About a year ago, Facebook
eliminated a post by Norwegian journalist Tom Egeland. He showed seven photographs which have
influenced the history of warfare. One
of the photographs was the famous Leica photograph by Nick Ut, commonly
referred to as “Napalm Girl.” The
photo shows a naked Vietnamese girl, her body burned by napalm and in the
background a village in flames.
Facebook not only
eliminated the contribution Egeland made,
they also banned him from its pages.
They eliminated one of the most famous icons of photo journalism because
it violated the company's ban of nude pictures.
Facebook referred to its community standards:
"Facebook follows strict rules against sharing
pornographic content as well as any sexual content when minors are involved.”
Obviously Facebook blindly
followed their rather puritanical attitude, totally ignoring the initial
purpose of the posting by Egeland and its publisher, the daily
“Aftenposten”. This policy has quite
often led to considerable criticism of Facebook, especially if images of
definite value have been eliminated and the posters barred from posting for
various lengths of time. The criticism Facebook
received was quite substantial and one would think that it might have led to
some changes. But to no avail.
It is all the more
surprising that just recently Facebook considered another photograph, which
definitely showed nudity, as not violating their standards. Several members of Facebook, realizing the
hypocrisy involved and complained to Facebook about the nudity in that pictures,
only to be informed that Facebook considered it okay.
In an open letter to
Facebook, a reader responded and asked the question if the prudish Zuckerberg
is ever able to do serious journalism.
Obviously, journalism had
little to do with Facebook’s decision.
They blindly follow their antiquated, puritanical standards, unless an
advertiser is involved. The many readers,
including myself, that brought the hypocrisy to their attention weree informed that
…
“We reviewed the share you reported for displaying
nudity and we found it doesn’t violate our community standards.”
Apparently an icon of
photojournalism does violate those community standards, but a badly lit and
posed, amateurish photograph posted by a paying advertiser does not. Hypocrisy at its finest.
To be fair, Facebook recently has made a few changes. They now consider well established works of art, which do depict nudity, as acceptable, like the Venus de Milo, Michelangelo's David etc.
Why is this even an issue? Historically, the human
form has fascinated artists probably more than any other subject. Therefore it
should come as no surprise that the same fascination has extended to
photography as well.
While photography has
generally been accepted as a valid art form, photography of the nude to this
day is struggling with that recognition.
In the view of many, it is still looked upon as sleazy and
objectionable, even harmful. No such
objections exist when it comes to paintings and sculptures. People regularly visit art galleries. No objections are generally voiced to see
nude art there. Public spaces often
display nude sculptures, no objections there either. Yet nude photographic art is still widely
rejected.
From a recent Matisse exhibition at the Minneapolis Institute of Art
Objectionable?
One argument that is often made is that nudity is supposedly harmful to children. I am a member of MIA, the
Minneapolis Institute of Arts. I regularly see groups of school children visit
the place, as a matter of fact, they regularly have a special children’s day.
There are no restrictions as to which areas of the museum are open to the
children, including the photography exhibits. Apparently there is no potential
harm to children in a museum or in public places, yet nude photographic art is
still widely rejected. Why?
For other articles on this blog scroll down in the column to the right to BLOG ARCHIVE
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
___________________________________________________________________________
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
___________________________________________________________________________
Buy vintage Leica cameras from
America's premier Leica specialist
Buy vintage Leica cameras from
America's premier Leica specialist
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
This post should have a warning that its content is NSFW and also potentially harmful to children.
ReplyDeleteChildren should not be exposed to nudity.
DeleteThat does not answer the question, but I am not surprised. I have had the same experience numerous times in the past. People are very quick to point to nude images being harmful to children, but then fail to come up with a valid answer.
DeleteIf any of these posts are not safe for work (NSFW) depends on the attitude of the workplace in regard to art. I definitely reject the assertion that any of these images are potentially harmful for children. We are talking about the human form here, not some pornographic distortion of it. Why is it that photography is always handled differently in this regard than other forms of art. As I mentioned in the article, is anybody requesting museums to post warning signs for their exhibit’s that show images or statues depicting the human form? Are such sculptures in public places required to do the same? I am a member of MIA, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. I regularly see groups of school children visit the place, as a matter of fact, they regularly have a special children’s day. There are no restrictions as to which areas of the museum are open to the children, including the photography exhibits. Apparently there is no potential harm to children in a museum or in public places, why should this blog be any different?
Are you suggesting that any of the work shown in this article is pornographic in nature?
DeleteI never said that.
DeleteThen why do you want a warning on this site because the content might be harmful to children?
DeleteBy the way, are you asking for the same warnings at museums and other places that depict the human form by way of paintings, sculptures...?
DeleteIt's not the photographs here that are harmful to children, it is the puritanical, out-of-touch-with-this-world attitude of some individuals and parents that puts children into a utopian environment that has little connection to reality. Then, when these children enter the real world, they often have difficulties to cope with reality.
DeleteI can't believe that Facebook is incapable of distinguishing between valid photojournalism and objectionable photographs.
ReplyDelete