Our Photo Lines Are Open

The discussion du jour:

Is Flickr, as well as the other photo hosting services, simply another venue for organised crime to pander porn to a larger audience? Operators are standing by to take your calls.

I had thought I would be open to artistic expression and could appreciate fine photography despite the subject matter, yet I find that I increasingly am intolerant of salacious imagery on Flickr. Besides recently cancelling susbscriptions to several Flickr pools, I also have dropped from my contacts several excellent photographers because I have been offended by sexually suggestive material and want to avoid the opportunity for perusal.

Thomas Hawk writes:

I don’t think most people would like to see Flickr degenerate into one big porn free for all. But, on the other hand, there is a lot of great sexually suggestive work that artists have done over the years. It’s difficult to figure out where you draw the line. In the end it just may be one person’s opinion over another as to what is distasteful or porn vs. what is interesting, edgy and art.

I’m not sure where the balance actually is, but I hope that Yahoo! and Flickr get it right.

Those who know me know my inclination to point to the author’s use of the word, “but”. It is used to discount the preceding statement. In other words, Thomas Hawks on some level is saying that he does want Flickr to become a porn free-for-all. I would submit that, no matter who might be viewing such images or what might be the desires of the majority, there are other Flickr members in agreement with the allowance of sexually suggestive and even hardcore pornographic images on Flickr (Flickr Porn), or at least more liberal photo policing that allows “edgier” images.

Another thing that I have noticed; Flickr is an equal opportunity setting for pornographers, providing a international venue for a variety of preferences. It is a simple matter of marketing. Flickr is a potential market for sexually suggestive material. As other photographers do, you get viewers interested in your imagery, then direct them to other channels, i.e., websites, private groups, etc.

Something for further consideration, so far Flickr has been for still photography. One now can produce a slideshow that suggests a sequence of events; imagine these issues for video imagery. I am sure that movers and shakers of major Internet presences such as Google, MSN, and Yahoo are thinking over some of the issues. Meanwhile, with the rapid technological advance occuring with digital photography, the line between still photography and video is rapidly blurring.

Thus, while Hawks’ post recognizes that Flickr is an online community, I think that there is something more to consider. What sort of membership is Flickr trying to attract. Some of the groups that I recently dropped are intended for a wide audience with names like Flickr Addicts, Flickr Favorites, etc. The last time I checked, Flickr Central had over 6000 members. I lack a sense as to whether it matters to the majority of that group whether suggestive sexual imagery is allowed.

I do believe that that the majority of that group joined to see a selection of imagery other than pornographic. If the pornographers have a free-for-all in such mainstream groups, I would imagine that a quick drop in membership would occur.

BTW: I chose the above photograph for this post since I enjoy the photographer’s work and her particular ability to portray whimsy and because a possible description of the subject could attract prurient interest. Hey! Sex sells, baby! We’ve got to boost this weblog’s readership before…

Continue reading here: RE

Was this article helpful?

0 0