Page 1 of 2 << [1] [2] >>

From: magna_carter

2010-01-14 12:00 am (UTC)





I don't know that much about censorship aside from it supposedly protects the children.

I believe it just protects the censoring society's morals and perspectives.



However, this outlook becomes a bit sticky when I consider the censorship of pornography and art. There are some artists out there who make incredibly pornographic styled art, but who hang in mainstream galleries. (I've gotten my head round this one by pointing at money.) Similar images would live in Playboy magazine and be called pornography. I find some pornography offensive, but there's certainly offensive 'art' out there, too.







You aren't the first person to notice the widespread acceptance of the female form as 'art'





*raises hand* I gots a degree in Fine Art! Yay art posts!I don't know that much about censorship aside from it supposedly protects the children.I believe it just protects the censoring society's morals and perspectives.However, this outlook becomes a bit sticky when I consider the censorship of pornography and art. There are some artists out there who make incredibly pornographic styled art, but who hang in mainstream galleries. (I've gotten my head round this one by pointing at money.) Similar images would live in Playboy magazine and be called pornography. I find some pornography offensive, but there's certainly offensive 'art' out there, too.You aren't the first person to notice the widespread acceptance of the female form as 'art'

From: spitphyre

2010-01-14 12:30 am (UTC)

I agree. Though I should walk away since this is a trigger issue for me...

From: mirrinight

2010-01-14 12:10 am (UTC)

It's really interesting how at the same time the hatred for Eve developed, the worship of Mary/Madonna developed. But the Madonna was always clothed heavily and henceforth none of the female FIGURE could be seen in her depictions, and it seems that upon developing that terrible dichotomy of ideals for women (the terribly evil Eve and the terribly religious/subservient Mary), everything about the female other than subservience was reviled and encapsulated *within* the female figure -- I feel like the female figure lost all of any positive connotations/traits it may have had before this at this time. Do you think that's true? (lol that latter half of my comment was just inferences drawn from observations from a really incomplete examination of art history and a much more rigorous study of religion xD; )



I totally agree with you on this subject, btw. I feel like most societies today feel the female figure is more aesthetically pleasing in its entirety than the male's in its entirety. I don't find it a positive thing for either sex -- men are considered humorous or awkward-looking in their natural states, while having such a high appreciation for the female figure invariably leads to a higher objectification of women, imho. That could just be me, although I'm pretty sure I'm at least touching on something there with some types of art. I think it's great to find the human figures beautiful, but if we find only females beautiful and males just funny-looking it starts to smack of something sinister that I can't place my finger on.

I *do* think part of why female nudity is more acceptable is because you don't get full shots of the vagina in most female nudity, whereas a penis is always exposed when the man is naked, you know? Unless my understanding is incorrect, shots showing the vagina more explicitly than seen from the front while the woman is standing are considered as pornographic as a naked male. (I'm probably missing a lot of art, though e_e )

From: magna_carter

2010-01-14 12:55 am (UTC)

Re: vaginas - I was under the impression that a few artists, like Georgia O'Keefe, painted flowers as a subtle reference to vaginas. 'Cos you can't have a vag on display in an art gallery, oh no! It has to be shrouded in mystery!

I went through an obsessive period of drawing vagina/flowers in a sketchbook which I called my vag book. I should upload its contents one day.

(Deleted comment)

(Deleted comment)

From: dodger_greywing

2010-01-14 12:17 am (UTC)





I can't say who this is more offensive to, though. It does imply that the male form is somehow more vulgar, inappropriate, or ugly and therefore not as deserving of artistic representation. But it also implies that women are works of art--which are, at the end of the day, things, because a statue, a painting, or a photograph are just things--and therefore also "just things" to be looked at and awed over and then passed by.



Or maybe I'm overanalyzing things and getting distracted by the lady with the gorilla head in the picture in magna_carter I never understood the censorship thing. Honestly, a naked human body is a naked human body. I think the male and female forms are both beautiful, each in different ways, but still beautiful and still deserving of being called art. It's utterly ridiculous that a drawing of a naked man--just naked, not even aroused--would be called pornography. No, it's just a naked man. Quit freaking out.I can't say who this is more offensive to, though. It does imply that the male form is somehow more vulgar, inappropriate, or ugly and therefore not as deserving of artistic representation. But it also implies that women are works of art--which are, at the end of the day, things, because a statue, a painting, or a photograph are just things--and therefore also "just things" to be looked at and awed over and then passed by.Or maybe I'm overanalyzing things and getting distracted by the lady with the gorilla head in the picture in's comment.

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 04:15 pm (UTC)

i don't think you're overanalyzing at all, unless i'm doing the exact same things (getting distracted by naked gorilla ladies and all!).



i really don't understand any part of censorship when it comes down to it. i wish i knew what's taken into consideration and the guidelines to it just so i could see what's trying to be accomplished..

From: spitphyre

2010-01-14 12:28 am (UTC)

I am VERY upset about the way the bodies of men and women are portrayed on film. Not only are breasts shown in almost every horror or action film but the only time you really see a man naked is in an art house flick or in a comedy (because women could NEVER find a naked man attractive) *glowers*



According to films women are IMMEDIATELY naked as soon as they walk into a room. How many times have we all seen the movie where as soon as the girl walks into another room she starts to remove clothing? I can think of eight examples this very moment and more are coming to me all the time. Not only that but they wander around topless and bottomless while their male counterparts are clothed decently.



And all business deals? Shady, especially, but not always, have to take place in a strip club. Where the girls usually act in ways strippers can not or would not do (case in point, a mock-umentary I watched at a film festival a few years ago, film crew walks into a strip club, girls are straddling a fat man. Most are topless. The manager starts to tell them the camera can't come in because it's illegal but relents when he learns who they are. The girls get up and start making out with each other and pole dancing for the camera. I can assure you that NO stripper would be ok with that. They all have damn good reasons for wanting no cameras around) But seriously? To prove how street savvy, how much of a loser, or how awesome a guy is they always have to end up in a strip club. For no reason.



And that's the crux of my complaints. Give us a reason and give us male nudity and maybe then I won't complain.



*deep breath* It's one of the biggest sources of anger between myself and my boyfriend.

From: magna_carter

2010-01-14 12:50 am (UTC)

'Between' being a shared anger, or opposed?

From: jedibubbles

2010-01-14 12:31 am (UTC)

Did Photobucket really say "inappropriate" and "pornographic"? As a fellow artist in love with the nude figure, this has got me all kinds of pissed off, mainly because of the mistaken idea that nudity is always sexual in nature.



I suspect that your female nudes weren't slapped down because they are more generally accepted as "art" due to their prevalence in art history. As for why, I have no facts, only sneaking suspicions about male control of the art world. Basically, I think it's because everyone enjoys viewing the female form, but a lot of men and some women just can't stand to look at a penis, even if it's flaccid and obviously not the focal body part. But that's just my theory. And yes, that would be sexist.



It's a ridiculous mindset, one that I have to battle with rather frequently from the general public. (Have you ever tried to teach people about cave frescoes in India without showing breasts or genitalia? It's nigh impossible!) Ratings and objections to nudity shouldn't be about the amount of skin that is exposed; it should be about the situation the nudity is in. Anyone can be completely naked and it have nothing to do with sex. How is this a bad thing? It's natural.



You might want to write to both Photobucket and Myspace and ask them to explain their rulings, pointing out that all of your images were artistic celebrations of the human form and none of them were sexual or suggestive in nature. I doubt you'll actually be able to reason with them, but if nothing else it'll be interesting to see what drivel they come up with.



In the meantime, I suggest getting a sketchblog to upload your work on. Vox seems to be pretty accepting of artistic nudes as long as they're labeled as "not for the public stream"--that keeps it out of the random feeds and away from the search bots. I'm not sure about Wordpress and Blogger's policies, though I've seen full nudity on both.



If you need to vent, drop me a line. Artists unite!

From: dodger_greywing

2010-01-14 01:35 am (UTC)

Hell, LiveJournal would be a perfect place for it! They're really chill with their nudity and pornographic content rules. (And then we could all easily be art creepers on OP's sketch blog.)



Edited at 2010-01-14 01:35 am (UTC)

From: alleyneko2000

2010-01-14 01:14 am (UTC)

I don't know if this is true or not but maybe the reason males aren't shown nude anywhere is because the people making the movies, drawings, ect. are mostly males. It could be Homophobia or and ego stroke for males to see the female form more. I donno, just an idea.

From: spitphyre

2010-01-14 03:25 am (UTC)

From the research and opinions I have gathered I have to say that this is a large part of it right here.

From: candika

2010-01-14 01:18 am (UTC)

That is utterly ridiculous! The idea that the human body is by default pornographic is totally absurd and that the male body is more 'pornographic' than the female when both are equally naked is both hilarious and infuriating! Do both the sites you mentioned have actual notes in their ToS about the posting of nudes?



BTW: Try Deviant Art, they won't be worried by them.



Edited at 2010-01-14 01:27 am (UTC)

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 04:45 pm (UTC)

to be honest, i've never really checked since i haven't come across this problem before. i'm sure that they do, but i'm a little pissed that they have exceptions to the rule, apparently.

From: lisztful

2010-01-14 01:37 am (UTC)

This is a topic that I think about a lot, as I'm an art history major with a focus in representations of the female body. I think there are a lot of potential reasons, but here's one that makes a lot of sense to me.



In the act of viewing a nude body, we are in a way objectifying it. It becomes an object to be viewed, and it is in that way disempowered, just an object, a thing whose purpose is to be viewed, and for the viewer to enjoy. If we accept that sexism has run rampant in art (and I'm sure some people don't agree with that, it's a personal opinion), then it makes sense to me that the people who are in power would not want their bodies to be objectified or disempowered. Thus, women's bodies are more easily objectified than men's.





(Deleted comment)

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 04:48 pm (UTC)

interesting. i wonder if they even know their terms of service? =/

From: moonshinecandy

2010-01-14 03:52 am (UTC)

As somewhat of an artist, with daughters who aspire to possible careers in art, I had to respond to this post. My oldest has quite a few nudes posted around on the net, and as far as I know, has never had any problems with the nudity issue, but then again her taste in nudes and art tend to run the hermaphrodite road right now rather then the classical male or female nude, so that might be the difference. A class action suit against photobucket might need be in the works?? ;) :D :X.....

My personal rule when it comes to whether something is deemed porny or not is pretty much to do with the intimacy of the artwork itself...if you have somebody naked looking directly at you, it denotes a much more personal relationship to the viewer imho, then if the gaze is not a direct one

I welcome all comments and questions on this....

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 04:52 pm (UTC)

we actually discussd this in my class. we decided that eye contact is indeed a little more "porny" (hah =D) and we also came to the conclusion that some kind of subtle concealing of certain body parts seemed more pornographic than just full frontal nudity.



the male nudes were definitely not by any means pornographic, but very obviously male as well. i think it was just the penis shot that did it for them since i had a front view of the model at the time.

From: jquintanilla

2010-01-14 05:39 am (UTC)

Sexism affects all of us. It is offensive to both men and women. All sexism is. Yes, often times it is one sex that is being denigrated, but the underlying message inherent in sexism is that there is a certain way that men should act and a certain way that women should act and never the twain shall meet. This dichotomous thinking limits the options of both sexes. And that sucks...for everyone.

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 04:55 pm (UTC)

Re: Sexism affects all of us. thanks for wording it that way. i agree completely.

From: teague

2010-01-14 06:50 am (UTC)

I'm tossing in a suggestion to join deviantart.com. They are artist focused, and have a pretty liberal attitude towards nudity. Because of this there is plenty of room for things you wish you could unsee, and I'm sure some entries probably deserve to end up here. But it's the internet, and this is true of most places.

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 04:56 pm (UTC)

i'm not even sure why i don't have a deviant art account yet. i guess just because i never ran into this problem before.

From: kungfucarrie

2010-01-14 02:34 pm (UTC)

magna_carter

I don't know that much about censorship aside from it supposedly protects the children.

I believe it just protects the censoring society's morals and perspectives.



(And, yes, there are things that children shouldn't see).



I think a big part of it is how men and women are conditioned to view the opposite sex, and their own sex.



Our culture has promoted women as objects (of beauty, sex, etc.) for a very long time. At the same time, men are promoted as caregivers, protectors, people with careers, etc.



We're all used to seeing the female as a sexual object, men and women, regardless of our own sexual orientation.



Example: Mens' magazines usually have women on the cover. Presumably because those women are sexually desirable to the heterosexual male. And sex sells. Womens' magazines usually have other women on the cover. Not because they are trying to sell lesbian sex, but because women have grown up viewing the female body (their bodies) in a sexualized context.



As a society, we don't have the equivalent for males. Men don't grow up seeing images of the male body in a sexualized context.



Not that society should start sexy-ing up the male image. We should stop treating women as only sex objects. But at the same time, we need to accept that both forms can & are beautiful, particularly in a lot of artistic settings.



First, I agree with's statement:I don't know that much about censorship aside from it supposedly protects the children.I believe it just protects the censoring society's morals and perspectives.(And, yes, there are things that children shouldn't see).I think a big part of it is how men and women are conditioned to view the opposite sex, and their own sex.Our culture has promoted women as objects (of beauty, sex, etc.) for a very long time. At the same time, men are promoted as caregivers, protectors, people with careers, etc.We're all used to seeing the female as a sexual object, men and women, regardless of our own sexual orientation.Example: Mens' magazines usually have women on the cover. Presumably because those women are sexually desirable to the heterosexual male. And sex sells. Womens' magazines usually have other women on the cover. Not because they are trying to sell lesbian sex, but because women have grown up viewing the female body (their bodies) in a sexualized context.As a society, we don't have the equivalent for males. Men don't grow up seeing images of the male body in a sexualized context.Not that society should start sexy-ing up the male image. We should stop treating women as only sex objects. But at the same time, we need to accept that both forms can & are beautiful, particularly in a lot of artistic settings.

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-14 05:02 pm (UTC)

on magazines: i was watching america's next top model once (don't you judge me, there was nothing else to watch! ;P), and tyra was teaching the girls how to pose for a a men's magazine and then a women's magazine. it blew my mind how really tiny things like parting your lips, arching/hunching your back, partly closing your eyes, etc. etc. can be the difference between sexy and pretty. plus, it pissed me off, but hey.



i absolutely agree that our culture conditions us to accept female nudity and reject male, but it's the kind of perpetual problem that i don't think will ever go away..

From: dernhelm1982

2010-01-14 03:26 pm (UTC)

I've got my AA in art!



This reminds me of my life drawing class. We had both male and female students and when we had a nude female model everything was calm. Anyone who complained was invited to leave the class.



When we had a nude male model some of the students went up in arms and even went as far as to complain to the dean.



I recall when showing up early for class hearing my teacher shout "Idiots!" from his office.

From: reonyea

2010-01-14 03:49 pm (UTC)

OT - I love your icon, could I have?

From: uhlease

2010-01-14 05:21 pm (UTC)

My theatre teacher actually told me that the reason they show boobs and stuff in film is because there's a rule when censoring stuff that no plumbing (that's the word he used lol) can be shown. A man's plumbing is external which is why penises can't be shown but a woman's is internal so it's fair game.



I don't know where he found that though so I can't give you a source.

From: deathsoundsfun

2010-01-15 06:45 pm (UTC)

that seems to be the general consesus around here, and i guess it makes sense under that logic. i still call a bullshit card, though ;P