One Man's Portrait is Another Man's Porn
I've been suspended from Facebook.
Two photographs in which I'm nude and heavily camouflaged in colorful body paint and shadow were reported as violations of the website's "nudity and pornography" guidelines. (The technicality of whether or not nipple could be seen is still under debate.) In a matter of twenty-four hours I had two warnings for failing to remove the photos, in addition to a 24-hour suspension from the site. I have been informed that if I do not remove the content immediately upon having my access reinstated then I will be banned from Facebook indefinitely.
My suspension has me reeling in embarrassment, in part because I've been accused of doing something improper, but even more so because photographs that I (and hundreds of other people) consider "art" have been flagged as "pornography" -- on a page that is restricted to users eighteen years of age or older. It begs the question: where do we draw the line between art and porn?
Facebook states: "[Facebook] has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and imposes limitations on the display of nudity. At the same time, we aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo's David or family photos of a child breastfeeding."
My personal experience allows me to deduce that photographs of nude painting/sculpture/art of another medium are acceptable, however artistic photographs of live models are not. For example: the statue of David is allowable, however a photograph of the model posing for the statue would not be.
Dictionary.com defines "pornography" as "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit. From the Greek for pornográph ( os ) writing about harlots". The same site defines "obscene" as 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved, 2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire, or 3. abominable; disgusting repulsive.
Unfortunately for the art community, these guidelines leave much room for interpretation. And because the internet is a world-wide tool, what constitutes obscenity in one culture might fall short of that mark in another.
I (grudgingly) removed both photos from my portfolio. I'd love to fight the battle of what does and does not constitute art, but in the battle of the little guy versus the enormous social networking behemoth, I wouldn't even know where to start. There are numerous groups on Facebook ("Stop Nudity on Facebook", e.g.) that are working from the exact opposite intent.
Interestingly, the final paragraph under Facebook's "Reporting Abuse" clause states, "Because of the diversity of our community, it's possible that something could be disagreeable or disturbing to you without meeting the criteria for being removed or blocked. For this reason, we also offer personal controls over what you see, such as the ability to hide or quietly cut ties with people, Pages, or applications that offend you."
Unless that content happens to be art.
Two photographs in which I'm nude and heavily camouflaged in colorful body paint and shadow were reported as violations of the website's "nudity and pornography" guidelines. (The technicality of whether or not nipple could be seen is still under debate.) In a matter of twenty-four hours I had two warnings for failing to remove the photos, in addition to a 24-hour suspension from the site. I have been informed that if I do not remove the content immediately upon having my access reinstated then I will be banned from Facebook indefinitely.
My suspension has me reeling in embarrassment, in part because I've been accused of doing something improper, but even more so because photographs that I (and hundreds of other people) consider "art" have been flagged as "pornography" -- on a page that is restricted to users eighteen years of age or older. It begs the question: where do we draw the line between art and porn?
Facebook states: "[Facebook] has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and imposes limitations on the display of nudity. At the same time, we aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo's David or family photos of a child breastfeeding."
My personal experience allows me to deduce that photographs of nude painting/sculpture/art of another medium are acceptable, however artistic photographs of live models are not. For example: the statue of David is allowable, however a photograph of the model posing for the statue would not be.
Dictionary.com defines "pornography" as "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit. From the Greek for pornográph ( os ) writing about harlots". The same site defines "obscene" as 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved, 2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire, or 3. abominable; disgusting repulsive.
Unfortunately for the art community, these guidelines leave much room for interpretation. And because the internet is a world-wide tool, what constitutes obscenity in one culture might fall short of that mark in another.
I (grudgingly) removed both photos from my portfolio. I'd love to fight the battle of what does and does not constitute art, but in the battle of the little guy versus the enormous social networking behemoth, I wouldn't even know where to start. There are numerous groups on Facebook ("Stop Nudity on Facebook", e.g.) that are working from the exact opposite intent.
Interestingly, the final paragraph under Facebook's "Reporting Abuse" clause states, "Because of the diversity of our community, it's possible that something could be disagreeable or disturbing to you without meeting the criteria for being removed or blocked. For this reason, we also offer personal controls over what you see, such as the ability to hide or quietly cut ties with people, Pages, or applications that offend you."
Unless that content happens to be art.
Comments
Post a Comment