Ok, so just how far does photographic art go?

[gpaai]

I know some have come to consider me some sort of PAD Police in the past. But I'm sorry this is just plain sick! If images like this are going to become acceptable on the Photo A Day meta gallery, I'm outta here!

Caution graphic:

http://www.pbase.com/image/53703311

[markcas]

Yeah, that's definitly not art. Pretty gross!

[jillburhans]

I would not even begin to categorize it as photographic "art"

Do admit his galleries are in the extreme of what I consider bad taste. Apt to wonder as well what is found on the web and posted which is not what pbase was created for.

I am not against nude art by any means.
Again, the above is not nude art.

[aprtr]

besides being gross and tasteless, this is pornography

[gpaai]

Well someone is on the job, because it has been deleted from the PAD Meta Gallery area.

I now that these individuals have as much right to post images in their galleries as anybody. I guess technically they also have as much right to post a PAD of their liking as well. The thing is, given free reign, the Administration of PBase would soon have to decide whether they want it an art site or a pornographic site. It's pretty obvious that a lot of people would find alternative methods of having their images hosted.

[annayu]

It stinks.

[juliano]

Yeah, I've just looked at the image in question and its just a snapshot, nothing artistic about it at all. The subject matter is distasteful, which might have at least been forgivable if it wasnt so 'in your face' as it were.
Shannon

[bobt54]

I find it interesting that a picture of a woman's pubic area took about a week and a boatload of "discussion" before it was removed and this one went down in record time in the middle of night. What was it that crossed the line with the image? Was it the homosexuality of the image? The inter-racial theme? The message? Or was it that it simply made it into a "public" area of Pbase?

Where are the cries of censorship, of free speech that were so abundant before? I guess even their lines have been crossed with this one.

The problem here at Pbase is that that "line" differs which each and every one of us. Obviously this is Slug's "line" that matters here. It would just be nice if Slug could spell out where that line is and then consistently apply it.

The current policy of providing an email address to complain about "objectionable" images is like calling the police to have someone arrested and convicted for a crime (not to mention the punishment) that is not on the books.

It would be at least nice to know what the rules are before we decide to break them.

[clickaway]

There's a clear difference between the two images.

Ray Akey's was art.

[bobt54]

There's a clear difference between the two images.

Ray Akey's was art.

Ok. A rather subjective answer, don't you think?

What made Ray's image art and the other image not, other than because you said so?

[gpaai]

I really didn't want to get into a debate in this thread. This issue is longstanding, and will probably never go away. My only hope is that everyone will act responsibly when posting on the public areas of PBase such as we have with the PAD Meta Gallery.

Gary

[bobfloyd]

There's a clear difference between the two images.

Ray Akey's was art.

Ok. A rather subjective answer, don't you think?

What made Ray's image art and the other image not, other than because you said so?

Maybe subjective for you but I agree with Ray. This image was crude, rude and socially unacceptable to all but the most base elements of society. It was something from someone's porn collection while Ray Akey's image was an artistic treatment of the female form. Surely you can see the difference between the two shots?

[dazedgonebye]

...and I won't risk viewing it from work (thanks for the warning).

In general though, you have to sympathize with Slug. He cannot possibly post specific guidlines for this sort of thing. There is no way to describe what is art and what is not because pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
I would say though that this is a community of sorts, with a wide ranges of tastes and interests. There is no PBase 1st ammendment, so the community at large does get to decide what is art and what is not.
No, I don't mean we get to selectively sensor on a day to day basis, but we do get to vote with our feet and our dollars. There can be no doubt that Slug is aware of this. For the sake of the community, and his business, he has to impose whatever limits will satisfy the majority, without alienating too many in the minority.
Pretty tough to do since no matter what you do you piss someone off.

I don't think many people here would mind someone posting pretty much anything they want (within legal limits) in their private galleries. But most of us want to be able to look around without shocking bystanders. I've had to make a habit of not allowing my kids to be in the room with me when I look over the meta-galleries...which is a shame.

Perhaps a self imposed rating system in the form of multiple meta-galleries. In other words, how about dedicated metas for nudity...artistic or otherwise? They did this for the political content and that seems like a working solution.

[jypsee]

There's a clear difference between the two images.

Ray Akey's was art.

Ok. A rather subjective answer, don't you think?

What made Ray's image art and the other image not, other than because you said so?

I'm presuming in my assessment that the photo of Ray Akey's wife's pubic region is "novel" for the majority of viewers on pbase; I make that assumption based on hardly ever seeing women with their pubic region in view (Akey's own wife doesn't want her brothers and nephews or mother to see her unclothed as she herself reports in another thread) So, quoting from Ellen Dissanayake in "What Is Art For?" (University of Washington Press; 1988) and assuming that humans are part of the animal world (mammals, homo sapiens...)
"All animals communicate. All require formal order and predictability: cognition cannot occur without them, and some would say that cognition is perceiving or imposing order. Similarly, all animals require disorder and novelty: behaviors that include or provide these need not be called art." p.37
Ms. Dissanayake goes on to suggest that a better way to determine what art is would be to ask the question, "what does it do for you?"
For me, I guess if I were a gynecologist it wouldn't have much impact, but, since I'm not, the photo in question is merely "novel." And, in a venue as big as the current meta gallery, novel goes a long way toward garnering attention.

[bobt54]

There's a clear difference between the two images.

Ray Akey's was art.

Ok. A rather subjective answer, don't you think?

What made Ray's image art and the other image not, other than because you said so?

Maybe subjective for you but I agree with Ray. This image was crude, rude and socially unacceptable to all but the most base elements of society. It was something from someone's porn collection while Ray Akey's image was an artistic treatment of the female form. Surely you can see the difference between the two shots?

I see a great differences between them and, personally, I would even categorize Ray's image as art. But just because it is arguably art, does that automatically make it "socially acceptable" in all situations and societies?

Gary mentioned being responsible when posting. Nice idea in theory but is there anyone out there really doing this?