Comments on: Why does Flickr find art as offensive as porn?

By: cotton baby blanket satin trim

cotton baby blanket satin trim — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 04:09:00 +0000

cotton baby blanket satin trim

Like what you have to say. Your blog makes good since to me.

By: eyebrow scar

eyebrow scar — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:55:35 +0000

eyebrow scar

Your post is on target. Keep it up.

By: fast cash

fast cash — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:16:04 +0000

fast cash

Good observation, your ideas are right on.

By: fiona

fiona — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:01:05 +0000

Thank you all for your comments. As you say Mandi, there is no other place like it. http://www.deviantart.com is pretty good but not as good as Flickr and I’ve just heard about http://www.zooomr.com which gives free pro accounts to bloggers and they host photos and are art friendly! Hooray! They also do track backs so you can see if anyone else has blogged your images. It’s new and I havn’t tried it yet but check it out. You might like it!

By: remedy

remedy — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:28:36 +0000

so, has anyone found a new site for artists? i have enjoyed what freedoms there are in flickr. i know that it could be better. please email me with the art photo host site.

politics are pornography,
just the same as the python swallowing the white rat.
its getting better.
sab

By: Murat

Murat — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:49:03 +0000

With its smooth interface and generous capacity Flickr won our hearts. Then brake our hearts very badly.
I’ve been writing about this to Flickr forums and then actually directly to the Flickr staff, and it wasn’t much polite either. As I consider the disrespectfulness an insult, I coulden’t hold my words back.
Flicker has a NIPSA ideology which means they consider all ‘non photo’ images as “Not In Public Site Areas” which is a result of basic ignorance lacks the knowledge that even a photo which hasn’t been processed by an image manuplation application (like PhotoShop) is already a mechanical and electronical visional interpretation of the camera and its designers not the reality. Then comes: What if I alter colors via PhotoShop; what if I put a few brush strokes via Painter; what if I shoot a portrait in front of a pinting; what if my model goes away and I shoot the painting only; what if I scan the same painting rather then shooting it with a camera; what is the difference between a digital camera and a scanner (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mur58/113540756)?
Probably Flickr wants to profit from the Digital Camera market. This may be the reason they are so keen on snapshots. But this is no excuse for being hostile against art and artists.
If the Flickr has been running Louvre or Prado or MOMA nobody under 18 would let in or/and most of the pictures would be exhibited in X-rated rooms below the basement. This, I amvery to say this, remind me the Nazis culture policy which considers some modern art as ‘degeneration’.

By: Mandi

Mandi — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:43:42 +0000

Hi Fiona,

Yes, this has been in contention for some time it seems - see a thread I started in the Flickr Ideas Forums here — http://www.flickr.com/forums/ideas/26383/ — they SAY that they are going to do something about it, and that it’s not vindictive or whatever.

I am not sure about that - if you want to post and get others to post in that thread, that would be great, but my angle is not to piss them off, but rather keep putting the idea in their face so they can’t ignore it…

I know - it sucks, because flickr is such a great space, and there simply IS NO OTHER place like it - there are other image sharing spaces, but not like flickr.

And my other angle is that where do they draw the line between art and photography..???

Best of luck!

Mandi (babushka)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/babushka/