deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Details

April 11, 2011
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 44
Favourites: 0
Views: 1,064 (0 today)
[x]
As anticipated, my wonderful image The Sacred Body 12 depicting Michael Cooney's very handsome and very erect cock (it's been the single most discussed and debated image on Deviant Art for many months) has now finally been reported for a Policy Violation and sadly is now banned forever.

Yes, incredibly, this masterpiece of fine-art erotic photography was deemed to be in violation of DA's rules on the display of explicit pornography. Yes, I know, hard to believe. Ah well, a prophet is never welcomed in his own land ... I will now take my wonderful image and display it elsewhere! Haha, that will show 'em ...

Anyway, I'm pleased to report that if you hurry, you can still see a thumbnail of this now infamous image here, in Super Group Votre-Charme's very fine collection of Monday Erotica V111: [link]

Don't blame me if you're corrupt and depraved afterwards though.

Kind regards to all,
Mike.
  • Listening to: Silence
  • Reading: Nothing
  • Watching: Nothing
  • Playing: Nothing
  • Eating: Nothing
  • Drinking: Nothing
Add a Comment:
 
:iconunbearable-lightness:
This image [link] has been reported three times and three times dA admin refused to remove it (click on Report This and you can see all the info. Yet, your image was removed.
Reply
:iconsolus-photography:
Thank you, yes it's hard to understand how the item shown in that link survived scrutiny. Pictures like the one of Michael & Alex are always liable to be butchered without some kind of subjective evaluation of the 'art' versus the 'porn' in the work.

If DA cant manage that much, the website could at least improve relationships with client artists by dropping the attribution of 'explicit pornography' to works like these altogether, and instead state something neutral, like 'Breaches Rules' or 'Content Outside Guidelines' as the basis for rejection.

To reject the Michael Coonely image on grounds of explicit pornography while displaying images like this one [link] is absurd.

Kind regards,
Mike.
Reply
:iconunbearable-lightness:
Yes, it is, Mike. And it burns me up! I have to wonder how something like that gets through 3 reports and yours went down for nothing. Only the tip of a penis cannot conclusively be ruled ERECT. It is not the tip that signifies erection, and I can't believe the dA administration knows nothing about this anatomy. It was wrong in the first place, without this comparison.

So what the reason for the removal of your work, really?
Reply
:iconsolus-photography:
Reasons can be supplied on many levels and I don't know enough about how DA works to give a full answer. Something's missing from the scrutiny the art receives though if images like the one you highlighted can pass the test and mine can't. I like systemic explanations. I don't believe the 'rules' need to be changed (though I wouldn't at mind at all if they were). In my opinion don't need less rules, we need a wider, different, more inclusive interpretation of them. Plenty of shots I see on this website are pornographic and there isn't an erect penis in any of them! And plenty of porn is also 'art'. It needs an expansive and educated human mind to tell the difference.
Reply
:iconunbearable-lightness:
I agree. An erect penis does NOT pornography make. It's the artistry of the work, not the isolated contents of it. Unfortunately, the admins don't seem to be artists.
Reply
:iconsolus-photography:
Nope, they are merely technicians, and probably lowly paid ones too, why should they care? It does intrigue me though: how many nude images get reported every day? How many reported violations are sustained? How many people do this work every day? What are they 'told' to do? Do they have other duties as well? ... I bet the training they get for the enforcement end of their work is minimal, and they have a million other things to do as well.
Reply
:iconunbearable-lightness:
In your case, I can't believe the picture was removed and that an admin came by to say it was a no-brainer. Something smells in the state of dA.
Reply
:iconjanmurphyphoto:
~JanMurphyPhoto Apr 13, 2011  Professional Photographer
I had no clue about this but thanks for bringing to my attention. Nice to get some fame huh.
Reply
:iconsolus-photography:
Thanks Jan, perhaps notoriety might be a better word. Kind regards, Mike.
Reply
:iconjanmurphyphoto:
~JanMurphyPhoto Apr 14, 2011  Professional Photographer
Totally passed me by. Did you do this for the shock value? Was it intentional basically?
Reply
Add a Comment: