Censors as art

[davidbeckphoto]

In a lot of my photos, I censor the parts that aren't allowed on social media for 3 reasons:

1 - Most of my photos are shared through social media, and I don't want to get my accounts deleted. I'm findable online, but the moderators have asked me not to link to my site.

2 - I think a censor can add to a photo in a couple of ways. First, it leaves comething to the imagination. The positive / negative impact of that one is debateable, and I'm still experimenting with that as a concept. Second, I think it can actually strengthen the impact of the image by removing the crudeness. I was watching Rick and Morty the other night, and I noticed that in the funniest moment in the episode, they censored Rick's f-bomb with a regular "bleep!" sound and it was hilarious.

Then I remembered that I'd heard Rick drop an f-bomb uncensored earlier in the episode, and immediately realized why the writers did what they did. If the joke had been uncensored, it would have come off as just another brash, crude Rick statement, and would barely be funny. It would have been almost uncomfortable.

The censor allowed the content of the joke to be delivered without the harsh sound of the f-word messing it up.

3 - As I've mentioned in a previous thread, most images today are viewed and shared through social media and therefore are censored if they contain nudity. The publications that make use of nude imagery can't afford to not use social media, so they've started sharing censored imagery, causing a massive shift in the way things look.

My point is, it's a look now. It's part of our culture, and for the most part, self-censoring is the most effective way to engage a mainstream audience, so those are the images that end up being distributed.

I don't believe all images should be censored or uncensored - there's a time and a place - but I do believe it can be an artistic tool that benefits an image.

Thoughts?

 

[Designer]

Thoughts?

Whether you use the pasties or not, you should have included a warning in the title: NSFW

 

[snowbear]

but the moderators have asked me not to link to my site.

This is not exactly true. You were told to post the content with specific conditions, not that you couldn't post it at all.
Do photos need to "represent" something or have deeper meaning?

If you wish to post such content or discuss it in this way you will have to pm our admin for permission to access the NSFW section of the site. IT also should go without saying that such links should have a NSFW warning in the thread title as well.

 

[davidbeckphoto]

Thoughts?

Whether you use the pasties or not, you should have included a warning in the title: NSFW

There's nothing NSFW about this post. No images, no links, not even profanity, and I didn't direct anybody to my site in any way.

Are you saying I have to say NSFW every time I open my mouth because I'm me?

Talk about censorship...

 

[tirediron]

Thoughts?

I don't really see how brightly coloured graphics add to an image. Careful use of clothing, limbs, or surrounding objects? Sure. Shadow? Without a doubt, but some rather crude graphics makes it look to me for all the world like an extract from a Larry Flynt publication in a country that doesn't permit the display of full, frontal nudity.

 

[Designer]

Thoughts?

Whether you use the pasties or not, you should have included a warning in the title: NSFW

There's nothing NSFW about this post. No images, no links, not even profanity, and I didn't direct anybody to my site in any way.

Are you saying I have to say NSFW every time I open my mouth because I me?

Talk about censorship...

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about your original thread.