Everyone is saying they could have gone to X, Y or Z instead of going to OnlyFans. IMO this decision to host on OF was very deliberate. Had they gone to any other platform no one would have raised an eyebrow. But because they went to OF everyone is doing a double take because of OF's reputation.
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.
They are quoted saying as much in the NYT coverage of this story:
> 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.”
So, they’re doing this because the images constantly get flagged and reported on other social media. It doesn’t seem that hard to let users set a NSFW flag that determines whether they’re ok with nsfw content in their feed. Doesn’t Reddit do this?
> Vienna’s tourism board has started an account on OnlyFans – the only social network that permits depictions of nudity – in protest against platforms’ ongoing censorship of its art museums and galleries.
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.
Fediverse is a niche thing for people who care more about decentralisation for the sake of decentralisation rather than the actual social media aspect.
I think the decision to put it up on OF was pretty deliberate. A story about a museum opening an OnlyFans account is going to get alot more people talking than if the museum did it with the Fediverse or some other implementation.
Laws in Europe are different in the US. I used to work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where I published the entire collection online. I got calls from colleagues in Europe amazed that we didn't worry about kids seeing stuff they shouldn't. We think the US is puritan but the decision that anything with merit can't be judged obscene actually protects us.
protip: nothing gets judged as legally obscene in the US as nobody wants the actual decisive court case. Supreme Court has left a carveout that things can distinctly be considered obscene, but nobody has gone that far. they made new carveouts for child sexual depictions even it not passing the obscenity test. More recently, 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, of course since the law firms suing over piracy are just spraying and praying, they don't want an actual trial. This area is not resolved and likely won't ever be.
Meanwhile we have hundreds of videos of a man being brutally chopped off his hand, hung upside down while he bleeds, then legs chopped off and finally dies gasping all over Twitter and Facebook, for anyone to see, even kids who stumble upon it. Apparently such content doesn't harm users as much as some Renaissance nudes.
America was founded by Protestants and it shows. Nudity and sexuality is basically the most cardinal sin, above any type of violence even.
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.
Twitter and Facebook are full of this stuff, but what Hollywood puts out isn't any less gruesome, though probably more realistic in the sense that they tend to make sure that all the gory stuff is in good close-up instead of just overview shots.
I agree with the sentiment. My theory is that while the stuff you name is indeed horrifying, the issue with sexuality is that it acts like a drug (it changes your behavior chemically, can be addictive, etc.) and it’s a combination of (a) kids haven’t learned how to “handle their liquor” in that department yet, and (b) many adults have also not learned how to do that and so find it difficult to engage in that topic conversationally, and so avoid the topic in the guise of protecting the children. The violence you describe above is less complicated: it’s bad. Not a lot of nuance there.
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).
Yea I never understood why there's such a crusade to go after people with pictures of nude children on their phones/computers but no one seems to give a shit about someone who collects footage of people (children included!) being brutally tortured and murdered...if we're assembling lists of people we don't like I feel like that should also make the list.
It's not america's fault, but the rest of the world's. Unfortunately europe has rendered itself completely dependent on US media to the point where i don't know any sites where i could discuss matters from european perspective. There are only local language sites.
There is definitely a lot of art that is "adult" for one reason or other. If I walked into my kids' daycare to see a reproduction of [0] on the wall, I'd definitely raise an eyebrow, and even [1] is probably enough to scare smaller children. We've kind of grown numbed to the iconography, but even as an older teenager I was fairly shocked by a closer look at [2].
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.
Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with class.
I'm not sure it's Puritan so much as it's modern society's strange desire to sexualize everything while also keeping sexuality behind glass, figuratively speaking.
Or is this a clever art installation in itself commenting on ideas like censorship and views of the human body in modern society? I think this is ridiculously clever!
I don't know. I used to want to be able to draw like Egon Schiele. Back when I was in art school they had an assignment where you drew a self portrait in the style of another artist so I did Egon. Didn't do the full nude but you know. The guy could draw. Still wish I could draw like that but wishes aren't paychecks.
People taking the subway to work might not want to see all that.
As an artist I avoid sharing over the internet oil nudes, anatomy sketches or artistic nude photography. I made the last attempt in early 2013 trough Instagram. Quickly realizing the big mistake I deleted my account and never come back.
This are the new times. We will adapt as always.
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 don't think it's necessarily about being puritan.
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.
I’m glad that nude artwork is filtered out from the mainstream, because if it weren’t, the art world would become even more faddish and attention-seeking. I can’t even search YouTube for recipes or offgrid videos anymore, because the top results are always a woman in a sexualized pose.
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.
They could also host these on their own website, but of course that doesn’t sound as flashy.
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.
I knew very little about OnlyFans, and when I went looking for more information I found this line on Wikipedia:
"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."
[+] [-] _fat_santa|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|4 years ago|reply
> 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...
[+] [-] imgabe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rapnie|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jstx1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niij|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makeworld|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _fat_santa|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt_morgan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elmicha|4 years ago|reply
https://vimeo.com/tag:nudity
[+] [-] dwighttk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Santosh83|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zpeti|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jacquesm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hairofadog|4 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] jliptzin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] astura|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NikolaeVarius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bayart|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yosito|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microtherion|4 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] pjc50|4 years ago|reply
(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 )
[+] [-] kome|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ravenstine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadilay|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdoms|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stampo00|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
Its just the platforms in a country populated and founded by ideological and religious extremists kicked out of Europe
[+] [-] rufus_foreman|4 years ago|reply
People taking the subway to work might not want to see all that.
[+] [-] stayux|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] SergeAx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sebow|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tisthetruth|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nsonha|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YetAnotherNick|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disneygibson|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jikbd|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] qualudeheart|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inetsee|4 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] jamesmishra|4 years ago|reply
I imagine this requirement makes OnlyFans a very unattractive website for child pornographers and other people guilty of federal crimes.