In an act of banality, Facebook has censored a nude painting from Australian artist Nanette Clifton, deciding the delicate watercolour was as offensive as soulless sex industry images.
The image is part of an online gallery curated by Gold Coast artist Ilia Chidzey. Ilia was hoping to use it as a promotional image targeted at a Facebook group of adults interested in art and design.
However, Facebook was having none of it.
Ilia is beyond frustrated at having been dictated to by Facebook. “When they told me I couldn't post the image I replied, saying I didn't understand how it could be considered offensive or sexual. Their response was, 'well, it's got nudity'. I replied again asking questions about their definition of nudity and they never responded”.
“They are an offshore company and they're making decisions on behalf of the Australian population. I chose as my demographic artists and designers in Australia over 18 years of age. Surely they have the intelligence to look at that information, assess it and realise the images is suitable instead of acting like some kind of thought police.
“I find it offensive, hypocritical, and demeaning to the nature of art. It's almost like telling you there's something wrong about your own body. The body is a beautiful thing and art elevates it and celebrates it. The nude is reclining, it's peaceful, it's just lying there being itself, being natural and for some reason this is considered offensive. They've reduced it to a kind of Benny Hill mindset: there's a bottom on it, that's rude”.
Ostensibly, the intentions behind Facebook's nudity rules are good – to protect children from seeing offensive images and to maintain a level of dignity for the Facebook empire. But in this instance, Facebook has made a decision on behalf of a group of adults about what images they should and shouldn't see. And the image in question is one that would never be censored in the Australian media.
Australian online gallery Artvoyeur [Warning: explicit material] had a similar experience when Facebook claimed the gallery was involved in the promotion of sexual services and was banned from using Facebook advertising.
The big question is, are the rules being used to purposefully censor art (while actually offensive material flies under the radar with its technical rule-adherence)? Or is Facebook simply operating like a massive automaton, only able to follow a set of rules and incapable of independent thought.
