Moral policing upsets social network users
Melbourne-based photographer Christopher Rimmer travelled to Africa to shoot pictures for an upcoming exhibition documenting the continent’s tribal culture. But little did he know that the breastfeeding photos, a sample of his work featuring bare-breasted Himba women on Facebook would be deemed “unsuitable for children”. The following removal of the photographs by Facebook, saying that they violated the site’s terms of use policy, has not only offended the artist, but it has also left many wondering what exactly constitutes art.
Art critic Ananya Das says, “I didn’t know that social networking sites are for kids too. Facebook saying that the photos are inappropriate for children goes against its own claim that Facebook shouldn’t be used by children. More than anything else we must understand the difference between pornography and documenting human experience.”
Breastfeeding is a perfectly natural and beautiful act. Netizens argue how can it be considered obscene? PR professional Pawan Hora too thinks that the photographer has every right to showcase his work on Facebook and his irritation is quite justified. “Social networking sites provide a popular mode to let people know about your work. It should be spared of moral policing. Facebook is anyways not for kids and people who are there are mature enough to take the expression of breastfeeding to be natural and not vulgar,” he adds.
There is a very thin line between aestheticism and vulgarity. An aesthetically done artwork for one can be an example of obscenity for the other. Ultimately it all boils down to one’s thinking process.
A few days back, trainer Shiv Sood got a request from a guy, who was topless in his profile picture because he thought he has a great body. He says, “I declined the request not because I didn’t know the person, but because I wouldn’t want my friends to know that I am friends with someone as cheesy as him. If banning photographs of a mother feeding her child is profanity, what is this then? Where is the check? On Facebook itself there is an option for ‘Open Relationship’. Isn’t that inviting enough? I know of filmstars who put half-naked photographs on Twitter because this gets their websites more hits. This is a hypocrite business model.”
However, designer Nisha Jamvwal believes that social networking sites are subject to arbitration as they are set up by private bodies who run them, finance them, work on them and so have every right to call the shots. She explains, “While I feel the argument about art being liberated is not incorrect. Here I feel that if Facebook and its founder do not control content it could become an insufferable place to spend such happy moments. Also social networking sites are an extension of society, where one cannot roam nude. Similarly in a virtual society, we have to observe some rules. As it is I see girls with obscene display pictures and that is offensive.”
Post new comment