editorial: f*** censorship
WARNING: this article contains graphic images of queer art, along with some naughty words and accusations that readers may find offensive. In other words: it’s a good read.
As the technological revolution finds its footing about where to draw the line of "decency," we all have to make the decision about where to stand. Lately, social media companies have been more than happy to take the lead in the quest to find a moral high-ground, but their suspicious maneuvers have been targeting queer artists at a disproportionate and superfluous rate.
Realistically, Facebook's shareholders couldn't give two shits about what you post on the platform, as long as the stock values keep climbing. The fact that we "all" use it, and in some cases depend on it, means they stand to make fuck-loads of cash, but it also means they are particularly susceptible to public scrutiny, and thereby increasingly vulnerable to government regulation. It's no coincidence that their escalated interest in moral correctness comes alongside a national shift in political priorities, especially given the current party in power is historically pro-regulation and anti-trust.
The larger Facebook gets, the more they are forced to find ways of keeping the public satisfied that we are trusting the right conglomerate to buy and sell our personal information. The smartest move forward is to appear as though they are making headway in tackling "the problem" before anyone can scrutinize whether that problem is actually the most important to be tackling. This way, they can maintain control over the narrative, and shift the general focus of "improvement" efforts as they please.
I want to make it very clear that I'm in no way questioning Facebook's right to moderate the content that gets posted to their platform. I think the general public all-too-often cites the first amendment in circumstances where it just doesn't apply. It is a choice to use Facebook, and by singing up, we agree to follow their rules and suspend certain rights. They have the prerogative to maintain peace on their platform in whatever way they see fit. I am, however, suggesting that their motives for surging censorship efforts are iniquitous, and I see first-hand on a daily basis, artists are being hit excessively hard by these policies- especially the queer ones.
Tom Daley and Matty Lee by Jack of Hearts (Follow on Instagram) :: In the artist’s own words: “This piece was flagged by Instagram as being inappropriate because they had just started to target queer hashtags and images with pubic hair on display. I was first shadowbanned and then, after re-posting the image with smoothed over bulges and no body hair (to adhere to their guidelines), Instagram deleted my 10k follower account without notice, or ability to appeal. I lost all of my client contacts that were set out for almost 6 months in advance and to this day have yet to recover that follower count. I lost touch with many great artists and friends.”
Censorship of queer art in the name of public posturing is not an unusual tactic in the American political landscape. In 1989, the Corcoran Gallery in Washington DC was given funding from the National Endowment for the Arts to host Robert Mapplethorpe's "The Perfect Moment" exhibition tour. The gallery decided to preemptively cancel the show to appease the threat of backlash from conservative political figures and organizations, including the queer community's long-time wettest of blankets: the American Family Association. Proving the Corcoran Gallery's fears correct, the Cincinnati Museum of Art was later brought to court on obscenity charges for having shown the same exhibit. The primary offense: displaying images depicting homoerotic BDSM, including Mapplethorpe's infamous "Self Portrait, NYC"- a boundary-pushing, almost comical photograph of the artist with a bullwhip inserted in his rectum. The museum was ultimately acquitted of the charges at trial, but even though freedom of expression is often upheld by the courts, it rarely saves artists the struggle of having to justify their work to those whose claim moral superiority.
Self Portrait, NYC :: Robert Mapplethorpe :: Source: getty.edu, © Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation
Outrage about an event as potentially inconsequential as a public showing of homoerotic art, is stoked to pull focus away from other problematic conservative-backed money funnels like the prison-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, and all the other "industrial complexes" quietly controlled by private companies, but subsidized using public funds. Fortunately, in Mapplethorpe's case, the hubbub created massive public interest, and the show was arguably a huge success, but what of queer artists without his notoriety and financial connections?
There must be so much art out there in the ether, never created due to an underlying fear of social backlash. I suppose stifling that kind of creative expression is ultimately the point for many fundamentalist organizations, and politicians are just as eager as corporations like Facebook to jump on the moral bandwagon, as long as it leads everyone away from their more remunerative transgressions.
Fortunately, the queer community is always ready to take up arms in the fight for the freedom to express ourselves. Which is not to say that queers, by and large, are anti-censorship. I recently invited one gay man to like the Facebook (yep) page for dandy. His abrupt response was: "There's not one piece without a dick in somebody's mouth or ass. Hyper-sexuality is not the voice of homosexuality. Period!" he went on to inform me that he "liked the work" but that it came off as "thirsty. desperate." This outright dismissal was a complete snap judgment, of course, as anyone who has explored the site knows there are relatively few images of penetrative sex, and all of them are reasonably difficult to stumble upon. I want to make my perspective clear: I don't believe any one entity is the "voice of homosexuality," homosexuality (and by extension queerness) has many voices and each one is important to the conversation. I agree, a substantial number of those voices have negative views of hyper-sexuality, occasionally maladapted from a larger, heteronormative society that reminds us constantly that we should be ashamed of sex positivity- but it can't be denied that many of those same voices also share some positive views of hyper-sexuality. It's only natural.
I also respect that most artists we show on dandy aren't here to manufacture spank bank material. They want their perspective to be taken seriously, and their portrayal of human forms and sexual connections to be shared and appreciated without fear of being casually lumped into the category of "thirsty" pervert or "desperate" smut peddler. (No shade to the true perverts and smut peddlers, I love your work.)
It’s me! Fuck you!
Without catering too much to our mystery man's probable case of internalized homophobia, let's discuss: Why are all these queer artists so goddamn obsessed with sexy times and naughty parts? To avoid droning on ad-nauseum, I present to you this brief(ish), partially self-plagiarized list:
Hyper-sexuality is, more often than not, in the eye of the beholder. Images of full male nudity, for example, are rare in everyday life- so we are inadvertently programmed to jump to the conclusion that nude male figures have a hyper-sexual connotation.
We tend to have a visceral reaction to depictions of nudity and sex. That unusual, exciting feeling is biologically normal, but we are consistently encouraged to avoid and suppress those feelings, let alone initiate an open discussion about them. Hyper-sexuality is really just run-of-the-mill sexuality categorized as extreme to uphold puritanical social structures.
Queers are forced to spend a pretty sizable portion of our adolescence trying to figure out why everyone else is so fixated on our innate sexual desires. Many of us discover at an early age that our particular attractions to other humans are frowned upon, and we are forced to watch as people who do not understand us control the public discourse on whether our sexuality can and should be changed. Art sometimes serves merely as an outlet for expressing our overlooked views on the topic.
Art is about communicating and sharing perspectives, and the investigation of human sexuality is a unique and important part of the queer experience. Like it or not, "hyper-sexuality" (even simply for shock value) is an essential element in presenting an accurate cross-section of queer art, and when done appropriately, can be captivating and fun.
So to Facebook, and all the other social media platforms, just let the queers have our fucking art- even if it looks like porn to you sometimes. Stop staking claims of ethical righteousness to create distractions from all your other nefarious, albeit exponentially more lucrative, activities- especially personal-data mining and mass-market privacy hacking. Your obvious tactics for throwing us off your scent are becoming glaringly superficial, and punching down is quite frankly starting to make you look (for lack of a better phrase) "thirsty. Desperate."
If you or anyone you know has been put on time-out or exiled for posting their unabashedly queer art, please send the offending work to artist@dandyqueerart.com, and we will post it in our gallery of the banned.
