Deviant Art and censorship
 

Okay, I am officially fucking furious at Deviant Art now. I am so completely sick of the complete morons they call 'mods' in that censorship shithole they call 'Deviant Art.'

I have seen some of the most off-the-wall art on DA before, and most of it's pretty tame. Whatever the artist wants, you know? Some of it is pretty off-the-wall, from drawn and colored images of a woman expelling her breastmilk into a bottle, a woman with four breasts, obesity art, and other crazy-as-all hell images.

Hey, I'm not into all of that, but whatever, you know?

Well the mods don't see it that way. They've kicked tons of crap off of Deviant Art for being in 'policy violation'. Let me explain some things about the 'policy violation'.

And yet, all this time, I've seen praises for bondage pictures and art, complete full-on sexual nudity and dripping orifices. I obviously can't link anything, but it's not very difficult to find. I mean, they even have a "Fetish portrait" link on the DA account.

This kind of absurd censorship angers me to no end - How can they even justify calling themselves 'Deviant Art' if they kick anyone off the island that they want? I wouldn't mind so much if the rules were set in stone, but they seem to be on a 'I'll know it when I see it' system. But that's just not good enough for me. You need groundwork for it if you're going to do it at all, and since DA is vibrantly popular I feel they're just being a bunch of dicks.

And, well, I dunno, I figure a combined argument of 'what is art' along with concerns about censorship on the internet was good material to get Discussion traffic going.

dA is a horrible website to begin with. There's some good art, yes, but the overall userbase reeks like a bad MMORPG fan board.

I don't agree with dA's policies, but it's their website. They don't "have" to have a reason to kick someone off.

I don't know, I don't much care for a lot of the crap they have on DA, but I do much care for a lot of the non-crap they have.

It seems pretty easy to me, it's obvious when a user has posted something that's just not art. It's ugly on accident, it has no obvious theme, it's just a string of pussy jokes etc.

My point is that I don't mind seeing dripping orifices, as you've put it, so much as I mind seeing shit masquerade as art. I think a "call it as I see it" approach works fine, because let's face it, naked pictures of some people are art, and naked pictures of other people are just plain gruesome.

I wonder what the reasone behind this tirade is though, you haven't cited a specific grievance here as of yet. A general distaste for a poorly defined practice isn't much grounds for a discussion.

It seems your only main point of contention is "Gratuitous display of genitalia" but you see they have left themselves a loophole there, gratuitous is an opinion. The one's who hold that opinion are the moderators, easy peezy right?

Everything else is pretty standard and regularly enforced. There's no fucking, no penetrating, no underaged nudity and nobody chopping off bits of themselves for fun. If there is, it's promptly reported by the deviants and deleted for the most part. And yeah, I've seen a good number of just straight vagina shots of course, and a lesser number of dangling penises, but whatever, so long as I can't see the birth cannal I think it's kosher.

but again, I must ask, what's your gripe man?

What do you have against dripping orifices, anyway?

I told you; things that don't fall under the categories of "Gratuitous display of genitalia" that just happen to be 'weird' is somehow removed.

Deviant Art's policies aren't even followed by the mods - it's just some silly masquerade so the mods can basically say "Pornography is what I say it is, bitch!"

They can't really even calls themselves deviantArt if they're going to impose restrictions on pornography. DeviantArt is a really old website, right? The way I see it, they started out as this great thing and pioneered free hosting for visual artists. But then they grew and go too big and it became more about protecting their interests than supporting the users. Not unlike YouTube.

Also, you have to allow bad art on deviantArt. No one starts out as a good artist. A lot of people have to make their own way to becoming an artist, and that takes time and effort. Some people are still deciding whether it's a path that they even want to pursue, and that's the kind of place deviantArt is... it's a place where anyone should be able to explore what art really is.

Or, you know, it was, anyway.

hmm, I think I see what you mean a little better now.

SO, you believe they are being discriminatory in their deletion practices? As in, two pieces possess equally questionable content and one gets deleted while the other is praised, the only difference being an opinion on the aesthetic value?

I think that's what you're saying, and if that's what your'e saying and it's true then I do believe that's a sad thing to happen. I agree that it's necessary to allow amature artists to express themselves, however I also believe one can draw a line of distinction between art and not art.

For example, there's only so far one can go with the excuse that a grainy photograph adds character, truth is that you're just a lonely girl in a bathtub with a shitty camera phone. That's sad sure, but it's not art.

Now a professionally developed photograph with a model (I'm not saying she needs to be an "ideallized" model, but someone who knows what to do with their body in a picture at least) that emphasises coloring and light, perhaps with intriguing props or presentation that still shows a girl in a bathtub, that's art.

I'd show you examples, but they'd both be of girls in bath tubs, which might undermine the general PG-1 bent of this here forum, eh heh.

I have to agree though I am not sure its the exact same reason. Its Deviantart. Not happyfuntimeart. Wasnt the site originally made to allow people to post questionable art?

Dont they already require you to turn off a parental control to even see such images?

I personally hate censorship. Now I do believe it should be moderated, some system in play to prevent you from seeing it if you dont wish to. like the aformentioned parental control. no reason to remove it, just hide it abit

You really think there is a distinction? Whose distinction? There are real world examples that disprove your assertion.