| Author | SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
Joe Montgomery
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 13.12.06
 | | Posted on 24-12-2006 22:24 | |
|
THEY COULD JUST AS WELL DRAW SOMETHING ELSE
THEY HAVE A CHOICE. GET ENOUGH OF THESE AND THE PROJECT
MIGHT TANK. YOU WANT TO GET RID OF THIS STUFF AS SOON AS
IT IS SPOTTED.
PLANNED TO GET MORE KIDS INVOLVED BUT... THINK I MIGHT WAIT
394411
399221 |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
Alex Holt
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 04.12.06
 | | Posted on 25-12-2006 09:53 | |
|
There was discussion about pieces like this in one of the other threads, but it was inconclusive....
It could be considered that these are reflective of the society we live in - both relaxed attitudes to sex and sexuality, and a great deal of immaturity amoung people.
I would personally rather that we didn't have this kind of content, but it seems unavoidable considering how humorous the phallus obviously is to these people. However, children shouldnt be able to view that kind of content as it should be marked as adult, so if they are on their own accounts there shouldnt be much of an issue as long as they ARE tagged as such. |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
Joe Montgomery
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 13.12.06
| | Posted on 25-12-2006 14:29 | |
|
I AGREE WITH YOU BUT SINCE THERE IS NO REAL WAY TO
SHIELD THE YOUNGER CONTRIBUTORS.
I STILL THINK AT LEAST ONE OF THEM SHOULD BE DELETED
394411
IT IS HAS A MESSAGE THAT COULD BE VIEWED AS
HURTFUL. I DONT KNOW HOW MUCH CODE WORK
IS INVOLVED IN THIS, BUT MAYBE A COMPONENT COULD
BE ADDED TO GIVE PARENTAL CONTROL ON THE OTHER SIDE INSTEAD.
THEN ALL THIS WOULDNT MATTER. I MEAN WE STILL HAVE A
VERY LONG WAY TO GO AND IF YOU IN THIS TIME "POTENTIALLY" GET
SAY 300 000 - 500 000 OF THESE TYPE OR OTHER HATEFUL
IMAGES POP UP IT MIGHT SAVE YOU GUYS ALOT OF TROUBLE.
THAT IS A LOT OF POSTINGS. POTENTIAL NEGATIVE PRESS AS THE
PROJECT GETS MORE EXPOSURE.
LATER
Edited by Joe Montgomery on 25-12-2006 14:37 |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
P H
Super Administrator
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.09.06
 | | Posted on 27-12-2006 22:25 | |
|
Joe Montgomery wrote:
I DONT KNOW HOW MUCH CODE WORK
IS INVOLVED IN THIS, BUT MAYBE A COMPONENT COULD
BE ADDED TO GIVE PARENTAL CONTROL ON THE OTHER SIDE INSTEAD.
THEN ALL THIS WOULDNT MATTER.
I am against general censorship and all for personal choice. I think that the extra level of control you have suggested would be a good middle way.
I see you have already posted an expanded explanation in the suggestions forum. I thought I would link it here just in case anyone is interested
Edited by P H on 27-12-2006 23:13 |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
Aunty Mor
Member
Posts: 294
Joined: 28.12.06
 | | Posted on 02-01-2007 23:04 | |
|
What is the point to either of these pictures really?
DO they cause debate? I dont think so. Are they offensive? Not really
Are they clever, interesting, heartfelt, shocking? No. They are just crude scribblings that have no point in being on here. I really dont think anyone would bat an eyelid if they were removed. I think they are drawn by rather sad individuaLs who are trying to get attention.
|
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
Angeli
Super Administrator
Posts: 129
Joined: 05.12.06
 | | Posted on 03-01-2007 03:10 | |
|
I don't think it's that easy to delete one of these pieces. You posed questions that you only answered for yourself. Perhaps someone thinks they cause debate and are offensive. There is clearly a debate here, albeit small. There may be someone who thinks they are clever, interesting, heartfelt, or shocking. Who are we to say?
Perhaps more important is the fact that there may be someone who considers outright censorship to be a greater wrong than calling one of these images art.
Let me draw your attention to a few notable pieces:
Piero Manzoni: Merda d'Artista (1961)
A set of 90 numbered cans of this artist's feces were sold at the same rate as gold. In 2002, Britain's Tate Modern purchased a can for their collection at the price of 22,000 pounds. I have heard that all of the cans have exploded, but can only find documentation that half of them had already exploded at the time the Tate made its purchase. Cans were later purchased by a gallery in Paris and the MOMA in New York.
Chris Ofili: The Holy Virgin Mary (1996)
One breast is fashioned from elephant dung (three of Ofili's elephant dung paintings are part of the Tate collection)
Marcel Duchamp: Fontaine (1917)
It's a urinal.
Yuan Cai and Jian Jun Xi ianjun: Two artists piss on Duchamp's urinal (2000)
Two guys who made their way into the Tate Modern to do what the title says.
Graffitiproject.com is sponsoring a contest for the best graffiti photos. It's an attempt to spread bathroom graffiti to celebrate this form of "communication, artistic expression and free speech..."
It's a difficult job to tell other people what is art and free expression. It's also a difficult job to decide what is in the mind or heart of the person creating something. I think that the toughest job of all would be to draw a distinction between what can and can't remain posted here.
Edited by Angeli on 03-01-2007 03:11 |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
P H
Super Administrator
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.09.06
| | Posted on 03-01-2007 10:42 | |
|
I agree strongly with your post, Angeli.
Every member of the OMM is given the freedom and the tools to contribute something of their choice. This freedom is evident in the description of the project, and it seems that it has been interpreted in many different ways. The images that cause offence, stir controversy, and prompt debate are just as supportive of the goal of a 'global snapshot' as the images that gain the five star ratings and hundreds of comments, those that go almost un-noticed, and uncommented, and the all personal messages and expressions that fill big picture.
Any censorship on the subjective grounds of personal taste or personal politics would, I feel, be contrary to the aim of the project. I am even softening on my views about company marketing in the OMM that I posted (or rather ranted  ) about in an earlier thread.
I think that the issue in this case is about the effectiveness of the 'child friendly' filter used by the OMM. It is good to see that this thread (and the 'deletion' forum in general) has already inspired a few ideas to improve the project (see the link in my post above)  . |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
Lisa Stevens
Super Administrator
Posts: 62
Joined: 23.07.06
 | | Posted on 03-01-2007 12:17 | |
|
I'm not suggesting this should be deleted (unless of course the phone number is real)
A fair few of the "obscene" and controversial squares are in fact drawn by minors.....or of course there is no way of knowing someone's true age.....this one has been added by a 14 year old http://www.theonemillionmasterpiece.com/en/profile-387998
Guess teenagers aren't particularly grown up! |
|
| Author | RE: SPOTTED BY AN 8 YEAR OLD |
P H
Super Administrator
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.09.06
| | Posted on 03-01-2007 12:43 | |
|
Lisa Stevens wrote:I'm not suggesting this should be deleted (unless of course the phone number is real) A fair few of the "obscene" and controversial squares are in fact drawn by minors.....or of course there is no way of knowing someone's true age.....this one has been added by a 14 year old http://www.theonemillionmasterpiece.com/en/profile-387998 Guess teenagers aren't particularly grown up!
In an earlier thread Paul stated two current rules for deletion.
There are only two circumstances that images will automatically be deleted:
1) Person is not verifiable - i.e. no personal details are provided and email address is invalid. This kind of entry would not count towards the world record and therefore will be deleted.
2) Infringement of privacy legislation (i.e. posting up someone private details)
This surely falls under the latter if the number is indeed a real one.
Edited by P H on 03-01-2007 12:52 |
|
| Author | RE: Willies |
Aunty Mor
Member
Posts: 294
Joined: 28.12.06
| | Posted on 06-01-2007 00:29 | |
|
Moira Galliver wrote:
What is the point to either of these pictures really?
DO they cause debate? I dont think so. Are they offensive? Not really
Are they clever, interesting, heartfelt, shocking? No. They are just crude scribblings that have no point in being on here. I really dont think anyone would bat an eyelid if they were removed. I think they are drawn by rather sad individuaLs who are trying to get attention.
Ok I consider myself beaten. My 13 year old just saw the "up the butt" picture and laughed his head off then my husband came to see what he was laughing at and he laughed too. Just take note that I have 2 willy pictures near mine which is totally unfair!!!!!!!!!! |
|
