# Censorship



## workinforwood

I recently posted a in progress photo of a sculpture I am working on.  Apparently it was seen as some as being obscene.  When did we start censoring artwork?  You can go back all the way to the caveman and see paintings of woman.  You don't see people censoring the venus de milo, on of the most famous, if not the most famous sculpture of all time.  How is my sculpture any different that the venus?  We walk into court houses, museums, art galleries and even some parks and see sculpture of the same content and nobody is blacking them out.  My grandfather, who died on the beaches of Juno, fought the Natzi's to prevent this type of action.  It wasn't just to save the Jews, it was for liberty and Justice for all.  Since man's existence, only Hitler and Stallen have dared do such injustices.  Now in today's society, we are struck to fear if one person should be offended by something.  Do we ever thing the offended are not really that offended, but rather just enjoying the feeling of control over someone elses liberties?  Christians can check their bibles, and visit their churchs...they will find christian artwork loaded with woman that are bare breasted.  I too am a christian.  Lets not pretend this happens because of children either.  Often children are more mature than adults in this matter.  This is not the first time I have produced this type of artwork.  I compete with it in shows, in front of children and adults and have never been confronted with a comment that it is some sort of filth.  This banned picture will be displayed in the midwest scrollsaw show and then it will be competing in the "All arts" competition in Ann Arbor Michigan, a very prestigious and difficult to enter competition, sponsored by very high end art galleries and magazines.  This is the style of artwork that I am most noted for, and it is my favorite.  I could go on and on and argue a case for weeks, but I'm sure I've made enough of a point.
  I was not really given a reason as to why, I just logged in and noticed I was missing.  I am sorry to those that missed their lesson in culture.  The judgement was very swift, and so does not appear to be thought through very much.  This is my email.  Thank you all for taking the time to read this.



From : 	Jeff Brown
Sent : 	Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:35 PM
To : 	"Jeff powell" 
Subject : 	Re: missing post


Go to previous message	|	Go to next message	|	Delete	|	Inbox
Jeff,

I'm sorry. I was informed of your post as I was running out of the house to care for a relative who just had to have emergency surgery. I did not have time to contact you or the moderators, so to avoid what I know would be a bad reaction from our largely conservative membership, I took the post out of public view.

I'm sorry if you think this was the wrong action to take. I run this site of almost 4000 members in my spare time for no compensation and I do the best I can to balance the needs of the site with my own life. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

When I have a chance, I'll ask the moderators to look at this and make some kind of a judgement.

Feel free to post this email verbatim if you feel you've been wronged or embarrassed and you wish to involve the membership at large in the debate.



Regards - Jeff

At 06:20 PM 4/18/2007, you wrote:

 	 	I noticed a thread I created in the "other things we make" section is missing.  Am I too assume that it was sensored and deleted?  I am an award winning artist, carver and scroller, and there was nothing in my opinion or the normal art worlds opinion distastful about this picture.  You can find world class carvings like this just walking through central park in New york.  Of course, this is your site and not mine, so you do have the right to do as you please, but it would be nice to be informed if a post is not to your taste.  Thanx in advance...Jeff Powell.


----------



## Ron in Drums PA

Bottom Line:

This is Jeff's backyard, he makes the rules.


----------



## Mikey

Jeff, this is not a free forum for anyone to post anything and think they cannot be edited if someone thinks something is out of line. They let a lot of stuff go past in here and normally don't do much, so I suspect your stuff crossed the line pretty good. 

In any event, when someone gets deleted or edited, I do think they should be notified as to why it happened. if a moderator doesn't have the time to send a 30 second e-mail, then they need to communicate to someone else to do that so the offender doesn't get offended.


----------



## ctwxlvr

I saw it as art, on the erotic side but art none the less. I see a lot more "offensive" material in the local news papers and I am in a conservative state. but as is was pointed out not all will have the same opinion as I do. Jeff and the Moderators have to make a judgment call on all post, and I will support that call to its fullest, we do ART work, but to some the human form is offensive and they will report a site faster than relatives arriving at your house after you win the big lottery.


----------



## PenWorks

Sorry I missed it, now I am curious [)] 

The hulla girl pen that loses her top & bottom when you turn her upside down,
Is it a pen......or is it art......or something else ? I should be the judge of it.

Now, who would want Jeff's job running the forum ? I bet that line would be real small []


----------



## jeff

Here's the image in question.

Jeff asks "When did we start censoring artwork." I'll pose the question a different way. "When SHOULD we censor artwork in a particular venue?" Sketches and photographs of nudes are certainly artwork, why would we not let them be posted here.


----------



## ctwxlvr

I run several forums/portal sites, and I applaud Jeff's work here, I have tried running an "open forum" to where anybody could post but the "spammers" found it and I ended up having to restrict all the topics to registered members only. Some of the spam it received was vulgar by any body's standards.


----------



## jeff

> _Originally posted by workinforwood_... I was not really given a reason as to why, I just logged in and noticed I was missing.  I am sorry to those that missed their lesson in culture.  The judgement was very swift, and so does not appear to be thought through very much...


Did you read my reply, Jeff? I thought I offered a decent reason why the decision "was not thought through very much". Again, I apologize that my personal life got in the way of dealing with issues here."


----------



## Gary Max

Looks great---heck sell it on ebay---But ---I really do not think that it has a place here at IAP. Jeff you run this a a family friendly site----that pic will offend folks----right or wrong is not the question-----people will find that offensive which should be enough reason to delete it.


----------



## GaryMGg

Jeff (workinforwood) -- I see nothing wrong with your picture albeit your post is a bit over the top.
It's a sculpture of a nekkid woman. OMG! So what.
You're fairly new here and it's highly likely you don't know the conservative nature of this forum nor
that fact that it's NOT a free site wrt content. ALL content is under the control of the owner's and admin's.
Having said that, you can already see they're willing to reverse the quick decision that was made.

There's an old saying, something like "It is better to err on the side of caution than ...."
and that's obviously what was done.

I think Jeff Brown did the right thing -- he did what he thought should be done given his time,
personal requirements, and energy constraints.

I think your post is over the top because it could've been handled privately and your original post
would most likely have magically reappeared.

The artwork is neither vulgar nor erotic in my humble opinion. Perhaps a few people will take offense,
but if we restrict everything that's offensive most likely we'd have to close down every forum in existence.

Heck if we're gonna ban things that are offensive, I might not be allowed to post my miserable pen pics in SOYPs anymore [] []

My $.02,
Gary


----------



## Paul in OKC

> I am an award winning artist, carver and scroller, and there was nothing in my opinion or the normal art worlds opinion distastful about this picture.  You can find world class carvings like this just walking through central park in New york.  Of course, this is your site and not mine, so you do have the right to do as you please, but it would be nice to be informed if a post is not to your taste.  Thanx in advance...Jeff Powell.



I applaud you for being an award winning artist, but if that gives reason to post up anything we want, well......We all have different taste in what we consider art. As has been said before, this is a pretty conservative group, and I think Jeff (group owner) did the right thing, at least by me.


----------



## Mikey

After seeing the picture, I now agree with the moderators in their call. if this was an invite only forum or one with restricted access, I may feel differently. As it stands in context on this forum, I would have deleted it as well, or asked that you blur parts of the picture.


----------



## PenWorks

Thanks for letting me view it. You know, curiosity kills the cat. []
Now I don't know if we are commenting on the piece or censorship.
If it is the sculpture, nothing a brown paper bag would take care of. I compliment you on your artistic abilty and your woodworking skills. In regards to censorship, it is really not our house or our call. I am sure Jeff will get a gazillion PM's on why or why not it should appear.(who would have the time or patience to go through them) Sometimes it is just easier to hit DELETE and go about your business.


----------



## gerryr

I think it's a fine piece of work.  It never ceases to amaze me that in the US graphic violence is highly tolerated, but let someone do a piece like this and people go nuts.


----------



## clewless

As a moderator with time constraints, Jeff made a quick (and proper) call to delay it's appearance until there was time to deal with it properly.  

Nothing would have been lost by contacting Jeff privately to discuss the piece before making a scene about it.  There's lots bigger problems at hand then your art being delayed for a short time.


----------



## Jim in Oakville

My Eyes, My Eyes!![8D]

I am fine with Jeff taking control, it's not easy moderating a forum, I am one on another forum and it is demanding at times.  As some have said, there are bigger fish to fry than this, but I also know that in keeping a community in balance sometimes you have to make a judgement call.  I am fine with the image, I am completely comfortable with Jeff's decision.


----------



## Rifleman1776

Nothing offensive in that image IMHO. In fact, not even close.
Jeff's call was Jeff's call. Again, IMHO, a bit hasty but I accept his decision and explanation.


----------



## Mudder

workinforwood,

You have been here for a little over a month and already you are starting controversy?

Bottom line is this;

Jeff Brown owns this site,and he is ultimately responsible for it's content. He is nice enough to let us post here and he does not ask for anything in return. Jeff made a decision as admin and regardless of whether or not we agree with him it is his forum and his right to approve or deny any post for any reason.

I suggest that we all get over it and move on.


BTW: I would consider you Hitler and Stalin comparison to be a personal attack on our site admin.


----------



## twoofakind

Jeff's backyard.I have not been around all that long, but Jeff does an amazing job of keeping this place together, heck there are days when I barely have time to even log in and snoop around. I support his decision either way. The piece showed amazing craftsmanship and talent, but that does not make it right either. I'm sure Jeff has to make hard decisions every day that some will find a problem in, that comes with being the man in charge.
Andy


----------



## airrat

Nice job on the details of your art, one can appreciate that.

Something that has not been mentioned is we do have some younger members that visit the site.   That is another concern Jeff Brown has to consider.  I know you may not have known about them but they are here and do exist.   

The question on where to draw the line on censorship is ultimately Jeff Brown's call.  We may "donate" to the site but that is different then if we "PAID" to be here.


----------



## whatwoodido

I hate to try to be reasonable, but...

This is Jeff's site and he has the right to do what he wants.  Beauty (and offense) are in the eye of the beholder.  I personally don't find the piece offensive, but I also don't find it appealling artistically.  I think that workinforwood should have tried to work this out in private.  I think his action in posting his perceived offense and the tone of the post were much more offensive than his artwork.  I think workinforwood owes Jeff a public apology for overeacting, since workinforwood made this public.  

Once again I encourage all members to take a second and ask yourself if what you are going to post is going to be perceived as offensive to others.  If there is any doubt don't post it.  This is not censorship, or political correctness, it is just good old fashioned common decency.  For all of the conservatives around here it could be viewed as the Golden Rule.

Drew


----------



## Tuba707

I think Drew hit the nail on the head.
Bottom line: 
It is a privilege, not a right, to use this site.  If you go to someone else's house, I should hope that you would be sensitive to them, their culture, and their moral judgement.  

Brave men and women have fought and died for our freedoms.  The freedom that grants you the right to free speech - which is in a public domain or on your own property - is the same freedom that allows Jeff to own this site and make the rules.  Even if Jeff had made some ridiculous ruling, it is STILL his right to make that - and then you face the decision of what to do - you can either get over it and move on, or get out.  You have that freedom. 

I don't believe you have a solid grasp on when "censorship" is wrong.  It is wrong, for example (not the only case), when a government controls the media and is spreads their propaganda and their spin - or when a government controls the religion (i.e., the former USSR and others), etc. I did not see the picture, and I am not ruling on anything I saw - rather what I read in your post.  To compare the regulation of one's own private property to Nazism is sick and displays an aggregious misunderstanding of history, culture, and decency.

I recommend a public apology to Jeff, as you brought a public attack against him on the use of his own private property.  That being done, move on and enjoy the privilege of these forums, and use your freedom to participate in other venues where your art will most accepted and appreciated.


----------



## workinforwood

I would have been happy to discuss this in private, but was told that posting the email would be ok...which led me to think that he was thinking what is the public's opinion?  I think Jeff does a great job with this site, as do all of you contributors.  I have learned alot here, and if it was a pay site, I think I would be paying after the trial type time that I have been here.  I did read his email and his explanation as to why I didn't get a notice, as he was busy and had to go, and that's fine, but he also says that he heard of it from others, so could have had them send me an email, or on hold for further discussion or something.  Of course, this is not my site and the owner of the site has the right to do anything he wants, but I still feel an individual has a right to appeal and explain himself.  Perhaps this should have just stayed in email, but I can't stop that now.  What I do know is that I was censored.  Unless you have also put your heart and soul into something and then had it censored, it is difficult to explain the feeling.  This is the first time I have ever been in this position and don't really know the correct response, as feelings like to take over.  I belive I can handle my work being censored, if it is explaned to me at the time that it is happening, although I still won't be happy about it.  If this was a drawing or a sketch, I never would have posted it either, but this is also a woodworking related site, and this is woodworking related material.  Whatever the final decision may be, I do feel better since being heard.  If the message board does not want the finished picture to be posted, when the picture is completed, then feel free to let me know, and thanx.


----------



## bearfretworks

I think it is appropriate to discuss this on this forum.  I DO NOT think it is appropriate to discuss this issue on OTHER forums.

I had/have no problem whatsoever with the picture of workinforwood's latest wood working project.  I and my kids are exposed to MUCH, MUCH worse in the world.  With that said, this is a private forum and the owner gets to make these type of calls. If we don't agree with or like the calls, we can go find another internet box to play in.


----------



## mdburn_em

People who feel they are entitled to trample on any and all values they don't share are what offend me.  Anyone with a different view is to just shut up and let the entitled do, say or show whatever they want.  If they don't it's censorship.  Bah!
I'm not entitled to anything on this site.  I am permitted to belong and share within the rules I agreed to when I joined.  Period!  I enjoy that.


----------



## wdcav1952

Interesting thread.  I have to agree that it is Jeff's site and he runs it how he sees fit.  That is simply fact, and not open to discussion.

I also have to agree that comparing Jeff's actions to fighting Natzi's(sic) and acting like Hitler and Stallen(sic) is so far over the top to be laughable.

It is nice to know that we have a famous, award-winning artist in our humble group.  It would be even better if famous artists took the time to think out their postings and not make such out of line comparisons.


----------



## thetalbott4

I dont agree with Jeff's original decision not to show the picture, but I stand and applaud him for being man enough to say that he was hasty with his decision and then put the picture up. THIS NEVER WAS ABOUT CENSORSHIP!! 

Brings up an interesting point though. We shouldnt be getting so jumpy about stuff like this. In that picture, I saw a reasonably well done carving of a female form. If you saw boobs and nudity and vulgarity then you have something going on upstairs that you need to get right. As someone that appreciates art, I have taught my kids to look at things like the Venus De Milo or the statue of David (or this carving) and see the work, form, detail, and skill involved in creating it. They hate classical music but can appreciate the skill involved in it's creation. They dont shut it out because they dont like the content... because they admire the intent.

Think about this, What do you see when you look at that picture? A carving or boobs?


----------



## jughead

> I dont agree with Jeff's original decision not to show the picture, but I stand and applaud him for being man enough to say that he was hasty with his decision and then put the picture up. THIS NEVER WAS ABOUT CENSORSHIP!!



Amen!!!


----------



## bgray

Here's my reaction to this.

Workinforwood...

I really have no problem that you posted what you did on the site.  As others mentioned, IAP is privately owned.  However, submitting the image privately via email before posting, knowing that it may or may not have some issues, would have been a wise move.  I only say this for you to perhaps consider in the future.  I can't hold you accountable for what I find no fault in.  I have no problem with your submission.

However, I do respectfully find fault in the following....  

You posted your complaint after Jeff sent you an email explaining fully why it was pulled.  Obviously, you knew that Jeff had a family emergency, and that he made a gut reaction.  In addition to this, within Jeff's email to you, he also offered apologies (you included his exact text in your original post, where he offered apologies).

Fully knowing of this, you then made a comparison of Jeff's actions to Hitler and Stalin, which I find ridiculous.  I really feel that you should apologize to Jeff for that little nugget.

Then in your second post, you said..

//I belive I can handle my work being censored, if it is explaned to me at the time that it is happening,//

I don't agree with this.  Jeff said within his original email why it was censored.  He explained his family emergency (which you included in your original post), and then explained how it was a gut reaction, and perhaps was the wrong reaction, and offered apologies (also within your original post).

And please consider this.  In the end it WASN'T censored.  Jeff re-posted it himself.

Jeff explained everything to you.  You even included his explanations within your own posts.

I really don't want this to become an ugly thread.  I saw holes in your argument.  I may be right, I may be wrong.

Forums and email can be a terrible method of construing intent.  If I've misunderstood your intent, please let me know...but my reaction right now is that you owe Jeff apologies.


----------



## workinforwood

This thread has gotten somewhat ugly for sure.  Some of my comments have certainly been twisted beyond my intent, no doubt a pour choice of words on my part.  As I previously replied, I let my emotions take over before thinking my actions through, and thus resulted in a pretty ugly mess.  It was not a bad idea to start this thread, but a better way to have started it would have been to simply state that my picture was deleted and then ask that re-posting it be considered.  It could have been just that simple.  And by reading all these posts, I think alot of us would agree that I am not the only one to get too emotional over the topic.  I am not a famous person, so lets not go thinking that.  Sure I have won awards, and I believe that my artwork is very tasteful, but I am far from famous.  I'm just struggling to try and get myself out there, which is a very difficult road to travel, and this is a speed bump, but certainly a good learning experience.
  My use of Hitler is totaly misconstrued.  I do however believe that although a site may be run by a private individual, once you invite anyone to enter, it is also a public site.  Therefore, you can define something as being censorship.  But I am not saying that because of this reason, the owner can't still do whatever he choses to do.  I am not sorry about trying to get my picture back online, but I am certainly sorry about any trouble that I caused, and any comments that have been taken somewhat beyond my true meaning of them.  I am also sorry about how I approached the entire situation.  Hopefully some of you people that feel the need to lay the smack down on me, without trying to first put yourself in my shoes, can understand what I'm saying, and we can all forgive one another.
  After all...the  true intent of this picture was simply to show the love and beauty that still exists in this world today.

This is all I have to say on this matter.  I will not post in this thread again, and should people not want me to post anyhweres else around here, that's understandable too.


----------



## Ron in Drums PA

> My use of Hitler is totaly misconstrued. I do however believe that although a site may be run by a private individual, once you invite anyone to enter, it is also a public site. Therefore, you can define something as being censorship. But I am not saying that because of this reason, the owner can't still do whatever he choses to do



Wrong
This site is not a democracy, it is run by a benevolent dictator. We play by his rules.


----------



## DCBluesman

Jeff P - With all due respect, there are terms and conditions for this site which you agreed to be bound by when you registered.  One of them specifically forbids sexually explicit material.  Labelling your work as art does not mean that it isn't also explicit.  Our forum has many younger members whose parents/guardians do not subscribe to the theory that their children should be exposed to all sorts of art.  This site has been pretty much a G-rated site since it's inception.   http://www.penturners.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13061

Now many of us, me included, think your artistic expression is just fine, but on a site like this it would be preferable to post a link to the photo with an appropriate tag, like "Link to sexually explicit photo".  Now that still wouldn't stop a young person from looking, but at least we maintain the integrity of the G-rating.

In closing, I suggest you read Jeff's Terms of Service and other Policies.  Those are the rules to live by on this forum.


----------



## oldtoolsniper

Funny how these things workâ€¦ We are fearless behind a keyboard. Having retired from the Marine Corps a little while back I used to deal with situations like this, you know being compared to things and having things said to me via the keyboard that I know would not be said to my face. I would get in my truck and drive to their shops and invite them for a face to face sit down to discuss the issue. Funny how fast things dramatically changed face to face. 

Hitler, Stalin, you have got to be kidding me. After three combat tours in Iraq I assure you that you are dead wrong. I assure you that if you ever really saw the things that dictators like those do with your own eyes you would never put someone in that class, not even in private. 

Freedom of speech you bet, freedom to publicly filet an individual because you donâ€™t agree. No.


----------



## mdburn_em

I feel as though I over-reacted in the extreme to the other side of the pendulum.  I think my post was a reaction to a problem I see in society and couldn't resist posting it here.  

I should have.  

I wish to publicly apologize to Jeff P for my post.  I think we may have over-reacted over the same thing but in opposite directions.


----------



## jeff

I'm not a fan of the term, but I suppose that "benevolent dictator" fits the situation. I know that you're all free to leave if you don't like the way things run, so my motivation is obviously to create an environment that will appeal to the greatest number of people. The moderators and I work very hard to leave our personal feelings out of decisions and do what's right for the community. Mostly we get it right, sometimes not.

I honestly have absolutely no problem with Jeff's artwork. I don't find it particularly appealing, but it doesn't bother me in the least. I removed it because I felt that it might offend some members, and I didn't have time to put much thought into it at that moment. I reposted it because it became part of this debate and we needed to see it to discuss it. I would have put it back up anyway, because once I had the opportunity to think about it, I didn't feel it would offend many members.

I agree that we censor some things. The goal being as I said above; to create a community that appeals to the greatest number of people. We live in a country of free speech, but that right does not apply to private property, which this site is, despite Jeff's assertion that admitting the public makes it so. 

Nothing Jeff wrote offended me personally in the least. I could show you emails from members to me that would curl your hair. I have been the recipient of a wide range of hate mail from unhappy members, so I've developed very thick skin. I can easily separate the job I do from the person I am, and I know I'm a nice guy who has to sometimes do not-so-nice things. So, Jeff, no hard feelings on my end.

Let's turn this into a productive discussion that will help us deal with similar issues in the future. Where exactly do you all want us to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable content? As long as it's called "art" do we let in absolutely anything? 

What if someone posts an intarsia piece showing two naked people involved in passionate lovemaking? It's wood. It's art. The Bible certainly refers to that activity. You can find paintings showing the same thing hanging in galleries. It's art. Is it ok? 

How about a statue of a religious figure crafted from used kitty litter? I know I'd prefer not to see that because it's just tasteless and disgusting, but it's art, so maybe some would complain if I deleted it. 

You all know that The Pen Shop site exists because I deleted what I felt was a disgusting and disrespectful photo of a dead cat and temporarily locked the account of the poster while I investigated. Apparently I got that one wrong because hundreds of people supported the creation of TPS.

So, what do you all want? Where do we draw the line? Be specific, don't say, "well, if it's clearly pornographic, delete it." That just throws it back on the mods and I to try to guess what you feel is appropriate.

Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## Dario

Jeff,

Remember that you can never please every body.  Your goal "to create an environment that will appeal to the greatest number of people" is right on and as far as I am concerned you are right 99+% of the time.  

PLEASE do not fix it since it is not broken.

Disgusting things, portrayal of sex activity, etc. be it art or not doesn't belong here (this is just my thoughts).  To answer your question, I believe you have to continue and "censor" to meet your goal.


----------



## Ron in Drums PA

> What if someone posts an intarsia piece showing two naked people involved in passionate lovemaking? It's wood. It's art. The Bible certainly refers to that activity. You can find paintings showing the same thing hanging in galleries. It's art. Is it ok?
> 
> How about a statue of a religious figure crafted from used kitty litter? I know I'd prefer not to see that because it's just tasteless and disgusting, but it's art, so maybe some would complain if I deleted it.



I'm not a prude, I don't find the carving offensive. But I was offended by Jeff Powell being offended. I thought his remarks where way over the top. 

I was a member of a very well known turning site. One member turned horse manure into eggs, placed them on a plate then called it political art. The owner of the site thought it was wonderful along with a few regulars.

I posted that I thought it was the crappiest thing I ever saw. I was censored for viewing my thoughts. I wasn't offended for being censored, but because I felt my views weren't the same as the forum, I choose not to return.

Someone has to draw the line as to what is acceptable for this site and what is not. That job falls on our benevolent dictator and his helpers. The rest of us need to decide if we agree and decide if want to hang around. 

One last thing Jeff Powell, there is no entitlements on IAP


----------



## ctwxlvr

I think that in order to please most of the people, place it in the rules that any nudity needs to be a link with a warning that the link contains nudity.


----------



## oldtoolsniper

Jeff, (admin)
    If came to your house and you were to ask me to take off my shoes before I came in I could choose to do it or I can simply leave. Itâ€™s your house so if I choose to visit your house I choose to abide by your rules. 

I am old enough to drinkâ€¦ Is it my right to come to your house and drink? 

Why canâ€™t I drink and drive? I am after all an accomplished driver and or possibly drinker or maybe even both; perhaps itâ€™s for the good of the majority that I am not allowed to exercise my freedoms regardless of whose house I am in.  

I would invite the other Jeff to moderate with you for a while and see what itâ€™s like. That was also something I used to do with Marines who decided they needed to express themselves against the way the things were established. 

If I donâ€™t like what you do I will leave, we all have that choice. 

Yes sir! Welcome to America. 

Thanks for the work you do. 

Roy Hennagir GySgt USMC (ret)


----------



## whatwoodido

The line between offensive and inoffensive is not definable, because each person's line is at a different place.  I think that for most part we should make it clear that members need to always ask a simple question before they start a new topic.  "Will this offend any of my fellow members?"  If the answer is yes don't create the topic.  This little act of common decency would make the problem go away.  But I think we need to be clear that this applies to jokes, and other inflamatory topics, as well as posted pictures.  Beyond that I encourage our moderators to moderate using the same criteria.  

Drew


----------



## oldtoolsniper

How about would I put this on a billboard on the side of my house?


----------



## cozee

I at one time made a living with my artwork and found no good reason to inculde nudity in my portfolio. 

Nudity is artwork? With that definition then adult movies and child porn could also be considered as such simply because artwok is then held in the eye of those who call it such.  It is easy to draw the line, no gray areas needed. Nudity and provacitive poses really are not art, just nudity and provacitive poses. Erotic yes. Artwork, no.


----------



## Rifleman1776

Jeff: Per your most recent post. There has been talk about censorship. Cutting material does not always fit into that category. Sometimes it is simply editing. A term often used is 'gate keeping'. Editors must sift material they consider either inappropriate or not of value. Librarians have a very tough job deciding what is of value for the shelves or where something crosses "the line", especially when the line has never been drawn. Depicting female breasts is not always pornographic. I have seen my grandchildren watching cartoons where the girls (cartoon characters) are shown with short-shorts and some very suggestively tight little....uh....walking away views. If you gate keep again in the future, and realistically, you will, some will agree with the decision and some will disagree. I will probably be one of the disagree-ers because I am very open minded about 1st Amendment issues. I still think removing the picture of the deer was an incorrect decision. Life cannot be denied by hiding it. Oh, well.


----------



## cozee

1st Admendment rights. That always comes up in this type of discussion. Funny thing is most misinterperate it. Yes, one has the right to do so but they do not have the right to do so wherever they please. Sadly, it is the gray areas that are capitalized upon to exercise one's rights when the content of said right is in question. It has come to the point in society that if things are not spelled out word for word, somebody is looking to take advantage to promote their agenda. A family oriented board doesn't mean nudity, whether considered art or not, is allowable. Just because some find no fault and allow such things, or suggestive content such as the cartoons mentioned doesn't mean every one does. All one has to do is turn on the TV to get all of that and more, and that is just the commercials. Sadly, this society has become desenstized to right and wrong concerning morality.

Continuing to tout such things as one's expressive right is to continue to violate and further deteriorate morality. Without a solid moral basis; a foundation of irreproachable, unchangeable, infallible truth, anything goes.

Besides, what if one's sister, wife, daughter, mother, other family member where the content of such subject matter. I think things would look a bit different to the beholder of such liberal expressionism![].

I want to thank IAP for taking a stand!!


----------



## Ron Mc

Cozee said,
"Nudity is artwork? With that definition then adult movies and child porn could also be considered as such simply because artwork is then held in the eye of those who call it such. It is easy to draw the line, no gray areas needed. Nudity and provocative poses really are not art, just nudity and provocative poses. Erotic yes. Artwork, no."

Greg....Where did this come from? It's a darn good thing that you and I are good friends so that you will read my post knowing that there is no need to get defensive!

"Nudity" in it's basic term is not art at all. What makes some pieces of art that include full, or partial nudity "art" is the overall use of mediums involved and the skill level of the artist that blessed us with it. Far from porn.[xx(]

Take a walk in Rome, Athens, Venice, Cairo and admire the partially clad sculptures that look down on you at every corner. Wonder into the louvre in Paris and spend days admiring some of the most wonderful paintings in the world. Yes....Lot's include nudity, but as you look in awe at the pure creative talent, and genius it took to create the pieces of art all of that is lost.

I guess my point is that some of the absolute best examples of art ever created included nudity.


----------



## gerryr

I think a large part of the problem is that nudity, in the U.S. at least, is generally equated with what D. H. Lawrence called 'the dirty little secret," namely sex.  They aren't the same thing and to state that because some artists use nudity in their work will somehow cause future generations of kids to become perverted is just rubbish.  Kids don't think much about it at all, until the adults begin over-reacting to it and tell the kids that nudity in and of itself is immoral.


----------



## cozee

> _Originally posted by Ron Mc_
> <br />Cozee said,
> "Nudity is artwork? With that definition then adult movies and child porn could also be considered as such simply because artwork is then held in the eye of those who call it such. It is easy to draw the line, no gray areas needed. Nudity and provocative poses really are not art, just nudity and provocative poses. Erotic yes. Artwork, no."
> 
> Greg....Where did this come from? It's a darn good thing that you and I are good friends so that you will read my post knowing that there is no need to get defensive!
> 
> "Nudity" in it's basic term is not art at all. What makes some pieces of art that include full, or partial nudity "art" is the overall use of mediums involved and the skill level of the artist that blessed us with it. Far from porn.[xx(]
> 
> Take a walk in Rome, Athens, Venice, Cairo and admire the partially clad sculptures that look down on you at every corner. Wonder into the louvre in Paris and spend days admiring some of the most wonderful paintings in the world. Yes....Lot's include nudity, but as you look in awe at the pure creative talent, and genius it took to create the pieces of art all of that is lost.
> 
> I guess my point is that some of the absolute best examples of art ever created included nudity.



Ron, I find no need what-so-ever to get defensive. In fact, I agree with what you said in that context and concerning that time period but advancing to todays sense of art, the soul of the content isn't quite what it used to be nor the puritry of it. I don't think we can compare todays sense and soul with such a bygone era. I can look at the works of old and not even notice the nudity as it is as you have stated, an interwoven element of the artwork as a whole. Even the staue of David doesn't give one an impression of erotica. However, much of what we see todays as "art" focuses heavily upon the nudity or the ertoic element as the main element with everything else fading into the background. 

I will correct myself concerning my original statement concerning nudity with a clearer definition. Nudity which focuses on the erotic element, or as the whole of the composition itself, isn't art in my opinion. Most artwork today which contains nudity falls largely into the "cheesecake" catagory of artwork. Soryama, Olivia, and others lead this field with their erotica disquised as art.

And hey, no matter one's view,life goes on!! Woo hoo!! It's Friday!!![]


----------



## Ron in Drums PA

> _Originally posted by cozee_
> <br />
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron Mc_
> <br />Cozee said,
> "Nudity is artwork? With that definition then adult movies and child porn could also be considered as such simply because artwork is then held in the eye of those who call it such. It is easy to draw the line, no gray areas needed. Nudity and provocative poses really are not art, just nudity and provocative poses. Erotic yes. Artwork, no."
> 
> Greg....Where did this come from? It's a darn good thing that you and I are good friends so that you will read my post knowing that there is no need to get defensive!
> 
> "Nudity" in it's basic term is not art at all. What makes some pieces of art that include full, or partial nudity "art" is the overall use of mediums involved and the skill level of the artist that blessed us with it. Far from porn.[xx(]
> 
> Take a walk in Rome, Athens, Venice, Cairo and admire the partially clad sculptures that look down on you at every corner. Wonder into the louvre in Paris and spend days admiring some of the most wonderful paintings in the world. Yes....Lot's include nudity, but as you look in awe at the pure creative talent, and genius it took to create the pieces of art all of that is lost.
> 
> I guess my point is that some of the absolute best examples of art ever created included nudity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, I find no need what-so-ever to get defensive. In fact, I agree with what you said in that context and concerning that time period but advancing to todays sense of art, the soul of the content isn't quite what it used to be nor the puritry of it. I don't think we can compare todays sense and soul with such a bygone era. I can look at the works of old and not even notice the nudity as it is as you have stated, an interwoven element of the artwork as a whole. Even the staue of David doesn't give one an impression of erotica. However, much of what we see todays as "art" focuses heavily upon the nudity or the ertoic element as the main element with everything else fading into the background.
> 
> I will correct myself concerning my original statement concerning nudity with a clearer definition. Nudity which focuses on the erotic element, or as the whole of the composition itself, isn't art in my opinion. Most artwork today which contains nudity falls largely into the "cheesecake" catagory of artwork. Soryama, Olivia, and others lead this field with their erotica disquised as art.
> 
> And hey, no matter one's view,life goes on!! Woo hoo!! It's Friday!!![]
Click to expand...


You guys are just too philosophical for me.


----------



## wdcav1952

Ron, I agree with you, except for Gregg's last line about Friday! []


----------



## its_virgil

> _Originally posted by cozee_
> Woo hoo!! It's Friday!!![]


<b>VERSE 1

I'VE GOT A HUNDRED DOLLARS SMOKING IN MY BILLFOLD

I KNOW I OUGHT TO SAVE IT BUT ITS BURNING A HOLE

RIGHT THRU MY POCKET AND INTO BB's TILL

COME MONDAY MORNING ILL NEED A NEW PEN MILL

CHORUS:

ITS FINALLY FRIDAY I'M FREE AGAIN

I GOT MY LATHE RUNNING FOR A TURNING WEEKEND

ITS FINALLY FRIDAY IM OUT IN THE SHOP

FORGET THE WORKING BLUES AND LET THE LATHE NEVER STOP

VERSE 2:

I GOT A LITTLE KOA DOWN ON THE FLOOR

THAT'S BEEN SETTING ON READY AND ROCKING TO SOAR

WE'LL TURN AN EL GRANDE AND LATER TONIGHT

WE'LL BE WORKING ON A FINISH THAT's NEITHER WRONG NOR RIGHT


CHORUS:

IT'S FINALLY FRIDAY I'M FREE AGAIN

I GOT MY LATHE RUNNING FOR A TURNING WEEKEND

IT'S FINALLY FRIDAY IM OUT IN THE SHOP

FORGET THE WORKING BLUES AND LET THE LATHE NEVER STOP

REPEAT INTRO

VERSE 3:

MONDAY ILL BE SPORTING NEW PENS IN MY CASE

TUESDAY ILL BE PLANNING FOR THE NEXT WOOD CHASE

WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY I'LL BE SLOWLY TURNING IN

FRIDAY ILL BE REVING UP MY LATHE AGAIN

CHORUS:

IT'S FINALLY FRIDAY I'M FREE AGAIN

I GOT MY LATHE RUNNING FOR A TURNING WEEKEND

IT'S FINALLY FRIDAY I'M OUT IN THE SHOP

FORGET THE WORKING BLUES AND LET THE LATHE NEVER STOP
</b>
Have a great weekend and...
Do a good turn daily!
Don


----------



## airrat

Jeff B, I don't have a problem with what you did.   I do like the idea that if someone wants to post something that could be considered nudity, it could be linked with a disclaimer.   If a moderator takes something down, they just let the poster know asap why and what else they can do if they want people to see it.


----------



## mdburn_em

Jeff B,
Since you asked, in spite of the interest this post has drawn, keep it the way it has been.  It doesn't seem like there have been enough controversial posts to warrant major changes.  I think it's been a pretty smooth ride since I joined the site.  People on this site have placed warnings on posts they know that others "might" find offensive.  If people would keep doing that, I think the ship will keep sailing smoothly.


----------

