| Author | genitalia -- Issue? |
Jin K
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 21.09.06
 | | Posted on 02-08-2007 06:36 | |
|
I have found several images of genitalia here on OMM. I don't have a problem with nudity, but I feel like many are simply draw for the sake of drawing genitalia, not for any artistic purpose. I don't want to call anything bad art, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see any artistic thought process behind many of these images. This project I see as an ARTISTIC collaboration. Simply, I would like to see a lot more effort put into many of those images -- something more than a simple phallic outline in one color that contrasts with the plain, single color background.
So I guess I'm putting up the following for explicit content expressed with no artistic value in my eyes at least. And I guess I'm also not so much asking them to be deleted but asking for some explaination as to what artistic thought when behind it all.
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/profile-383198
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/profile-488715
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/profile-477674
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/profile-386353
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/profile-458474
thanx for reading.
PS, yes, I realize that these have all been brought up as problem squares before, but for my convenience, I posted a new thread. Simply, I am a lazy person. I apologize for any irritating repetition.
Edited by Jin K on 02-08-2007 06:38 |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
MtlAngelus
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 20.09.06
 | | Posted on 02-08-2007 09:30 | |
|
| Well, I didn't draw my entry with any artistic purpose in mind either. |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Jin K
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 21.09.06
| | Posted on 02-08-2007 17:33 | |
|
well you certainly made it look as though you did! lovely technique. and you certainly put in a lot more effort that the ones i mentioned. purpose and effort. and if no purpose, effort. and heck, if no effort, then time. more than just a few strokes.
Edited by Jin K on 02-08-2007 19:20 |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Charles Mita
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 20.09.06
 | | Posted on 03-08-2007 22:28 | |
|
I'm not going to make any conclusions or decisions, merely right down some of my thought processes.
It seems highly unlikely that any thought or consideration went into drawing such images that are frequently put up for deletion. It often seems to me, that it's just people looking for an excuse to draw a picture of a penis (something done by school boys everywhere).
I for one, don't consider it art. Art to me, generally means something that has had some consideration and some effort put into it.
However, some may consider it reflects the world and such and may therefore argue that such images should be considered art and should be allowed to stay.
Well I'm not arguing either way. But I may come up with some more random comments and thoughts in the future. |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
MtlAngelus
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 20.09.06
| | Posted on 04-08-2007 09:11 | |
|
| They're not harming anyone. It's not gonna pop out of the screen and poke your eye out. |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Charles Mita
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 20.09.06
| | Posted on 04-08-2007 12:04 | |
|
Angel Arambula wrote:
They're not harming anyone. It's not gonna pop out of the screen and poke your eye out.
No, but it would be really creepy if they did... |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Sarah Edwards
Super Administrator
Posts: 161
Joined: 03.01.07
 | | Posted on 12-08-2007 16:08 | |
|
Just thinking: Artists have been painting nudes for ages. While I agree that most of the pictures here are just scibbles and not art, if someone did a really amazing picture, although the subject matter would be inappropriate, should it be deleted?
Just food for thought. |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Carly Crawford
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 27.11.06
 | | Posted on 17-08-2007 15:37 | |
|
| >.> I think Genitalia is funny. I can't wait to buy a print of the final and if someone notices it I'd be like.. haha.. yeah :3... |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
P H
Super Administrator
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.09.06
 | | Posted on 20-08-2007 09:41 | |
|
Carly Crawford wrote:
I think Genitalia is funny. I can't wait to buy a print of the final and if someone notices it I'd be like.. haha.. yeah
You mean like a naughty version of Where's Wally? |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
J West
Super Administrator
Posts: 78
Joined: 17.07.06
 | | Posted on 24-08-2007 21:05 | |
|
Questionable stuff. How do you tackle something with so many facets and opinions - without stepping on the toes of what is art, censorship and questioning someone's motives for their subject matter of such a small space (and therefore someone's feelings).
If it doesn't offend then it shouldn't matter.
To continue comments I have previously made on the new software made available to individuals, I do see that a nude top half of a lady has now appeared on todays gallery. From willy scribbles to very lifelike page 3 girls is a bit disconcerting. But then one could argue as someone has above, nudity has been fundamental from the start of art history.
I wonder if there will be adult only squares from 11pm onwards? Now, THAT would make some interesting forum discussions!
;-s
 |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Benjamin Wirtz
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 07.12.06
 | | Posted on 30-09-2007 00:58 | |
|
Yes I think it is a if a bunch of Junior high boys come and draw it just because they think it's funny, or to make a scene. Maybe they want to get noticed who knows. I do think though that things like this should go because they are inapropriate and frankly it looks like taggers did it. 
Edited by Benjamin Wirtz on 30-09-2007 00:59 |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Brittany Vance
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 07.12.06
 | | Posted on 08-11-2007 18:19 | |
|
| A couple of those seem to go under the definition of "trolling" in my eye. o_O |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Samantha Arno
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 23.11.07
 | | Posted on 09-12-2007 21:36 | |
|
The way I look at it, if a child/ minor is browsing this site looking for some interesting artwork, happens to click on a picture without realizing its full content, and sees a picture of genitalia, joke or no joke, if the person is sincerely disturbed by the so-called "artwork", they will immediately back away, shut their eyes, do whatever to get away from it with honest sheepishness and self-imposed embarassment. The effects of such pictures are different with everyone and may disturb/ offend some or fascinate others, but for younger children who aren't yet exposed to the world of genitalia and sexual innuendo, this is not doing them a very good favor.
Yes, it does offend me, because I agree Jin K on this matter; majority of these sort of pictures are meant for spamming the site with their own vandalism with no concern for other people, and there is no thought or work put into the picture. It's as annoying to me as finding a white or black or whatever color square that's wasting space and wasting my time. To those who display a picture of a penis or other innapropriate content are probably doing it with someone watching over their shoulder as they laugh and think it's just the funniest, most original joke in the world.
Still, to me, as long as it's not marked as "child-friendly", it will not bother me as much, knowing that fewer children will be exposed to it. I may be offended by pointless pictures of genitalia that seem to serve no purpose for this site, but I myself am a big girl and I can handle it. I won't be disturbed, as I was saying earlier. But the problem is - how much does it offend other people on here? Is it really worth keeping those pictures if it is going to disrrupt or be vexatious the rest of the majority? |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Jo Vickers
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 31.10.07
 | | Posted on 11-12-2007 15:54 | |
|
I was about to argue that if we object to any type of image, it should be stated in the site terms and conditions. Then I read them and realised it is:
"Images created that depict or transmit a message which can be construed as (i) pornographic, obscene, indecent or of an "adult" sexual nature; [...] are not permitted".
There's nothing in the terms and conditions about artistic merit, so I don't think we can argue against these pictures on that basis. All we can do is define obscenity. If we can do that, we've got our answer as to whether pictures of willies are allowed!
|
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
P H
Super Administrator
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.09.06
| | Posted on 12-12-2007 13:58 | |
|
Jo Vickers wrote:
All we can do is define obscenity. If we can do that, we've got our answer...
Sounds easy
I think defining obscenity is probably more difficult than defining art. It would be nigh on impossible to define it for every case it is needed, only in abstract terms, and it is so often dragged into unrelated arguments and arenas to support one agenda or another.
In the UK obscenity is often cited with reference to the Obscene Publications Act, originally passed to stop profiteering from the sale of pornography. But it was soon seized upon by those wanting censorship in other areas. Famously, Penguin Books were brought to trial (unsuccessfully) in 1960 under the obscenity act for the publication of Lady Chatterly's lover.
I think that the definition of obscenity is ever changing and it will always be a benchmark that is used to gauge the changing cultural, social and moral views of society. Just as it was in the Penguin trial. Moreover, I feel that when obscenity is so defined then not only does it provide a limit that societies naturally push against, but puts up a huge target to be aimed at, with artists being at the front of the queue to take a shot.
I don't think 'Art' and 'Obscenity' are mutually exclusive. I think that art can be obscene without losing any of artistic worth.
Pragmatically, the success of the OMM project means that it can't fall foul of any obscenity laws. Whilst it is on the web I can't see the OMM being at the top of anyone’s list of obscene publications. But I am sure that the project directors have their own Terms of Service agreement with their ISP/Web hosts, which must filter down to the contributors to the OMM as they are using the same web-space to store their word and images.
The OMM is a wide reaching, open and broad minded project that aims to be as inclusive as possible, and I think it achieves this with a minimum of fuss. It's high aims, however, do demand a degree of control, and the terms of service quoted by Jo, above, reflect this. The ability to control the content of the OMM is vital in order for it to be a success, make the record books, and have a million artists all together in the final exhibition.
I would not like to see the OMM ToS used as a weapon for censorship just as the obscenity act has been used in the past.
Pip.
Edited by P H on 12-12-2007 14:01 |
|
| Author | RE: genitalia -- Issue? |
Samantha Arno
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 23.11.07
| | Posted on 13-12-2007 00:13 | |
|
Now you've left me torn, Pip.
If we try to rid OMM of all uncensored images, tables might also be turned on the images that have true meaning and artistic value/ thought, the images that I personally feel have a right to be a part of this project because they're painted with feeling and hard work. Painted close to professionalism, I guess I could say.
You're just so right. People take advantage of these kinds of things all the time. I'd hate to see a swell piece of art get tainted, or even deleted, because it showed genitalia or some other picture of cultural/ moral taboo. Rules are rules, guidelines are guidelines, and we couldn't live in this world without them. We'd be out of control. Still, the fact remains that sometimes people twist the rules too far... Either way, we just couldn't win, could we?
And thus, my defeated sigh. xD |
|
