Caedes

Non-art Website Issues

Discussion Board -> Non-art Website Issues -> Censorship

Censorship

.third_eye
06/22/06 11:57 PM GMT
As I first posted in my comments on an artists work, I'm a little puzzled and concerned. My issue is with, for lack of a better description, the decency standards in the sites Cof C. I understand why they're in place, and will respect them. I respectfully disagree however, on the extent perhaps in which they're enforced.

The artwork in question was a pool scene, and it featured Sim-like characters. Mind you, I didn't see the original, but the artist having to re-edit his or her work to place clothing not originally intented to be there seems a bit much.

The question I posed, then, is this:
If I take a picture, or somehow otherwise portray artwork such as a classical Greek statue, known in many cases to be typically nude, am I then obligated to process those images so that they're clothed?

Please, I'd welcome any answers, regardless of point of view.

Thanks, Rob (third_eye)
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
.animaniactoo
06/23/06 12:19 AM GMT
hmmm… interesting q… I think… methinks… well… this is what methinks…

A) classical greek statues usually squeak through cuz they're "classic art"

B) it's a friggin SHAME this country (the u.s.a) was founded by Puritans. It's caused more grief and unhappiness than just accepting that some things are natural and fine, and banning them only makes them more tempting… even when they're really just an expression of art.

C) the fact that we live in this country & culture and this is a "family hour" site so to speak… means that we have to abide by the perception 8•(
0∈ [?]
SMURF SOLIDARITY - THE FIESTY TAVERN SMURFS! 8•D
.third_eye
06/23/06 12:28 AM GMT
understood and agreed, but ought there not be a section, link, page, whatever thats either 'adults only' or...more like it, 'no prudes allowed'? with of course, your standard disclaimer
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
.animaniactoo
06/23/06 12:48 AM GMT
I vote yes… but… I think it'd be hard to enforce the "adults only" portion of it… and well… hey… the poor guy that runs this site… he's got enough bickerin goin on! This is one of his hobbies, let's try and leave a little fun in it for him, k? 8•)
0∈ [?]
SMURF SOLIDARITY - THE FIESTY TAVERN SMURFS! 8•D
&KEIFER
06/23/06 3:52 AM GMT
There is already discussions about an adult divider line .. but .. truth of the matter is, the founder of the "site" and not the founders of the "country" are the deciding council of elders here .. and HE has set forth that the site will be family friendly .. we do have a lot of youngins here and we have a lot of parents that have actually expressed thanks that the site is this way .. the site could be based in Copenhagen and still employ the standards that you find

with that said .. yes .. it can be a little squeamish sometimes .. though we are making strides on the gratuitous animal copulation front

The only way to do a proper adult check is via Credit Card .. and even that is not fool proof .. with more and more kids getting credit cards at their 1st birthdays ... and then some adults not willing to do it out of paranoia

(*opens box*) .. I got prude danish for everybody .. who wants one
0∈ [?]
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = T42
.third_eye
06/23/06 3:55 AM GMT
haha not being a thorn in anyone's side (not intentionally, anyway) just voicing an opinion)

but i do understand
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
.animaniactoo
06/23/06 3:56 AM GMT
*turns up nose*

LOL… that was @ Papa Keifer… not you Rob
0∈ [?]
SMURF SOLIDARITY - THE FIESTY TAVERN SMURFS! 8•D
&KEIFER
06/23/06 4:10 AM GMT
As the site moves towards more of an art site and not 'just' a wallpaper depository .. other changes are likely to come with it .. based on past example, you should look for these changes in the year 2525

but .. the 'adult' site and 'kid' site will almost have to be two separate entities .. and that will weakin the whole

from a "portfolio" standpoint .. there are other options available online .. DevArt, for exampe, accepts anything be it good, bad, or ugly .. and the url of your gallery is easier to rattle of to the person you're trying to impress. be it magazine publisher or inebriated conquest at the bar
0∈ [?]
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = T42
.hernoor
06/23/06 4:27 AM GMT
This is sort of offtopic - Keith - you can type in keifer.caedes.net and it redirects you to your gallery. I've referred my gallery as simply hernoor.caedes.net to all my admirers. =)
0∈ [?]
Live like there was no tomorrow | When you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything - Doc Brown | My Gallery
.animaniactoo
06/23/06 4:34 AM GMT
omg. she's right. it does work like that! cool beans 8•D
0∈ [?]
SMURF SOLIDARITY - THE FIESTY TAVERN SMURFS! 8•D
.akashastrega
06/23/06 4:57 AM GMT
You know...getting BACK ON TOPIC...
I completely understand the reasons, and am awaiting the day that we make an "animals doing 'it'" calendar...and agree that it would be fun and could be artsy to allow nudity...but then my credo is:
When the going gets tough, the tough dance nekkid!
0∈ [?]
Look to the Future, Remeber the Past, but Live in the Present, and Never forget to tell those you love "I Love You", you may not get another chance. SMURF SOLIDARITY
&KEIFER
06/23/06 5:53 AM GMT
As has already been said by people better than me .. COOL BEANS .. I didn't know that
0∈ [?]
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = T42
::cynlee
06/23/06 3:04 PM GMT
So, let me understand. Statues and sculptures, no matter how artful, are improper if they are nude, waist up or down, insects copulating are taboo? Is this correct?
0∈ [?]
.third_eye
06/23/06 6:49 PM GMT
wow, looks like i stirred up a little bit of a bee's nest. i really do see and understand the positon on the other side of the fence, and i do respect the concern over how much young eyes are exposed to. i also wasn't trying to upend the authority of the people (person?) who run the site.

having said that.....it is my own opinion being expressed here, and that opinion is that censorship (even self-imposed) and art are at the very least, strange bedfellows. ok, i'm done :o)
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
*caedes
06/23/06 9:59 PM GMT
This is a good discussion so far.

I'd like to make it clear that the rules are the way they are primarily due to my personal liability for the concern that some parents have for what young eyes are exposed to. I will not put myself in the cross-hairs of a person with a puritanical agenda. This will probably not change unless I get some insulation from this threat (possible through incorporation).
0∈ [?]
-caedes
::Hottrockin
06/23/06 10:19 PM GMT
~looking up what "puritanical" means~...stop using those big words dude 8~P

It is a great topic of discussion!! You could almost title it...What Is Art?

It's all interpretation, what one see's the other doesn't. I know I've posted MO State Capitol statue # 2 . Is it art that was sculpted with a meaning or some freaky chick with a vegetable fetish? Each person will see it in a different light, probably not so many in the latter, but none the less. This sculpture is in front of the MO State Capitol building for anyone to see day or night at any age. I wonder though back in the day it was sculpted, was it considered offensive more so by people than what it is today? When it was created, back when puppies were the oldest animal, did people consider it pornographic? One wonders...what will "art" be called in another 100 or 200 years? Will say, Playboy magazine and its pictorials be classified as "art"? A beautiful subject in a controlled environment with nice detail to lighting, tones and hues? I don't know, but I believe it's more a common standard today (and accepted) rather than it's first publication, December 1953. Is it "art"? Not to me, but to some I think the answer would differ. Perception and interpretation truly is in the eye of the beholder...
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
06/24/06 12:36 AM GMT
All things are "pure" to the "Pure of Heart". So why were the wax figures of Native Americans from a museum display that I submitted as art any different than the statue in front of the MO captitol? My submission was rejected, the statue was not. Surely, wax/bronze are not the determining factor.
What makes good art? Good question. Surely something that reflects the supreme creator, lifts us beyond 'ourselves' and draws us to inner light embodies the characteristics of 'art' in it's true sense. Years from now I expect that it will remain as such.
I can see the need for concern over 'liability' issues and respect that. What I don't totally understand are the criteria the moderators use to determine the suitablity of an image since it seems that in one instance nude breasts are taboo and in yet another they are allowed even though the objects in question are considered works of art and on public display. Does the determination rest solely on the subjectivity only of a particular moderator?
0∈ [?]
.animaniactoo
06/24/06 12:47 AM GMT
As Caedes and Randy said… a large part of it is about perception and a puritanical agenda.

A great example: Believe me when I tell you that I work w/a bunch of *cough cough aherm* deviously minded people. However… when we produced this item, not one of us saw another meaning to it. Until a woman called up customer service one day (don't ask me how the call landed on my desk instead of there… crossed wire somewhere), and started ranting and raving @ what filthy minded people we were. "This is for KIDS, and he's got his face in the middle of "Bikini Bottom"? With a huge grin on his face? What kind of sickos are you people?"

No amount of "Ma'am, have you watched the show? Do you know anything about the show? It's the name of the place where SpongeBob lives." would get through to her. I'm fairly sure she called Nickelodeon after she was done ranting @ us.

edit: Cynlee's post appeared while I was already typing this. Cyn, I'd say it might depend on which moderator approved your work. It's a blurry line, and you may simply have drawn one who chose to err on the side of safety.
0∈ [?]
SMURF SOLIDARITY - THE FIESTY TAVERN SMURFS! 8•D
.Dante11
06/25/06 2:16 AM GMT
And how abut a semi-nude-eg.nude but with no genitals female breasts exposed??
0∈ [?]
.third_eye
06/25/06 2:38 AM GMT
just wondering, did you read all of the comments in this thread? in their entirety?
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
::cgImagery
06/26/06 8:00 AM GMT
lol
-laughs-
0∈ [?]
self.promotion. leads to success. you.ll see. you.ll understand.
.Dante11
06/26/06 4:56 PM GMT
What is funny about it, Andrew? I was asking if it would be ok to post a photo of a semi-nude-this has not been addressed/answered clearly.
0∈ [?]
&KEIFER
06/26/06 5:10 PM GMT
From the C.O.C. .. section 2 .. #4

Unacceptable subject matter for images such as pornography, nudity, gratuitous wildlife copulation, registered trademarks, copyrighted logos, copyrighted characters, celebrities, screenshots of games, frames from a movie or television show, or pointless snapshots will be rejected.

`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´``··._.·

From the C.O.C. .. section 1 .. #1

Thou shall not whine.
0∈ [?]
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = T42
.animaniactoo
06/26/06 5:23 PM GMT
*whimper*
0∈ [?]
SOLIDARITY - THE FIESTY TAVERN WENCHES!
::cynlee
06/26/06 5:41 PM GMT
Keifer, Will you please define 'nudity'. To what degree. How much skin. What is the exact definition and does this apply to all forms of art. We sincerely would like clarification.
0∈ [?]
&philcUK
06/26/06 5:47 PM GMT
The dictionary definition:

Nudity or nakedness is the state of wearing no clothing. It is sometimes used to refer to wearing significantly less clothing than expected by the conventions of a particular culture and situation, and in particular exposing the bare skin of intimate parts and has analogous uses.
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
06/26/06 5:51 PM GMT
Well, if you present aboriginal people in their own milieu and the women ordinarily are topless is that 'gratuitous'? I can read a dictionary and it doesn't explain what Caedes considers appropriate or inappropriate forms of undress.
0∈ [?]
&philcUK
06/26/06 5:58 PM GMT
really? I thought the second sentence summed it up perfectly.
0∈ [?]
&philcUK
06/26/06 6:06 PM GMT
The site code of conduct clearly states the images should be in compliance with the (very conservative) American network tv broadcasting code of conduct – in other words – an image should not contain material that you wouldn’t expect to see or find acceptable on prime time television – sort of like a sweeping PG rating. Take that in conjunction with the definition ‘wearing significantly less clothing than expected by the conventions of a particular culture and situation’ with the emphasis on the ‘situation’ rather than the ‘culture’ and you should have your answer.
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
06/26/06 6:33 PM GMT
No, that is still very vague because by the dictionary definition, aboriginal people living in their everyday surroundings are not considered 'nude' if that is the usual form for them.
Can you just see a National Geographic photo crew going to New Guinea and handing out bras to the native women because the documentary was going to be aired on public television? How is it that you placed the emphasis on the word 'situation' and not 'culture' when they are joined in the same clause and given equal importance.
I don't recall being rude to you.
What is so wrong with asking for a more defined explanation? Everyone seems to want to run from the question. I see nothing wrong with having an interest in accuracy and clarification.
0∈ [?]
&philcUK
06/26/06 6:48 PM GMT
As I said - I believe the clarification is all there - this is an artistic community visited by young and old alike and the content here should reflect that. I emphasised the situation aspect rather than the culture in reference to the situation being the site itself and its own code of conduct. The emphasis was also on NETWORK TV broadcasting, not specific or subscription channels such as National Geographic. It isn’t really that much of a stretch for people to use their own common sense on what is suitable within those parameters. For the record I'm not being rude I'm merely stating the patently obvious. A subtle but notable difference.
0∈ [?]
&KEIFER
06/26/06 7:13 PM GMT
we have the children of members browsing and posting to the site .. let's just say in the 6 - 8 yr range for the sake of example .. and while I am not part of an 'upstanding citizen brigade' by any stretch of the imagination I am in a position to see that the policies of the site are adhered to with as little strife as possible .. and .. Caedes has stated (above)

.. due to my personal liability for the concern that some parents have for what young eyes are exposed to. I will not put myself in the cross-hairs of a person with a puritanical agenda ..

THAT is really all that needs to be said on the matter ... let's role-play a bit .. If I were to post the aboriginal tribe photo and your child were to bring it to your attention and ask questions .. questions which, in this docu-drama, you are not ready to answer .. you could make an internet entrepreneur's life miserable .. an internet entrepreneur who only wanted to provide a place to hang out for the pixel impoverished
0∈ [?]
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = T42
.third_eye
06/26/06 7:52 PM GMT
all we need now is for former President Bill Clinton to post a re-iteration of what exactly the definition of 'is' is..i may not be content with the policy of the site, but since i started this cursed thread, can I ask that any future comments not re-ask or re-answer anything already posted? ty :o)
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
&philcUK
06/26/06 8:41 PM GMT
Good luck with that one! ;-)
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
06/26/06 8:45 PM GMT
So now that the mud has been stirred up from the bottom, (and I didn't start this thread) the water is still murky. I thought the thread interesting, I addressed whom I thought could answer the question and was told that I am 'patently' obtuse. Well, KD (keith), how do you respond when your children see the same thing at a museum? You don't have to answer that. At this point the question is rhetorical because the answer is always the same.
0∈ [?]
&KEIFER
06/26/06 8:58 PM GMT
Yes .. the answer is always the same .. but .. what you're confusing is the FREE world and a website owned and operated by a private individual .. I could ask why you don't understand the answer
0∈ [?]
The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything = T42
&Crusader
06/26/06 9:08 PM GMT
There shouldn't actually be a debate about this. It's actually extremely simple in webmaster standards. According to various laws and regulations a webmaster is responsible for each and every bit of content on their sites. If you display any form of nudity then you need to have special notices etc. and ways of preventing minors from viewing that content, otherwise the webmaster will be held liable for it.

That means that somebody could possibly sue Caedes (Geri) for damages if they take exception to the images posted. Based on that whether bare breasts are part of a culture or not is a moot point.

No nudity is allowed... full stop. If Americans can make such a scene out of a bare nipple (which cost the TV Network hundreds of thousands of dollars)... just imagine what they could do with bare breast popping in front of their minor children....
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
06/26/06 9:18 PM GMT
I don't understand the answer because I have seen images that were patently nude on this website. I just wanted to know the criteria for the differences. I didn't say that I don't respect the criteria, I understand the liability issue. I just wanted a more precise definition of what caedes considered 'nudity' and apparently I am not going to get one, so I'll be happy to drop the issue, but bear in mind, as I said, I didn't start this thread.
0∈ [?]
.third_eye
06/26/06 9:19 PM GMT
It would be rather easy to single out individuals and hurl insults. i'm a fan of neither. Rather, i would ask, why if the issue which i raised, (and no still not happy with the answers, but i get it, and begrudgingly will comply) was addressed thouroughly, academicly and may i say, exhaustively, why...is it not satisfactory?

i'm not asking why people are or arent satisfied with being or not being allowed to post certain work, but rather if the answer is no, why insist on re-asking the question in part or in it's entirety as though somehow you'll manipulate a different answer from the responder(s)?

Plainly, simply, for reasons i dont particularly like but clearly understand, parts of the body which would say...normally be covered by a modest bathing suit have been found to be off limits for submission in this site. Noone thus far( in this thread) has said it's wrong, or that it's tasteless. I for one am in favor of art, for art's sake.

there has to be a plentitude of other sites where limits on material and content are far less restricting. i love the work i've seen here so far, and i'm happy to share mine as well.

now if i decide to shoot, paint, draw or otherwise form an image containing content not accepted here, i'd have to look elsewhere for an outlet. so there you have it. i don't see alot of wiggle room provided whatsoever. if you feel so compelled to do work involving this "forbidden" content, someone else will be more than happy to accept it.

i'd further pose one more question.is the objection that your work is not going to be allowed, or are you simply offended by being told 'no'? perhaps people in here might need to address that, and seek the help of a licensed psychiatric proffessional, and quit beating a dead horse. to any i've offended, oops, oh well. have a nice day :o)
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
::Hottrockin
06/26/06 10:06 PM GMT
~Sweet...the newest National Geographic mag~

I'll be back guys 'n' gals...

~runs off with mag and flashlight to find a dark corner~
0∈ [?]
&philcUK
06/26/06 11:01 PM GMT
Ok – to clarify the nudity issues in a different shade of Black & White, the definite no no’s on the site would, as was previously mentioned, be to the exclusion of ‘in particular exposing the bare skin of intimate parts’ i.e. genitalia, bare breasts etc. If a member thinks that an image has slipped through the net that violates this rule, then they should use the complain feature to bring it to the attention of one of the image moderators.
0∈ [?]
::Hottrockin
06/26/06 11:11 PM GMT
So if it's actual "skin"...not marble, granite, oil based paints, etc. it's not OK?!?! So long as it's not "skin". Got it.

~looks up the word, genitalia~

Dude!! Sick!!

B&W = Grey!!! 8~D

ps: are human lips intimate parts?

pss: luv ya buddy

I like and understand KJ's POV on the subject at hand.
0∈ [?]
&philcUK
06/26/06 11:15 PM GMT
That would depend entirely on what you were doing with your lips I guess ;-)
0∈ [?]
::Hottrockin
06/26/06 11:20 PM GMT
8~O

Touché...
0∈ [?]
::Hottrockin
06/26/06 11:37 PM GMT
Funny!! My "MO State Capitol Statue # 2" now has been pulled, YET, I just posted and it was accepted and presented Do You Hear What I Hear ? !! Look quick!! I'm sure it'll get snuffed!! Ya'lls just need to get on the same page, that's all. Again, my most recent posting is for viewing in front of Missouri State Capitol day or night...at any age. Hmmm...
0∈ [?]
::third_eye
06/27/06 8:13 PM GMT
i put forth the motion this thread be sent to pasture
0∈ [?]
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
::Hottrockin
06/29/06 11:46 PM GMT
LMAO!! It took two days, but now "Do You Hear What I Hear" got the 'ol rub out!! Great topic!!
0∈ [?]
::Hottrockin
06/29/06 11:49 PM GMT
ps: you forgot Pondering Artist !!
0∈ [?]
::Hottrockin
06/29/06 11:56 PM GMT
pss: and whadda 'bout We Could Go Bowling ? This guy actually has his ball in his hand!! And who could forget the classic MO State Capitol Statue # 1 !! Is that a chest hair I see...OMG!!

~waits for the PM of scolding~
0∈ [?]
::J_272004
06/30/06 12:14 AM GMT
For the record Cindy... aboriginals wear clothes they dont walk around naked or half naked..
0∈ [?]
MY GALLERY ........... "A sense of humour is as important to life as shock absorbers to a car.. It helps us over the bumps im life" / P.K. Shaw

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: