This old journal/topic/article
popped back up on the front page of dA because of how obviously popular it is. They stated that "a follow-up article to Good Nudes Bad Nudes is being prepared" but I wanted to post my two-cents in regards to the questions at the end of the old journal.
A simpler statement of my feelings - I feel that if you're putting your artwork on a public site like this, being accessed by all kinds of people from very different backgrounds...all ages (kids using a siblings account, grandparents being directed to the site by a grandchild, parents exploring the community their child is posting commissions to...), any religion, any race... show a little respect to your fellow humans and follow the rules.
PLEASE TAG YOUR MATURE CONTENT.
Just use common sense! If the average
person - not weirdos
that are into obscure fetishes -, but if the average person says your piece is "hot/sexy" - Mark it with a warning!
Some of us aren't fond of having a daily dose of PORN.
I probably missed some things, but there's my thoughts in a nutshell.
Now the long part:
The following is in regards to the questions in the dA journal linked in the very first line of the journal.
1. The amount of nudes isn't the issue. The problem is how artists disregard others' feelings towards the subject matter and refuse to tag their obviously sexual works.I'm talking pornographically-posed individuals, no matter how small the detail that pushes the image into the range of "sexual" - be it the obvious "orgasm" face, or the more subtle, alluring expression of the model while they slightly puff out their chest or gently place their hands in erogenous zones of the body
I'm a very open-minded person when it comes to gender and sexuality, so this doesn't affect my opinion.
I'm mostly angry that despite my 'mature content filter' being on, I still see sexual drawings and photos of both men and women around deviantArt because they're miscategorized as 'artistic nude' or not tagged as 'mature', despite their sexual nature.
2. Censorship of art depends entirely on the environment, audience, and social occurrences.
Common sense is always advised. Err on the side of caution.For instance, you wouldn't want to post violent or sexual artwork in the home of a child that's been sexually abused, mentally handicapped, or easily influenced. You might wish to avoid really serious social subjects if its a heavy enough topic (for instance: War-related propaganda which might put you under suspicion by the government). These works would be highly acceptable in specialized exhibitions exploring the imagery on a more experimental/intellectual level though, as those attending the exhibition would be actively seeking this imagery and be ready to calmly view and discuss it.
3. I have not
been censored or banned in any way.I tend to remove "sexier" drawings from my featured folder, and anything heavily sexual/pornographic is posted to another site or my stash, and linked to the client who commissioned it.
4. + 5.
Artists: Please take into account the feelings of your audience, and show respect for all people.
While a social movement
is a good time to fight against opinions of viewers, ignoring everyone's opinions on a daily basis is not a particularly good strategy in most
As for "art suppression":There was a local news story about a woman causing an uproar over a new statue in a park (it depicted a headless female, breasts exposed, taking a selfie). The statue was obviously meant to be an exploration of a social problem, and as an artist I can appreciate it, but the location seemed like a bad idea. The park is described as such "The Overland Park Arboretum and Botanical Gardens was founded to keep the city at the forefront of environmental and ecological issues" - This has nothing to do with social issues or artwork. Just imagine walking through the park and then suddenly having to explain to your kids what this half-naked statue represented, without having a chance to collect your thoughts*? Please don't take this to mean I approve of completely sheltering your children, but it should be up to the parents when they're ready to let their kids know about these kinds of things.
*Previously, there was no prior warning that this kind of statue was in the park. Petitions forced the park to put up a sign with a warning, from what I've heard.
Aaand... Toning down a piece of artwork would only be suggested if it would make the piece more powerful.For instance - An image of a depressed individual surrounded by dead babies is... rather gruesome, and totally unnecessary. Having the image depict a close-up on the saddened individual, holding one, small, deceased child can send a much stronger message if handled correctly.
Of course, there are also very unsettling images like the first example which can be more powerful by going over-the-top to send a message (Ex: trying to show the effects of war by littering a city with dead bodies from both sides, instead of one heavily-mangled body at the feet of a soldier). It all depends on the subject matter.