| Author | Why deletion? | Sam Law
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 18.01.07
 | | Posted on 16-06-2007 17:30 | |
| Ok, I've been thinking this for a while- but what constitutes as something at should or shouldn't be deleted?
If we're going by artistic quality then I nominate my own because there are others out there of a much higher calibur.
Political images either way, well, if these are rasons to be deleted then should we not have opinions on political issues at all?
Images put up just to cause offence of provoke a reaction: conceptual art anyone?
Images of youth culture in someway? There has been a discussion about images just stating /b/, and nothing else. I'm sure people know what it refers to (if not, see this). And this is an example of a sub-culture, which of course, by definition, some will not like. However, is just not liking it a reason to delete it from this work?
An immature image? Do we need a scae of maturity for what constitutes as artwork which we deem acceptable?
Nudity? Is there a difference between a piece of classical artwork of a nude young woman, and a picture of hentai on here? And if anyone says the level of skill required, then prove to me that the artist hs a lot of talent, and just put it towards something that doesn't seem talented in order to get across an idea (welcome to modern art for the masses)
What I want to know, is where this project is aiming. Yes, its for a charity, but isn't it a bit more than that as well? Is the emphasis on the charity, or the finished work, or the individual pieces, or the world-wide community that we are creating?
My last point is this: we have the mature marker. If it is marked, can we say anything about whats put there? Can an adult, by definition of society accepting them as transferring from childhood into adulthood, not make their own choices about what they look at and draw their own opinions from it? I think it was Mill (but don't quote me on this, I studied him years back) that said if ideas are not challenged they become dogmatic. But it might have been one of the Socratic philosophers actually... Man, I'm never going to pass my degree...
Anyways, what I'm saying is that once that marker is ticked, then concenting adults have the capacity to lok at something, or not. And should they want to, look at it in an intelligible(sp) manner? If I drew a penis (as shows in this thread then if I mark it for adults only, then only adults will see it. And whilst it may seem immature, if there is a person who considers themself an adult and is offended by a crude drawing of a penis then I worry about how sheltered your life has been. Though I will post in the actual thead about that later.
I'm sorry for ranting, but I just want to know something:what is the point of this project. And once thats established, shouldn't we then move onto what we classify as suitable for deletion?
And yes, I understand fully that this is an arguement which stems directly from 'what is art?'
Edited by Sam Law on 16-06-2007 17:36 | 
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | David Kociol
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 24.01.07
 | | Posted on 27-06-2007 07:23 | |
| I perceived the deletion qualifications to constitute more of a lack of art whatsoever, such as notes and drawings that are overly simple (e.g., just a canvas, scribbles)
But on a content-based view, I guess the only things I would expect to be would be:
hacks, malicious works intended for causing problems (aka flames), intentionally discriminatory content.
On the nudity: I don't have a problem with art of nudity, or even hardcore depictions of sex, I only have a basis on intent. The only intent in a crudely portrayed erect ejaculating penis would be that of someone who can't take projects seriously and who has embraced the immature notion for fucking (pardon my language) around |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | Alicia Thompson
Super Administrator
Posts: 215
Joined: 23.09.06
 | | Posted on 04-08-2007 16:07 | |
| I percieve the deletion qualifications to be things that spread hate and abuse: flames, intentional discrimination (racist, sexist, homophobic) to the point where one would feel endangered by a particular point of view.
I do like the current, liberal policy of deletion. There have been a few outbreaks of one person creating multiple accounts to flood the piece with swastikas, and I am a bit worried about people not using the adult function, but I think it's been good, so far. I mean, if someone doesn't want to act adult about a matter and wants to flap about their arms and chuck a tantrum because there's something on the site they don't like or agree with, they can put their child eyes back in (the adult content filter) and they don't have to look at it. I think that if admins started removing everyting that one person didn't agree with, it would make it really, really hard to draw a line in the sand as to what is okay and what's not.
As for the art/not art thing, I see every piece here as a statement about something. If they choose to take their artwork and scribble on it, or lay down one colour, then that's what they have to say. I feel that drawing something small, or immature is a little reminder to me not to take things so seriously.
banning them would be like banning most modern art from gallerys. Sorry Jackson Pollock, it's just not good enough, we don't care about what you have to say because you just didn't have enough skill. Except worse, because we're not here to judge artwork or talent, like a gallery is. |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | Sarah Edwards
Super Administrator
Posts: 161
Joined: 03.01.07
 | | Posted on 08-10-2007 18:26 | |
| Restarting up this thread (because some of the ideas are really interesting) I agree with Alicia (and not just about Harry Potter). The whole point of this website is for people of all artistic ability to contribute something. If all you feel all you are capable of, or all you want to do, is scribble, or you think leaving a message (as long as it is not abusive or offensive) then that is enough of a contribution.
About symbols, (such as the swastikas) they have many different meanings (the swastika was originally a Hindu symbol and had nothing to do with violence or anti-semitism etc) so it could be hard to decide what is offensive. Obviously floodin OMM with them should not be allowed, but what if a Hindu drew one? Or what if someone from England drew the English flag, considering that it is now a symbol for the BNP and is offensive and threatening to many people? |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | Alex Holt
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 04.12.06
 | | Posted on 20-10-2007 09:06 | |
| I think the difficult thing here is balancing the intent of an image against its effect - if somone was to do a realisitc image of say, a Nazi parade infront of Hitler, that was a direct reproduction of a photograph, would it be inherantly wrong? Obviously the subject matter is distasteful to a large percentage of the population, but then for example would the image be more acceptable if it were entitled Tyranny or something similar?
One of the problems I have with world in general is that in any individual cases people either seem to pretend bad things don't happen, or conversely to hype them to a point where they loose some of their seriousness and people forget why its known about a lot (things like Southpark are particularly guilty of this)
My personal theory is that pieces should only be judged on their intent unless they are particularly misjudged - if a piece is made to offend or intimidate then get rid of it, or if it isn't necessarily but always would have done. We can't just adhere blindly to beliefs as otherwise there is no freedom (and considering the views of art of Islam for example, we wouldn't actually be able to do much more than patterns), but we can't just be infinatly accepting either. Its very tricky... |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | P H
Super Administrator
Posts: 213
Joined: 07.09.06
 | | Posted on 26-10-2007 11:15 | |
| Alex Holt wrote:
Its very tricky...
It sure is that.
I think the difficulty lies in definition. Constructing a set of moral rules for all circumstances is just about impossible. It is easier to focus on smaller sets of issues and define what they are, then define a set of rules on top of that.
With a subject as vast as 'art' the problem of definition is all too apparent - firstly define art??? Secondly are there any moral/ethical systems already defined that are suitable to use with 'art' once it is defined???? Can rules be defined that are suitable for all 'art'?
It is clear that art enjoys much more freedom from pre-defined moral constructions than do other areas of life. Being nude in a life drawing class is ok but not so ok at a bus-stop. Or to bring it back to earlier comments in this thread, displaying a swastika in a gallery is more acceptable than, say, in a synagogue.
I think that it is a mistake to address the issue of art and censorship with pre-defined moral views (such as religious or political), but rather judge how art fits into your general position of morality and then begin to construct a way to judge it in it's own right.
I don't think that doing this will stop debates and arguments about censorship but at least it will mean that art is evaluated in it's own right.
Pip. |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | Sam Law
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 18.01.07
| | Posted on 06-11-2007 16:23 | |
| Alicia Thompson wrote:
I percieve the deletion qualifications to be things that spread hate and abuse: flames, intentional discrimination (racist, sexist, homophobic) to the point where one would feel endangered by a particular point of view.
Sorry to nit-pick, but what do you mean 'endangered'? Can you actually be endangered by a point of view put across in a picture? |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | Ruth Malcolm
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 10.01.07
 | | Posted on 17-12-2007 20:28 | |
| I disagree with deleting any of the pictures. On the "About Us" section it says:
How can you create a true snapshot of our global society, and sum up its diversity in one single picture?
Well I think that if that's the aim of the OMM, then pictures shouldn't be deleted. Some images are drawn purely to offend, but even though I don't agree with that I think that to honestly "create a true snapshot of our global society" we need to leave all the images in.
I agree that it comes down to the "what is art?" question, but the "About Us" section also says:
You don't need to be an artist or be able to draw - you can make patterns, write words, doodle - what-ever you want.
I think that it is important to leave all the images, and anyway, it's impossible to tell between someone drawing an immature image and a professional artist making a statement...
Well, that's just my opinion :).
Ruthy x |
| | Author | RE: Why deletion? | Sarah Edwards
Super Administrator
Posts: 161
Joined: 03.01.07
| | Posted on 19-12-2007 11:36 | |
| I agree with above, in that it will not be a true snapshot of our society if we delete any, (apart from deleting multiple images by the same person) but that then brings this down to the freedom of speech question. Is it right to protect someone's feelings that may be offended by a picture if we take away someone's freedom of speech to do it? There is no answer to this question. This question has come up so often and I doubt that we will come up with a suitable answer that everyone agrees with. Obviously deleting someone's picture here is not the same as denying someone the right to express their opinion, and to be honest most of the doodlers will probably not come back and even realise their picture is gone, but here it is not just about protecting their right to have a square but the truthfullness of the OMM. As said above, deleting any pictures will compromise this.
I'm not sure how I managed to make this thread about human rights, but there you go |
|
|
