Vienna museums open adult-only OnlyFans account to display nudes
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
They knew (rightly so) that if they opened an OF account, they would get a bunch of free press and bring more eyeballs to their artwork.
> Mr. Kettner said that the OnlyFans account is not a permanent solution, but rather a protest against censorship and a call for conversation. “We want to draw attention to a certain thing,” he said. “We want to put it out there, to talk about the role of artificial intelligence, of algorithms.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/style/onlyfans-nude-art-v...
IMO as long as reddit still has those images, even if they’re behind subreddits which proclaim “WARNING: SEE AT YOUR OWN RISK”, that’s good enough.
Not sure if it works with NSFW, but they've recently taken to app-blocking everything and it fixes at least that.
The only social network? How about the Fediverse? Spin up their own PixelFed (and a Mastodon instance too), promote it widely, and donate some of their public money to these FOSS projects based on open standards, instead of just choosing a proprietary centralized platform.
two examples: https://mastodon.social/@kradeelav https://mastodon.social/@chirart
I don't mean to advocate for Mastodon or anything else in particular, but these things sometimes have a way of being niche until they're not.
I also think part of the parent's argument was that in encountering obstacles like this, groups of nonprofit institutions such as art museums could leverage their position to promote decentralized systems, rather than simply throw up their hands and go with a sensationalized move.
Then again we are here discussing it. But then again if they banded together to post on some decentralized platform we'd probably be talking too.
There's no reason social media shouldn't be more decentralized and federated. European institutes can and should consider open source, federated alternatives unless they want to be forced to play by the rules of the big social media providers.
There are a lot of court cases on obscenity, some of which hold decisively [1].
> a man was sued under copyright laws for pirating pornography and their defense was that because the work was obscene it could not be have any copyright restrictions…since the law firms suing over piracy are just spraying and praying, they don't want an actual trial
Nonsense. Porn companies regularly go to court to protect their IP [2]. (To your example, in which venue was your defendant defending himself if not in a court?)
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecut...
[2] https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/porn-piracy-forbidden-to-set...
I mentioned one specific court case where one specific defendant was sued over one specific piece of content, where one specific plaintiff didn't move forward with the case after being presented with a defense, because they are serial plaintiffs that only want settlements. Your own source [2] says serial plaintiffs is what is happening! Not even sure where to start with you. The only point being about why there is not a decisive case on that particular defense because it never reached a judge.
More specifically, Liuxia Wong v Hard Drive Productions is a countercase, referring to Hard Drive Productions demanding a settlement from Liuxia for infringing on their copyright of a porn movie. Liuxia sued them back saying it wasn't copyrightable. What you will find online are motions to dismiss, which were denied. Then you'll find there was a settlement
https://casetext.com/case/liuxia-wong-v-hard-drive-prods-1
short discussion (about why its largely unsatisfactory in establishing any precedent and reinforces how there likely won't be any precendent on this matter as nobody is interested in taking it above trial courts): https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/case-closed-won...
There are hundreds of them (just search by hashtags in the posts above). Of course same set of videos/pics repeated over & over, but my point is that such stuff is present all over Twitter & FB and anyone accessing those platforms can stumble upon them. Twitter doesn't even seem to put them behind a "Violent/NSFW" click-through.
I don't see how nudity can be more damaging or pernicious than such content.
I'm not sure of the "kids will suffer because of violent images" idea tho, we were shown a crap ton of terrible imagery from WWI/WWII/Holocaust/Vietnam when I was in middle school, and if anything I thought it was a good thing.
For the first link I see this: "The following media includes potentially sensitive content. Change settings"
I don't have an account, so you may have changed your settings
I'd suggest starting with 'Law abiding citizen' and 'John Wick'. Note that an 'R' rating means that children under 17 are not allowed to watch these without a parent or a guardian present. But that's different from 'adult-only', after all, technically it is still allowed. The proper marker would be 'X' if it was to be compared to 'adult only'.
Warning, extremely disturbing content:
Hollywood in particular is not even interested in gruesome or realistic or effective depiction of violence.
As someone outside the Anglo Saxon world I’m amazed how Puritan it is. Like seeing a nipple or kids seeing a nipple really isn’t the end of the world. But Americans can’t even get over public breastfeeding.
Highly regional / generational.
Second, who exactly is cool with collection of child torture videos? Or collection of murders? Because when I came across discussion about such finding, the consensus was that people were horrified, scared, seen it as red flag and seeked to classify kid ones as child port (and hence call authoritirs). It was on reddit.
Erm, what planet is that on? You can show people getting shot and killed on primetime TV, but you can't show a video of a nudist beach, let alone porn.
Gore is subjective obviously, but if the above is not 'gore enough' for you, then you are comparing some extreme gore, of the kind that most people will (hopefully) never encounter in their life, with pedestrian portrayals of sex, something most people do encounter.
Jokes aside, let's flip your argument on it's head -> would you be concerned if someone you know recommended you a website where various kinds of gore are uploaded by the thousands every day, they are tagged and categorised for easy search? Are you concerned about pornhub to the same degree? I would probably refer to them to a mental health helpline immediately.
It's not actually hard to find Gore, it does surface on 4Chan and other places occasionally, it's just that mentally healthy people don't search it regularly the way they do porn.
I’ve seen people make the argument that an image of an exposed breast is harmful to young children (even when those same kids are still breastfeeding).
I read an interesting essay years ago from a psych-educated person (leaving that intentionally vague because I don’t remember) who was urging moviemakers not to reduce the amount of sex or violence in movies, but to separate those scenes in movies by some amount of time like 5 minutes: ok to have a sex scene, ok to have a murder scene, but please no sexy murder scenes.
Meanwhile, mainstream culture doesn't bother to similarly "protect" children from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, and other vices. It would look weird if parents allowed and encouraged consumption before a certain age (which exactly depends on culture), but we don't bother to hide from them that we consume, and pretty much accept that they will routinely consume at some point too.
We can discuss at length how damaging each of these is, but I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn. All of these vices carry danger, but their acceptance in society varies. Because of this, issues with the more taboo ones are more difficult to prevent, to diagnose and to treat.
That's... my point? It's like you're agreeing with me but in a tone that says you're disagreeing with me.
> I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn
I didn't say anything at all about porn, alcohol (except for the 'holding their liquor' metaphor, not meaning children should drink alcohol), cigarettes, or sugar? If not for the fact that you mention my point (b) I would have thought you were replying to the wrong comment. I don't know who is arguing that alcoholism is less damaging than porn, but it isn't me!
The aim here is to develop interoperability so users have the option of thousands of networks without lock in.
If images like these, which is by definition art, were what people posted on FB, Twitter, etc., then maybe to a degree they would be allowed on certain platforms.
However the reality is that the vast majority is very hardcore material that should not be allowed. You either allow all or try to forbid everything, otherwise you end up in a mess since many people end up in the extremes, and the sensible content slowly fades away.If you're talking about the culture and society being puritan, I agree, but then again the access to information also drastically changed.To this you also include the fact that by definition facebook &co try to be very globalistic in nature, they also have to adapt to certain "societal norms"(thinking about the eastern ones), where people are way more puritan.
Imo such art being displayed on OF is kind of a shame and a disgrace to those artists, considering the kind of material being posted there.
Anyway it's less of a moral thing and more economical. Facebook sells ads next to user content. Anything that advertisers are unwilling to risk appearing next to is on thin ice.
I would rather pay a subscribtion fee for any social network I use, keep the data and decide what I get to see.
The distinction between "art" and "pornography" is also somewhat artificial. It's hard to argue that [3] was not meant to be prurient when the model (underage, by today's standards) shortly thereafter became a mistress of the King of France, based on him having seen the painting. And some stuff that was painted might get you banned from OnlyFans even today, e.g. [4].
But the problem, it seems to me, is that the internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has to be "safe for children" and (2) said safety standards are defined (through US influence, I strongly suspect) to be highly permissive of violence, but super strict on nudity.
[0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-war/CwHM2HdTO3l2...
[1] https://www.wikiart.org/en/max-ernst/the-angel-of-the-home-o...
[2] https://www.wikiart.org/en/matthias-grunewald/the-crucifixio...
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_B...
[4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-with-a...
The printing press was hundreds of years old by the time of Gutenberg.
With movable type printing, the market for books could be widened, suddenly writing and printing presses could go professional, before that it was largely academic. Printers and distributors and writers both became professional and needed their rights balanced and became economically influential enough to get legislature to enact laws to protect both groups.
[1] He was the first in Europe, he didn't invent it first in the world.
I've had multiple pics flagged by discord as "graphic" even though none were graphic, the last one was a close up picture of a coin held between my fingers
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but naked kids aren't uncommon here. It's seen as a natural thing.
It is not just safe for children. Safe for work too. Safe for people who don't like porn in their feeds too. I think that these filters don't particularly care about high art, because that is insignificant percentage of overall nudity people post. Most of it is boobs and genitals.
The art you posted is all tame. But not all art is tame and like between porn, erotic and art is often blurry.
That said, someone will get upset at just about anything.
But in reality, people don't want to see erotica and such in their own feeds. The threshold of where it becomes unwanted is different for everyone. But most people want some level of filtering to be done for them.
Plus people want to be able to scroll Facebook or Twitter in work for few minutes without risking something inappropriate shows up.
And lines between art that feels good, erotics or porn, and basically bad art/photo that is super cringy just to look at and disgusting are blurry. And they are also subjective.
#3, #4 would just seem out of place because of their nudity. Most sane people would realize it is art but it would still seem weird.
Part of the US's double standard involves being exposed to stuff like the crucifixion and the concept of torture at a very young age. The concept that nudity can be appreciated or even expressed outside of a sexual context is not really a thing in the US. The issue is that the only use cases for nudity in movies & TV is going to sex related 99% of the time because if you are going to show nudity you might as well use it to suggest or depict sex.
I disagree with your assessment of #0. It is extremely gory, repurposes religious imagery in a secular context, and was considered such a menace to society that it could not be shown in museums and had to be hidden for 15 years.
And I think #3 and especially #4 were not meant to depict nudity devoid of a sexual context. With Fragonard, there is often an acknowledged voyeuristic element, even in paintings where there is no nudity, such as https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/the-swing-1... (cf also the original French title).
But it's kind of twisted that we consider it less weird to look at a person nailed to a cross than one engaged in a prelude to a reproductive act.
I'm not sure this is meaningful. You would also find any fine art unusual in the context of a daycare, regardless of whether or not it's offensive. Your mind is trained to expect bright colors, letters, shapes, etc. in that context.
A better question is, would you expect an art museum to have these paintings in a separate area that requires proof of age to see? And I think the answer to that is absolutely not. That would be weird.
That's far from what your kid can see just watching a few minutes of news. (And I'm not even talking about this email I received from the kindergarten explaining to all parents that kids of this age aren't supposed to watch Squid Game at home!)
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_B...
> [4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-with-a...
What's wrong with those two? These are innocent painting of naked people (also children have no sense of pudency before way after kindergarten so they just can't see the problem with this)
(The nude-but-not-sexual viewpoint is pretty valid, but some of the fine art is definitely sexual once you know the context, and some of it was controversial in its time e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe )
Source? To my reading, this is a decisively late Christian/Puritan perspective on sex and the human body.
Of course, exactly what counts as nude (or public lovemaking) and just how draconian the repercussions for transgression are, varies greatly.
Some snails mate while hanging down from a tree branch by a thread of slime. That's about as private as a snail can get.
This is true only for very unusual definitions of “always” and/or “fine art”; history is more than Victorian England.
“No urns,” he said at last.
“What urns?” said Nobby.
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added: “Or a plinth. Best is both, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
“What about a potted plant?”
“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
— Thud (2005), Terry Pratchett
Because otherwise art is impossible.
If you are a painter, and you need to draw people, you learn to draw naked people because you need to learn how human anatomy works, where various muscles and wrinkles are. In your careers you won't be just asked to draw dudes in T-shirts, you will have to draw or animate people in various clothes and state of dress or undress, torn clothing, gladiator games, etc.
There is great deal of knowledge that they actually have to learn, how to draw realistic deltoids in different body positions, or under stress to show that a person is putting in a great effort to support a great weight, or is in a fight. A drawing by a great artist should make a medical professional happy.
That's why they hire nude models to stand around in various posses, and they aren't all pretty, some of them are old people because they have to learn how to draw wrinkles and old skin.
Those puritan standards for art are far from universal. In fact, they don't even cross the Atlantic well.
That's what cultural imperialism is about: projecting one set of values as universal and natural, when it's really not.
And that's the problem with having a big media/technology (de facto) monopoly, all located in one hegemonic country.
Its just the platforms in a country populated and founded by ideological and religious extremists kicked out of Europe
Much like the USA, Europe does not fit into neat boxes made of stereotypes.
What I was really trying to do was mention the areas of Europe that are either “sexually liberated” or apathetic to sexuality and equally wont bother anybody or weakly say “it’s not my opinion it’s the advertisers!” because the advertisers don’t care either
I wasn't aiming to imply or say the entire subcontinent is like that
Not sure a better way to do that, even with your observation
It’s okay to like boundaries. Everything doesn’t need to be blared in your face all the time. Saying this doesn’t make me a Puritan, it makes me in line with most of the people on earth.
But why is your text grey?
As usual, a small segment of Western society deems itself morally superior to the entire world. New century, same old mentality.
Someone (I assume moderators) deleted my posts minutes after upload.
After several attempts to clear the issue and no reaction from Instagram I decided that it is not worth the effort. Mind you, at the time all influencers were using the platform in sexually subjective ways with no problems at all.
Since then, I don't share on any platform my act photography, painting or drawing work.
It is available only for exhibitions and print medium (albums).
People taking the subway to work might not want to see all that.
We are subject to American Puritanism because Europe has failed time and time again to create competitive social networks because of regulations and scarce access to capital. Better complain about that.
"The website [OnlyFans] has been criticized for hosting child sexual abuse material, though the National Center on Sexual Exploitation reports negligible numbers of incidents in comparison to Facebook."
I imagine this requirement makes OnlyFans a very unattractive website for child pornographers and other people guilty of federal crimes.