Tsk, Tsk, Titian

The AFP:

India on Tuesday vowed to ban offensive material from the Internet after Facebook, Google and other major firms told the government they were unable to screen content before it was posted.

"My aim is that insulting material never gets uploaded," Sibal told reporters in New Delhi. "We will evolve guidelines and mechanisms to deal with the issue.

"They will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it."

Sibal said the government supported free speech and was against censorship but that some material on the Internet was so offensive that no one would find it acceptable.

We go round and round about this stuff all the time.

Let's take that last sentence:

"Sibal said the government supported free speech and was against censorship [nonsense; you want to censor something] but that some material on the Internet [what are the limits of "some" material] was so offensive [eye of the beholder, so forth] that no one would find it acceptable [define "no one." Define "acceptable"]."

Ah, the slippery language of a censor looking for someone to hang.

The goal of censors is always the same. It's not about eliminating the art/photos/text itself, it's about eliminating the person behind it. If you control language, you control thought. The ultimate power trip comes from two little words: Shut Up.

Hence, Sibal's statement: "They will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it."

You have to respect Sibal for his honesty. Canada is really no better than India in regards to censorship. Various "human rights" commissions in Canada run roughshod over free speech all the time, and drag all kinds of people into the star chamber for punishment. At least Sibal has the guts to say what he means.

In the meantime, until someone decides that Titian was way out of line and shuts down the Internet, enjoy gazing upon his Venus of Urbino (turn your head if you're offended).

The Artist's "Duty"

Via Steyn, via Scaramouche, quoting the Montreal Gazette:

Editorial cartoonists have a duty...

And that's where I stop reading.

I find nothing more insipid than anyone telling artists (whether they be cartoonists, painters, sculptors, writers, film directors, so forth) what their "duty" is.

There are no guidelines for art, and there are no "duties" artists need follow. None. Catching hell for written libel is one thing, doing your "duty" as an artist is quite another. When someone says that an artist has a duty to do something, they mean they wish artists would shut up and do things their way.

Here's what I had to say a couple of weeks back when Kathleen Parker pulled the same stunt. It bears repeating:

2) Who is Kathleen Parker to tell cartoonists what they have to be aware of? There's only two things cartoonists need to know: the paper in front of them, and the pen in their hand.

A painter's only duty is to paint. A writer's only duty is to write. A cartoonist's only duty is to draw. A filmmaker's only duty is to roll camera. All of those duties are to themselves. If they go broke, then they didn't find an audience. Maybe they'll take it up as a hobby. But no one should tell them which parts of life are off limits.


Blake's The Blasphemer.

Pretty Women, Petty Readers

All right, so maybe I'm a broken record on this topic, but I wish people would lighten up.

Please tell me what is wrong with pretty women? There seem to be an awful lot of people out there that are offended by something nice to look at.

Take the Post. They ran a cover story about two models, one male, one female. To the horror of readers, they even included a couple of pictures. Here's a couple of letters the Post received after the disturbing images went to print:

“I was quite flabbergasted to find these two models gracing your front page,” wrote J. Raj. “Since when do we take credit for physical attributes that have nothing to do with our efforts and performance? And, looking at people disrobing or revealing their physical attributes is not the reason I buy the Post. There are more pressing issues that need our attention.”

“I have a question for the people who decided to put the picture of Jayde Nicole on the front page: Are you sure you would have wanted younger friends and/or relatives to see it?” asked David W. Lincoln. “If ‘no’ is the answer, why are you treating your audience as second class? What isn’t good enough for your younger friends and relatives ought not to be good enough for anyone.”

Oh, get over yourselves. And as for whether or not I would want my relatives to see the pic of Playmate Jayde Nicole, I can't speak for them, but if they didn't forward me the pic, I'd be pissed.

The Post isn't alone. The old time artists caught some grief for the shocking image of a human body. Here's Goya's Nude Maja, and Clothed Maja. There's all kind of rumours for why he painted the second clothed version, but no one is certain. The best guess is that people freaked at the first full-on depiction of pubic hair in Western art (over 150 years before the Pubic Wars of Playboy/Penthouse). Rather than paint over the original, Goya created a whole new painting. Today, they hang together in the Museo del Prado.

To me, the nude is a beautiful piece of art, while the clothed version looks like he painted it in an afternoon while muttering, "Fine, here you go, prudish morons."





Photo Jayde Nicole: National Post

Première Femme - Update

The Bruni portrait I wrote about a while back finally sold for $91,000, a hell of a lot more than they originally estimated.

In related news, a portrait of Brigitte Bardot (right) sold for almost two hundred grand. It wasn't this photo, but it'll do.

I should have studied harder in Meet Celebs and Take Their Picture class.

More on the story here.

Lighting Tips from 500 Years Ago

I taped these the other day, but didn't get around to posting them until now. I probably shouldn't be posting these on the day of mighty Earth Hour but, well, screw it. In my line of work, I worship electricity. Just the thought of turning off a 1000w bulb makes me sad.

Here's some lighting tips from 500 years ago. Two parts.

Part 1

Part 2