If images like these, which is by definition art, were what people posted on FB, Twitter, etc., then maybe to a degree they would be allowed on certain platforms.
However the reality is that the vast majority is very hardcore material that should not be allowed. You either allow all or try to forbid everything, otherwise you end up in a mess since many people end up in the extremes, and the sensible content slowly fades away.If you're talking about the culture and society being puritan, I agree, but then again the access to information also drastically changed.To this you also include the fact that by definition facebook &co try to be very globalistic in nature, they also have to adapt to certain "societal norms"(thinking about the eastern ones), where people are way more puritan.
Imo such art being displayed on OF is kind of a shame and a disgrace to those artists, considering the kind of material being posted there.
The aim here is to develop interoperability so users have the option of thousands of networks without lock in.
Anyway it's less of a moral thing and more economical. Facebook sells ads next to user content. Anything that advertisers are unwilling to risk appearing next to is on thin ice.
The distinction between "art" and "pornography" is also somewhat artificial. It's hard to argue that [3] was not meant to be prurient when the model (underage, by today's standards) shortly thereafter became a mistress of the King of France, based on him having seen the painting. And some stuff that was painted might get you banned from OnlyFans even today, e.g. [4].
But the problem, it seems to me, is that the internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has to be "safe for children" and (2) said safety standards are defined (through US influence, I strongly suspect) to be highly permissive of violence, but super strict on nudity.
[0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-war/CwHM2HdTO3l2...
[1] https://www.wikiart.org/en/max-ernst/the-angel-of-the-home-o...
[2] https://www.wikiart.org/en/matthias-grunewald/the-crucifixio...
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_B...
[4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-with-a...
(The nude-but-not-sexual viewpoint is pretty valid, but some of the fine art is definitely sexual once you know the context, and some of it was controversial in its time e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe )
Those puritan standards for art are far from universal. In fact, they don't even cross the Atlantic well.
That's what cultural imperialism is about: projecting one set of values as universal and natural, when it's really not.
And that's the problem with having a big media/technology (de facto) monopoly, all located in one hegemonic country.
Its just the platforms in a country populated and founded by ideological and religious extremists kicked out of Europe
Much like the USA, Europe does not fit into neat boxes made of stereotypes.
What I was really trying to do was mention the areas of Europe that are either “sexually liberated” or apathetic to sexuality and equally wont bother anybody or weakly say “it’s not my opinion it’s the advertisers!” because the advertisers don’t care either
I wasn't aiming to imply or say the entire subcontinent is like that
Not sure a better way to do that, even with your observation
I've had multiple pics flagged by discord as "graphic" even though none were graphic, the last one was a close up picture of a coin held between my fingers
Source? To my reading, this is a decisively late Christian/Puritan perspective on sex and the human body.
It is not just safe for children. Safe for work too. Safe for people who don't like porn in their feeds too. I think that these filters don't particularly care about high art, because that is insignificant percentage of overall nudity people post. Most of it is boobs and genitals.
The art you posted is all tame. But not all art is tame and like between porn, erotic and art is often blurry.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but naked kids aren't uncommon here. It's seen as a natural thing.
This is true only for very unusual definitions of “always” and/or “fine art”; history is more than Victorian England.
“No urns,” he said at last.
“What urns?” said Nobby.
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added: “Or a plinth. Best is both, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
“What about a potted plant?”
“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
— Thud (2005), Terry Pratchett
Of course, exactly what counts as nude (or public lovemaking) and just how draconian the repercussions for transgression are, varies greatly.
#3, #4 would just seem out of place because of their nudity. Most sane people would realize it is art but it would still seem weird.
Part of the US's double standard involves being exposed to stuff like the crucifixion and the concept of torture at a very young age. The concept that nudity can be appreciated or even expressed outside of a sexual context is not really a thing in the US. The issue is that the only use cases for nudity in movies & TV is going to sex related 99% of the time because if you are going to show nudity you might as well use it to suggest or depict sex.
That said, someone will get upset at just about anything.
I disagree with your assessment of #0. It is extremely gory, repurposes religious imagery in a secular context, and was considered such a menace to society that it could not be shown in museums and had to be hidden for 15 years.
And I think #3 and especially #4 were not meant to depict nudity devoid of a sexual context. With Fragonard, there is often an acknowledged voyeuristic element, even in paintings where there is no nudity, such as https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/the-swing-1... (cf also the original French title).
But it's kind of twisted that we consider it less weird to look at a person nailed to a cross than one engaged in a prelude to a reproductive act.
It’s okay to like boundaries. Everything doesn’t need to be blared in your face all the time. Saying this doesn’t make me a Puritan, it makes me in line with most of the people on earth.
The printing press was hundreds of years old by the time of Gutenberg.
I'm not sure this is meaningful. You would also find any fine art unusual in the context of a daycare, regardless of whether or not it's offensive. Your mind is trained to expect bright colors, letters, shapes, etc. in that context.
A better question is, would you expect an art museum to have these paintings in a separate area that requires proof of age to see? And I think the answer to that is absolutely not. That would be weird.
That's far from what your kid can see just watching a few minutes of news. (And I'm not even talking about this email I received from the kindergarten explaining to all parents that kids of this age aren't supposed to watch Squid Game at home!)
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_B...
> [4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-with-a...
What's wrong with those two? These are innocent painting of naked people (also children have no sense of pudency before way after kindergarten so they just can't see the problem with this)
People taking the subway to work might not want to see all that.
With movable type printing, the market for books could be widened, suddenly writing and printing presses could go professional, before that it was largely academic. Printers and distributors and writers both became professional and needed their rights balanced and became economically influential enough to get legislature to enact laws to protect both groups.
[1] He was the first in Europe, he didn't invent it first in the world.
Some snails mate while hanging down from a tree branch by a thread of slime. That's about as private as a snail can get.
Because otherwise art is impossible.
If you are a painter, and you need to draw people, you learn to draw naked people because you need to learn how human anatomy works, where various muscles and wrinkles are. In your careers you won't be just asked to draw dudes in T-shirts, you will have to draw or animate people in various clothes and state of dress or undress, torn clothing, gladiator games, etc.
There is great deal of knowledge that they actually have to learn, how to draw realistic deltoids in different body positions, or under stress to show that a person is putting in a great effort to support a great weight, or is in a fight. A drawing by a great artist should make a medical professional happy.
That's why they hire nude models to stand around in various posses, and they aren't all pretty, some of them are old people because they have to learn how to draw wrinkles and old skin.
I would rather pay a subscribtion fee for any social network I use, keep the data and decide what I get to see.
Someone (I assume moderators) deleted my posts minutes after upload.
After several attempts to clear the issue and no reaction from Instagram I decided that it is not worth the effort. Mind you, at the time all influencers were using the platform in sexually subjective ways with no problems at all.
Since then, I don't share on any platform my act photography, painting or drawing work.
It is available only for exhibitions and print medium (albums).
As usual, a small segment of Western society deems itself morally superior to the entire world. New century, same old mentality.
But in reality, people don't want to see erotica and such in their own feeds. The threshold of where it becomes unwanted is different for everyone. But most people want some level of filtering to be done for them.
Plus people want to be able to scroll Facebook or Twitter in work for few minutes without risking something inappropriate shows up.
And lines between art that feels good, erotics or porn, and basically bad art/photo that is super cringy just to look at and disgusting are blurry. And they are also subjective.
_-_WGA2906.jpg){kind=link}
