morgandawn: (Default)
morgandawn ([personal profile] morgandawn) wrote in [community profile] fanlore 2010-10-21 04:37 pm (UTC)

Not such a wide spread issue to start with

The good news is that, as far as I know the policy of minimizing sexually explicit artwork on art pages wher the aryists have requested image sizing may impact only 4 artists: Gayle F, Marilyn Cole, Caren Parnes and Joey R. As I've said before, we do not need to create policies just for the one off exceptions. I think this can be handled on a case by case basis which the Wiki is able to do. For example when you complained about the use of larger images on your article page, they worked with you to make the images smaller and also edited your page to put links back to your art portfolio website since you were worried about losing web traffic.

Also, keep in mind that some artists will not have a problem with the labeling (and minimizing) of their art while others will be very unhappy, so the case by case basis seems to be the way to go.

But in taking a spin at the art page of these four artists:

1. Joey R has no explicit art. Not an issue.
2. Marilyn Cole has one image with a penis (but you really have to squint). She has a lot of bare butts and semi naked men. See my comments below about genitals and non-sexual nudity
3. Caren Parnes has asked that explicit images be removed from her page - which is the only page with her request for larger images to displayed. Not an issue.
4.......which leaves us with Gayle F. I'd be willing to put the wiki in direct contact with Gayle to discuss this issue with her.

*On to the issue of genitals and non-sexual nudity. To me sexually explicit means depicting the sexual act in explicit detail. It does not mean a picture of a flaccid penis, a naked butt or clothed/unclothed men and/or women kissing. It does not mean an image of a naked breast or a mother nursing. I realize that many works of art in Europe were ruined when the Catholic church required that all genitals and breasts in any context be painted over or covered with metal or plaster fig leaves. I'd like to think we're not regressing to such a restrictive approach to art, but from what I see in the policy there will be room for us to discuss as a community - and again on a case by case basis - whether the fannish version of Michelangelo's David qualifies as sexually explicit and needs to be obscured.

Post a comment in response:

(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org