I am thankful to be among so...Brilliantly written! I am thankful to be among some of these great artists to go down with the ship. Not the first time FB has censored me and removed my art. Sadly as artists we do not glorify in the profane which seems to easily permeate the walls of FB without issue. Just don't paint it...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182266623733076692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-11998905290691103212011-02-23T19:15:45.891-08:002011-02-23T19:15:45.891-08:00Richard, you've made eloquent statements to th...Richard, you've made eloquent statements to the issue at hand and some that weren't. :)<br /><br />I think Facebook has a hypocritical stance regarding allowed images. And now I have great doubt as to the observation and sensibility skills of the banning brigade. <br /><br />FaceBook statement:<br />"Our policy prohibits photos of actual nude people, not paintings or sculptures. We recognize that this policy might in some cases result in the removal of artistic works; however, it is designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users."<br /><br />A little more clarification takes place after this issue with the The New York Academy of Art. Here the FB rep actually furthur deciphers policy that "In this case, we congratulate the artist on his lifelike portrayal that, frankly, fooled our reviewers. Each member of our investigations team reviews thousands of pieces of reported content every day and, of course, we occasionally make a mistake. We're sorry for the confusion here and we encourage the artist to repost his work."<br /><br />Mr. Axten's clear sttement: "Anyone can do a search on Facebook and find thousands of images of artwork. If we're censoring, we're doing a terrible job at it. We don't censor art and have no intention to." doesn't seem ambiguous or that the guidelines are fuzzy.<br /><br />According to the spokesman, FB policy doesn't censor art. Period. Private property or not they have stated publicly what the parameter is.<br />SO why the hell are they still pulling figurative work off the site?<br /><br />My question is with all the re-structuring of the interface and tweeking privacy preferences of it's users without making clear these changes to it's users, not to mention the thousands of stupid spam modules that harass FB updaters, that FB engineers can't create a warning banner that artists can implement as a buffer for those whose eyeballs and faces will melt off their skulls if they look at drawing or painting of a nude figure?Esmeralda Acostahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07798986647103483688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-91301013238392411582011-02-22T12:21:47.665-08:002011-02-22T12:21:47.665-08:00Nudity hurts no-one. Kids have to be taught that a...Nudity hurts no-one. Kids have to be taught that adults get embarrassed by it.<br /><br />To stop being tormented by nudity, you merely have to turn your head away. You never see people in hospital because they have been hurt by the sight of nudity.<br /><br />Personally I'm offended by images of fig leaves as they conjure up the most obscene images in my mind. Why is my offence any less than anyone else's?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-66355367777635033682011-02-14T09:27:26.267-08:002011-02-14T09:27:26.267-08:00Hi John,
Thanks for commenting. I don't know ...Hi John,<br /><br />Thanks for commenting. I don't know if you remember, but I took painting 1 with you in 2007. As I recall, you're an exceptional teacher. I'm glad to hear you're still teaching at NYAA.<br /><br />I'm sorry that your work was also censored.<br />It does seem that FB takes little or no interest in protecting paintings or sculpture from their nudity rule - even works that would be considered "tasteful" in nearly any circle. In fact, it has become the rule and not the exception that figurative painters have their work censored by FB, as I've heard that this has occurred to a great number of figurative painters I know there.<br /><br />This is an issue, not to be taken lightly. Figurative painters and sculptors should have the same opportunities to network and market themselves as any other artist. And FB is one of the most powerful tools for doing that. Why should we be penalized simply because our mode of expression happens to require a nude body?New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-44371566463726212402011-02-14T06:47:34.565-08:002011-02-14T06:47:34.565-08:00Hi Richard,
Yesterday, I was banned from uploadin...Hi Richard,<br /><br />Yesterday, I was banned from uploading to facebook for seven days because of a painting that I uploaded over the weekend (with details - one showing nipples). Although fb has stated that they make an exception for paintings and sculptures (and my work was clearly labeled "Oil on Aluminum" and looks like a painting), it is clear that they do not.<br /><br />Thank you for writing such a clear and thoughtful response to your own facebook ban!<br /><br />I teach figurative painting at The New York Academy of Art and my work my be seen at johnwellington.com<br /><br />All my best,<br /><br />John WellingtonJohn Wellingtonhttp://johnwellington.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-15148745261571626312011-01-30T11:26:53.101-08:002011-01-30T11:26:53.101-08:00I hate censorship.I hate censorship.The Rochester Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09706829978456964529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-41266363588052476352011-01-30T11:22:41.688-08:002011-01-30T11:22:41.688-08:00Don't use Facebook for anything that actually ...Don't use Facebook for anything that actually means something to you and causes you to violate your own principles. (Don't use Facebook at all, is always my best advice anyway.)<br /><br />You blurred or blocked out genitalia, and...and... NIPPLES! fer frak's sake, in a competition called The Beautiful Nude!<br /><br />Really, I'm speechless at the irony.Rick Powellhttp://juanelear.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-36994656836923157282011-01-25T04:20:59.161-08:002011-01-25T04:20:59.161-08:00Dear Anonymous 2,
(Not sure if you're the same...Dear Anonymous 2,<br />(Not sure if you're the same as the first anonymous)<br /><br />I'm guessing that you don't know me personally, as your assumptions about my political views are very broad and seem to be addressed at the stereotypical "artist type". <br /><br />1. I did not make a statement one way or the other about the Smithsonian censorship. (Though I'm about to make one) I merely shared a link. I had just heard of it myself and hadn't done enough research to have a solid opinion yet.<br />Though, you are correct that there is a double standard as to what controversial speech is considered admissible, I do not condone or agree with your broad generalizations concerning ethnic and religious groups, though you may notice, I did not censor you. I believe the readers of Art Babel are mature and intelligent enough to handle such statements.<br /><br />The primary reason that curators do not present work which is even vaguely anti-semitic or debates or denies the holocaust is because there are people alive who survived the holocaust, their children and grandchildren still survive and the murder of millions of people is still a relatively fresh wound.<br /><br />It's called human empathy. <br /><br />As a Christian myself, I am not offended by ants crawling on a cross. Firstly, Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S. I think it can handle a little debate. Secondly, the fact that I think the video was terrible notwithstanding, the symbolism of ants crawling on a cross is incredibly vague... <br />Thirdly, it is one of the valuable facets of the arts to question the dominant culture. Without questioning the way we do things we would still be banging rocks together in a cave.<br /><br />Faith is not faith unless it can survive through questioning and doubt. Truth is not truth unless it can stand critical inquiry. <br /><br />2. This article is about censorship on Facebook, a private company. <br /><br />Nothing I said has very much to do with your tax dollars, or my "right to spend them".... Actually, most of the figurative classical painters I know are conservatives or libertarians (I happen to ascribe to no political party, myself) so you might find it helpful to adjust your stereo-type. <br /><br />3. I live in Europe. I have direct experience of what it's like in both the U.S and in Europe. <br />If I were to do something stupid like argue about the number of Jews killed in the holocaust here in France, I would make a lot of people very angry, but they would not take me to jail. In Europe we also have rights upheld by the law. I enjoy the same degree of freedom of speech as I did in the U.S.<br /><br />4. Shocking the Bourgeoise? Again, my article was about the censorship of paintings on Facebook. <br />The theme of the competition was "The Beautiful Nude". It was about beauty, nothing shocking in that unless these "Bourgeoise" are shocked by Michelangelo? Are they shocked by Botticelli, Raphael, Titian, Rembrandt, and Waterhouse? They all painted nudes (and beautifully).<br /><br />In the future I invite you to comment on something I did actually say and perhaps we can have a productive discussion.New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-28673075415322241012011-01-24T08:58:26.987-08:002011-01-24T08:58:26.987-08:00One more little exercise for all the artists compl...One more little exercise for all the artists complaining about censorship. Richard in particular. <br />Richard, you're a talented artist. Paint a picture depicting Palestinian suffering. Perhaps even a series. Shop it around some New York galleries, try entering it in a few competitions. <br /><br />See how far you get, and watch whatever headway you've made in New York vanish into nothing.<br /><br />I am sorry if I am sounding a little harsh here, but there is much bigger, real oppression and censorship going and artists who do this sort of posturing I find grossly hypocritical and can't respect it. <br /><br />Its like the old legend of the panther and the elephant. The panther finds his young son crushed to death, and he swears that he will kill who ever did it. The crow says "i saw the elephant do it" <br />The panther stops and contemplates... "no" he says, it was the jackal, the jackal did it, I will kill the jackal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-34974918201237556882011-01-24T08:43:34.735-08:002011-01-24T08:43:34.735-08:00PS Richard, Here's a list of the laws against ...PS Richard, Here's a list of the laws against holocaust denial and the people who have been jailed and fined. Let's have a self-righteous post about this, shall we?<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denialAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-11652060494451365112011-01-24T08:39:45.583-08:002011-01-24T08:39:45.583-08:00On the subject of the alleged 'censorship'...On the subject of the alleged 'censorship' of Smithsonian - it is a publicly funded institution, and as Thomas Jefferson said, it's outrage to force a man to fund an ideology he abhors. <br /><br />The Smithsonian displayed images which degraded Jesus. I know a bunch of you will get on your high horses at this opportunity to attack a 'right wing christian' but honestly - do you think the people who curate these 'piss christs, elephant dung virgin mary's ect would ever allow an image of say, Anne Frank frolicking with SS guards (given the ethnic background of the people who push this sort of 'art' i can answer with a resounding 'no') . There is a consistent pattern of anti-Christian images - could you imagine one degrading MLK? Do you think it would even make it past the curators? and if you want some idea as to the reason for it here is a very well documented essay about modern art:<br /><br />http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtI.html<br /><br /><br />If you want to talk about real censorship Richard, as opposed to your 'right' to my tax dollars to offend me, try going to Europe, in say, germany or france, and say you only believe 2 not six million Jews died during WWII and they weren't gassed. You'd be carted off to jail quicker than you say "censorship' - that is real political oppression, and I never see the likes of you standing up to it, rather, you pick soft targets like this. And it's also tiresome - trying to 'shock'' the bourgeois has been going on for close to 100 years, time for so called artists to find a new routine<br /><br />Lastly, everyone agrees with some degree of censorship - you would not (at least I hope not) permit a sexually explicit image of a child, no matter what the artist claimed was the 'meaning' in one of your competitions. So in a very real sense you are a 'censor'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-48289506757274255492011-01-23T13:16:54.761-08:002011-01-23T13:16:54.761-08:00Very nice article Richard, particularly for the bi...Very nice article Richard, particularly for the bigger questions it raises. Putting aside Facebooks handling of the situation for a moment(as this would be a two page comment) I'll share a few thoughts about the possile origination of the problem itself within Facebook. To my thinking, I doubt that the flags are coming from non-connected viewer of the competition. It seems more likely that these paintings are being flagged by someone in the contest and that some type of flagging campaign is being driven by a painter(s) or friends/family of that painter(s). It is impossible to control or protect the flow of "votes", ie "likes" from coordinated gang-"liking"(sound familiar?), and I suspect the same potential exists for gang-"flagging'. I am not familiar with all of the paintings that were removed as I've not been paying close attention, but, I'd be curious if the flagged/removed paintings trended toward higher quality than average. Is it possible that a painter is "taking out the competition"? or, just acting in a generally malevolet manner? Some people take the idea of contests and competition to extreme measure and want to "win" at any cost. Perhaps FB could somehow assist in determing if a large number of these flags are coming from someone in the contest itself, or a particular source connected to a contestant.<br />It seems that with the aspects of "likes" and "flags" being utterly beyond control, using FB as a venue for these contest/competitions becomes self-defeating. I wonder if simply eliminating the contest/competitive flavor and offering these as the wonderful exhibits/shows they have been would help eliminate some of the administrative nuisance that keeps coming up. Best wishes. mcgMCGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10829336755724862105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-34047807308632602182011-01-23T07:53:10.958-08:002011-01-23T07:53:10.958-08:00Nice post, Post more.Nice post, Post more.fine art shippinghttp://www.fineartship.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-50211529908075876602011-01-23T07:52:33.988-08:002011-01-23T07:52:33.988-08:00Dear Anonymous,
Since you removed your comment di...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Since you removed your comment discussing property rights and potential govt. regulation, I'm assuming you didn't want others to read it. But, I thought you brought up some very interesting question and I'd like people to have the opportunity to discuss them. So, I'll address them like this.<br /><br />I didn't mention property rights or government regulation in my article. But, since you rightly pointed out that the owners of these websites, such as Facebook have the private rights to decide what goes on it, I understand now what you meant by private property rights and it's a logical track for the discussion to take. <br /><br />I agree with you that govt. regulation of these websites, and the internet in general would be catastrophic. This is why I didn't call for or discuss govt. regulation. In my opinion, the internet should be as unregulated as possible. But, I don't know that govt. regulation would necessarily be a result of our protesting Facebook's policy on censoring art. Is it only one or the other? Likewise, you said that accepting Facebook's censorship of our work is also dangerous to our ability to exhibit our work on the internet in the future. <br /><br />My hope is that with enough protest by the users of Facebook and enough press on this subject, they will take note - and like any good business, listen to the demands of their customers or risk the PR repercussions. They're perfectly capable of revising their system to be more precise about what the censor.New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-52242713894729912752011-01-23T06:07:41.196-08:002011-01-23T06:07:41.196-08:00One of the artists whose work was censored wrote t...One of the artists whose work was censored wrote to me about your excellent post. That is how I came to see it.<br /><br />There is a big confusion of what is public and what is private, with many people not willing to listen to any opposing view. I think this is very dangerous because it invites governement control where currently there is only public opinion, but private control.<br /><br />Websites cost money to build and maintain. Just because a website is available to the public at no cost to them doesn't mean that the people who build and maintain the website give up their right to decide what goes on it. If Facebook doesn't like art of the nude, love 'em or leave 'em. Pandering to their demands makes them stronger.<br /><br />I hope that eventually all the people currently bowing to Facebook’s demands for self-censorship realize that they are losing more than they gain by going along with Facebook’s rules. You have to know that if political pressure is used to change Facebook’s rules, it is not Facebook which will suffer, it is Barebrush! Big, billion dollar companies like Facebook would like nothing more than to have regulators specify FOR ALL WEBSITES what is allowed and not allowed. Legislation will protect Facebook from fair competition. <br /> <br />Right now, I decide what goes on Barebrush – and no one else. If a law is passed to say what is allowed or not, don’t think that we artists are going to carry any majority or be listened to. The public opinion is that people must be protected from being offended by nudity due to their religious beliefs or some other factors. If you continue to bow to these unreasonable and irrational Facebook rules, it is you, the artists, who are giving the rules legitimacy.<br /> <br />Censorship is an activity ONLY practiced by governments, when government bodies decide what individuals can see, say and read. A private entity controlling his or her own property or business and making decisions based on his or her beliefs is not a censor. If you argue that Facebook is a public company and therefore should be forced to display art according to YOUR preferences, then you open the door for government censors to dictate what any website will be allowed to display and how.<br /> <br />At that point, Barebrush will cease to be an alternative to Facebook, and therefore the business of Barebrush would end and you and the other artists would have NO PLACE to show your work uncensored.<br /> <br />Yes, Barebrush is uncensored in the sense that the government does not tell me what I can put on the website. However, ALL ART ON BAREBRUSH IS HUMAN REVIEWED. Pornography is rejected. So in that sense, Barebrush IS censored. <br /> <br />If you ask how I draw the line between art at pornography, I will say this: pornography presents exploitation, degradation, depravity and/or the treatment of the human figure as if it had no spirit at all. Barebrush presents celebration, exploration and/or the recognition that body and spirit are ONE. Barebrush has rejected art in the past, and will continue to in the future.<br /> <br />My plan is to make Barebrush so attractive and fun that we actually INCREASE the market for the art of the nude, not kowtow to Facebook just because they have the millions of members. This will not happen overnight – it’s been 4 years already, but we have made good progress, and I hope to continue.<br /> <br />I regard the self-censorship of artists on Facebook as a dangerous “giving in” to irrational pressures. You should not do that!<br /> <br />Sorry to be so one-sided about this, but I perceive this as a direct threat to the continued existence of Barebrush – so your protests not withstanding, your actions might lead to the demise of places where art from many people can be shown as they originally intended it.iskeenhttp://www.barebrush.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-16100267820163966582011-01-23T01:20:16.043-08:002011-01-23T01:20:16.043-08:00When will humanity grow up to accept that sexualit...When will humanity grow up to accept that sexuality is part of our being?<br /><br />Real fine art is not pornographic or volgar even if it is very explicit, see for example Courbet's famous painting. It does not scandalize me, hurt or humiliate me as a woman. Some magazines, tv shows do and frequently.<br />There is much more porn in any newsstand (at least here in Europe) or in a day trasmission on national broadcasts than in whole art production of fine art.<br />So I feel much hypocracy in all this, I do not blame FB, their policy is OK, but close-minded people who first want to see nudes and then tag them as offensive, as yourself have pointed it out.<br /><br />I've expressed my opinion about this question on the FB page of the competition to which I have contributed with my (modest) artwork, admiring the beautiful creations of fellow artists.<br /><br />Covering genitals on fine artworks is stupid as has been the act of those popes that made to cover them with figleaves and else arriving to the barbarism of Pius IX who made to mutilate the classic statues.<br /><br />see also http://arthuride.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/fig-leaves-popes-and-genitalia/Agneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17115962979992976225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-44848806634801469702011-01-23T01:09:22.927-08:002011-01-23T01:09:22.927-08:00Here's a link for all those who haven't ye...Here's a link for all those who haven't yet heard of the Smithsonian Censorship. <br /><br />http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/20/New_Yorkers_Protest_Smithsonian_Censorship/<br /><br />Iskeen,<br />I'm not sure what property rights have to do with the ability to make our work visible on the internet... unless you mean that the power lies in people collecting the work?<br /><br />I'm not that familiar with Barebrush, but, I would love to know more about how they plan to draw so many users from Facebook. And how do they plan to compete with Saatchi, Myartspace, Canvoo, Fineartamerica, and all the other dozens of online arts networks?New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-53291195525640462902011-01-23T00:38:16.519-08:002011-01-23T00:38:16.519-08:00Richard, thank you for you thoughtful and thought ...Richard, thank you for you thoughtful and thought provoking post. My painting was one of the 50 or so taken down from the contest. It is so disappointing that the beautiful nude could be so offensive to some.Alia El-Bermanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17067984579687437154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-5239741976510268522011-01-22T20:01:47.914-08:002011-01-22T20:01:47.914-08:00Very interesting, but personally, I think private ...Very interesting, but personally, I think private property trumps public opinion. Artists are never going to get the majority of people agreeing on what is art and what is porn, so instead of complaining about Facebook's rules, you should look into Barebrush, the international, monthly on-line calendar contest dedicated to the art of the nude. And what about Facebook? Don't worry, Barebrush has a plan on how to get the Facebook millions to come to Barebrush and see for themselves that it's OKAY to enjoy the art of the nude. My website, my rules: www.barebrush.com. Online since 2006.iskeenhttp://www.barebrush.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6652275538457823708.post-10043104957306771002011-01-22T16:53:14.414-08:002011-01-22T16:53:14.414-08:00I agree with you 100%! I am sure you are abreast o...I agree with you 100%! I am sure you are abreast of the censorship at the Smithsonian.... The self appointed arbitrator of morality forget that unless we have the right to express, we are going to turn into one of those fundamentalist countries..... I hope one day , somehow, the difference between art and pornography will be more clear to the public!Ishitahttp://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com