art vs censorship

[Stramash]

Earlier today I had a picture removed from site of a phallic sculpture. The photo was, admittedly, posted in a humorous context as a riposte to Todger_Bob, rather than as an artistic statement, but it was still 'art' nonetheless.

Now, I'm not having a go at the mod involved (who shall remain nameless) but what I did wonder was where lines should be drawn in censorship generally.

While it is obviously against t+c's to post a pornographic picture, should the site also censor artistic renderings of the naked form or parts thereof?

"Since recorded history, governments, religious authorities, and self-appointed arbiters of morality have attempted to regulate what individuals think and believe, read and write, see and depict. Sexuality of all kinds has been a prime subject of regulation and censorship, and homosexuality, the "crime not to be named among Christians" and "the Love that dare not speak its name," has been particularly so.

Censorship and Its Consequences

The history of censorship in the arts includes such incidents as the placing of fig-leaves over the genitalia of Renaissance masterpieces, the confiscation by governmental agencies of art works such as the homoerotic paintings of D. H. Lawrence, the destruction of "degenerate art" by the Nazis in Hitler-era Germany, the banning of books such as Radclyffe Hall's The Well of Loneliness (1928) in England and Allen Ginsberg's Howl (1956) in the United States, and the denial of public funds to "promote homosexuality" or public space to exhibit sympathetic depictions of gay male and lesbian art and theatre.

Censorship in the Arts

It includes both the criminalization of particular sexual images and the introduction of informal codes of censorship, such as the Motion Picture Production Code that restricted positive depictions of homosexuality by Hollywood from the 1930s through the 1960s.

Photographic images of nude men and women, whether or not they were engaged in erotic activities, were routinely confiscated and destroyed, and the creators and distributors often prosecuted."

(from glbtq.com)

If we extend the mod's thinking to its logial (or illogical) conclusions, then posting a picture of Michaelangelo's 'David' would also be unacceptable.

Everyone's tastes in art differ. Personally I find the art of Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin puerile and uninspiring, but I would never try to prevent someone from viewing their work.

What are your views on art vs censorship vs controversy, both on TF and in the world in general.

:roll:

[beej]

I hate art, its for boring fags with too much time on their hands, these are known in the trade as ''art fags'' so I'm told.

As for *****, what kind of cock was it? A sculpture? Or your fine member Iain?

[Stramash]

I hate art, its for boring f*gs with too much time on their hands, these are known in the trade as ''art f*gs'' so I'm told.

As for *****, what kind of cock was it? A sculpture? Or your fine member Iain?

It was a sculpture young padawan. I think every male on TF would be scared of posting their own c*ck after the tales of Buster Bob and his unfeasibly large penis.

[beej]

This is beautiful......

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antbaena/3501370203/

[grezzzy_greer]

I hate art, its for boring f*gs with too much time on their hands, these are known in the trade as ''art f*gs'' so I'm told.

As for *****, what kind of cock was it? A sculpture? Or your fine member Iain?

It was a sculpture young padawan. I think every male on TF would be scared of posting their own c*ck after the tales of Buster Bob and his unfeasibly large penis.

That was a tragic tale - what a life - couldnt build a relationship past "just friends" otherwise he would faint from blood loss...

[beej]

I hate art, its for boring f*gs with too much time on their hands, these are known in the trade as ''art f*gs'' so I'm told.

As for *****, what kind of cock was it? A sculpture? Or your fine member Iain?

It was a sculpture young padawan. I think every male on TF would be scared of posting their own c*ck after the tales of Buster Bob and his unfeasibly large penis.

That was a tragic tale - what a life - couldnt build a relationship past "just friends" otherwise he would faint from blood loss...

RIP Sledge Hammer Bob

[Stramash]

here's the pic that was posted. Not in Michaelangelo's league, but it is still art...

or is it?

[beej]

Whos that sitting on it?

[Stramash]

Whos that sitting on it?

someone who appreciates sculpture...

[LakeGeneve]

While it is obviously against t+c's to post a pornographic picture, should the site also censor artistic renderings of the naked form or parts thereof?

If we extend the mod's thinking to its logial (or illogical) conclusions, then posting a picture of Michaelangelo's 'David' would also be unacceptable.

Everyone's tastes in art differ. Personally I find the art of Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin puerile and uninspiring, but I would never try to prevent someone from viewing their work.

What are your views on art vs censorship vs controversy, both on TF and in the world in general.

:roll:

If it was the pic I saw then it was clearly not pornographic in nature and the humourous context was obvious. With all due respect, the mod probably doesn't really know the difference and is erring on the side of ignorant caution. Or maybe it was motivated by some jealousy of Dave's appendage?

Another mod may have allowed it I would think but the site has gone all 'namby pampy' on that side of things. Clearly, Admin is worried and has an investment to protect and we all know that the site is casually monitored by the Police Unit concerned with enforcement of the Internet Law so there is some basis for concern. (Reportedly, some young police women has to scan through now and then).

However, you can go to any market, trickets shop, hotel shop and shopping center and see (or handle if you so desire) a phallus statue of some sort here in Thailand.

[Stramash]

While it is obviously against t+c's to post a pornographic picture, should the site also censor artistic renderings of the naked form or parts thereof?

If we extend the mod's thinking to its logial (or illogical) conclusions, then posting a picture of Michaelangelo's 'David' would also be unacceptable.

Everyone's tastes in art differ. Personally I find the art of Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin puerile and uninspiring, but I would never try to prevent someone from viewing their work.

What are your views on art vs censorship vs controversy, both on TF and in the world in general.

:roll:

If it was the pic I saw then it was clearly not pornographic in nature and the humourous context was obvious. With all due respect, the mod probably doesn't really know the difference and is erring on the side of ignorant caution. Or maybe it was motivated by some jealousy of Dave's appendage?

Another mod may have allowed it I would think but the site has gone all 'namby pampy' on that side of things. Clearly, Admin is worried and has an investment to protect and we all know that the site is casually monitored by the Police Unit concerned with enforcement of the Internet Law so there is some basis for concern. (Reportedly, some young police women has to scan through now and then).

However, you can go to any market, trickets shop, hotel shop and shopping center and see (or handle if you so desire) a phallus statue of some sort here in Thailand.

There was discussion with the mod, and I pointed out that a statue could not be construed as pornographic and also raised the Michaelangelo comparison.

As I said, I'm not having a go at the particular mod, or at the site in general. Just wanted to provoke some debate on art and censorship generally.

[pandorea]

There's a fine line between art and nudity. People often get away with that ?so-called arty-shitty? when they post ?nudity?. I wasn?t the one who took the picture down, btw but I agree with the other mod. Sorry, Iain. I know that I don?t have to let you know about this but here I go...before the picture was taken down we discuss about it on the mods-forum. So, that wasn't the one mod-only decision.

About the picture, I don?t see any art in it. Sorry again. If we let the picture stay then we shall see tons of **** sculptures or perhaps some ***** sculptures on TF. If anyone wants to see that happened, please feel free to contact Admin.

Love you!

[Stramash]

There's a fine line between art and nudity. People often get away with that ?so-called arty-sh*tty? when they post ?nudity?. I wasn?t the one who took the picture down, btw but I agree with the other mod. Sorry, Iain. I know that I don?t have to let you know about this but here I go...before the picture was taken down we discuss about it on the mods-forum. So, that wasn't the one mod-only decision.

About the picture, I don?t see any art in it. Sorry again. If we let the picture stay then we shall see tons of d*ck sculptures or perhaps some p*ssy sculptures on TF. If anyone wants to see that happened, please feel free to contact Admin.

Love you!

That's absolutely fine Nicky. As I said, am not having a go at the mod or the site. In fact, am more interested in wider views on 'art' vs censorship and where lines are drawn.

Now, for instance, there was the case last year in Australia of the artist Bill Henson in Australia having a lot of work removed from galleries because the subject matter was nude pictures of young teenage children. Now to me, that was acceptable censorship as it was, no matter the arguments of the artistic community, sexualising young children.

Now, personally, I think that a sculpted nude of a child would be acceptable (and they are already found in museums and galleries worldwide) but that photographic works are still taboo.

And my personal views are the same vis a vis the site. While a photograph of a sexual act or of genitalia is unacceptable, whether it is an artistic rendition or just purely pornographic, I do think a representation in the medium of sculpture does not overstep the boundaries of good taste, nor of any of Thailand's own censorship laws regarding online sites.

[pandorea]

Here how I see it, Iain. I don?t care who made that golden **** sculpture, even if that?s gonna be Picasso my favourite artist. It?s still look like a **** to me.

It?s also about how you present a sculpture or a painting, if you put the David in a stripper bar next to a poll and some stripperists (they might prefer to be called a dance-artist)dancing around David, suddenly the David is nudity.

[Stramash]

Here how I see it, Iain. I don?t care who made that golden d*ck sculpture, even if that?s gonna be Picasso my favourite artist. It?s still look like a d*ck to me.

It?s also about how you present a sculpture or a painting, if you put the David in a stripper bar next to a poll and some stripperists (they might prefer to be called a dance-artist)dancing around David, suddenly the David is nudity.

So would you say then that what makes that 'just a d*ck ' rather than a sculpture is the way the girl has posed? Because the picture is taken within a gallery, not within a sex show or a stip club.

And as for the 'David', it does not matter where it is exhibited. It is always nudity and it is always a fantastic piece of art, whether surrounded by tourists or surrounded by strippers.

[Stramash]

so, from now on, the penis can only be represented on TF by other objects?

[Stramash]

will only post a link for this one, in case it is not viewed as art, but possibly an early representation of a night with Todger_Bob??

http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3641

[LakeGeneve]

There's a fine line between art and nudity. People often get away with that ?so-called arty-sh*tty? when they post ?nudity?. I wasn?t the one who took the picture down, btw but I agree with the other mod. Sorry, Iain. I know that I don?t have to let you know about this but here I go...before the picture was taken down we discuss about it on the mods-forum. So, that wasn't the one mod-only decision.

About the picture, I don?t see any art in it. Sorry again. If we let the picture stay then we shall see tons of d*ck sculptures or perhaps some p*ssy sculptures on TF. If anyone wants to see that happened, please feel free to contact Admin.

Love you!

And my personal views are the same vis a vis the site. While a photograph of a sexual act or of genitalia is unacceptable, whether it is an artistic rendition or just purely pornographic, I do think a representation in the medium of sculpture does not overstep the boundaries of good taste, nor of any of Thailand's own censorship laws regarding online sites.

There is plenty of art , scupltures and paintings, in public places in Thailand which show phalluses and breasts. I have seen phallic statue & phallus pics in the Thai newspapers and in online editions.

In fact, I seem to recall that last year the previous govt's Culture Minister was hawking phallus symbols which received a wealth of coverage in the local (with pics) and international press;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Phallus-Symbols-Buffaloes-Attrrac-t215340.html

Do a google in thai and see what pops up (pun intended).

[beej]

That's absolutely fine Nicky.

B B B B B B Brown Nose

[Stramash]

That's absolutely fine Nicky.

B B B B B B Brown Nose

meant that it was fine that N didn't see any art in it not that they f*cking censored the pic!!!!

I don't see art in Tracy Emin's bed ****, though she does have a face like a Picasso painted with sh*t while on LSD!!

[English_Bob]

Actually I think it was right to remove the big, gold phallus picture.

It wasn't a sculpture, it was a piece of performance art I did in Budapest two years ago. The girl sitting on my gold-painted nads was a Bosnian refugee, orphanned by the shelling of her home town.

We were making a statement about the masculinity of conflict. I'm glad we provoked a discussion.

[Guest FLGlenn]

Beauty, like art, is in the eye of the beholder...

[robbie36]

Iain_D,

I think you have to recognize that it is TF's site and that every right not to show the pic whether it is due to 'art', bad photography, offensiveness, detriment to their profit model or whatever other reason they choose to dream up.

Personally, I have a problem with them letting you display photos of your children (well I hope they are your children) all over the internet unless TF have received written permission from them allowing you to do that.