I’ve been pondering the notion of the “negative reaction” Facebook strives to avoid by shielding us from non-sexual nudity, breastfeeding, and figurative works of art completed after 1980:
If I draw a model that happens to be nude, and then post that drawing on Facebook, anyone who is offended by nudity will be uncomfortable with my image, despite it not being created with an intention to affront. Fair enough, it is not the objective of my figure drawing to offend people.
So to take intention out of the dialogue, Facebook assumes responsibility for the global response to the work, and simply discourages the images being seen. The end result is that even though the artist, the nursing mom, or the Spanish sunbather didn’t mean to offend anyone, their potentially offensive images won’t be circulated. We see these “moral guidelines” as respecting the personal values and religious beliefs of an audience.
But what is the difference between an image and an idea?
Donald Trump intentionally offends people, but not with a photo of a nude woman, but rather by expressing ideas that are sexist, vulgar, racist, and fascist, on a global platform. If Facebook, or any other information channel, were to prevent us from hearing his views that would be censorship, consequently he is free to offend with the full cooperation of the media.
I’m not offended by female nudity, but I am very offended by sexist and degrading ideas about women, so today’s drawing is of someone that truly offends me, and an indecent quote he made in conversation to Esquire magazine.
I was going to draw him naked…but that would likely have been removed…Trump