In "Hey Kids, Let's Open A Pandora's Box," Mason Resnick makes a number of reasoned arguments in favor of a policy of avoiding links to nudity of any kind. Unfortunately, reasoned though his arguments are, they are all flawed. I submit that this policy is itself flawed as well. Resnick's first argument is perhaps the most flawed. He writes, "I have found that if there is no nudity on a web site, nobody misses it. Next month will be Black & White World's 4th Anniversary (!) and in the entire time I've only had one email complaining that there should be links to nudes." This may be true, but it misses a very important conceptual point. Let's assume for a minute that Rsnick's objection was not to nudes, but was to a different photographic subject--landscapes, say. For whatever reason, Black and White World's policy was not to link to sites containing landscape photography. It's quite likely that nobody would "miss" the landscapes; nobody would send email saying "You should link to pictures of landscapes!" Yet how poor indeed would be a site dedicated to the art of black and white photography if it could not discuss and present the works of Ansel Adams. The fact that people do not send email to complain does not indicate that, therefore, the site is no poorer for it.

Yes, there is a great deal of "fantastic photography out there" which contains no nudity, just as there is a great deal of fantastic photography which does not contain landscapes. Nevertheless, no treatment of the medium is or ever can be complete if it does not examine the works of Ansel Adams, and the works of photographers like Herb Ritts, Man Ray, and Robert Mapplethorpe. Regardless of whether or not you may find the depictions of the vistas of Yosemite Park or the exploration of the human form to be appropriate, the undeniable fact is that these artists have left a significant mork on the medium of black-and-white photography, and any exploration of that medium which does not consider their contributions must always be flawed and incomplete. And understanding of an artist's contribution to any medium can not ever be had without an understanding of that artist's works.

Resnick also writes, "I am gratified that students--especially grade school and high school students--visit Black & White World often, and a side benefit of the no-nudes policy is that this particular audience can come here and not be made to sift through material that may make them feel uncomfortable or lead them in an inappropriate direction." This is, I think, a spurious argument. Philosophically, one of the functions of art has ALWAYS been to make the audience "feel uncomfortable;" it does not matter if we are discussing the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci or Dante's "Divine Comedy." To believe that an exploration of any form of art should make nobody uncomfortable seems at best naive. Naive, too, is the idea that by not linking directly to sites which contain nudity, a service is somehow being done to children. If this idea is followed to its logical conclusion, Resnick's policy should be amended to prohibit linking to sites which themselves link to sites that contain nudity; for if Resnick feels a moral responsibility to children who leave his site and arrive at a destination which is "inappropriate," does not this moral responsibility extend one more click down the line? Through how many Web links does moral responsibility pass before it expires? One? Two? Seven? Given seven clicks, I can find nudity from the purest of religious sites!

The next argument--the Argument from Legality--seems particularly suspect. Resnick says "Then there's that finnicky legal issue: is it Porn?" The law and reason both come down squarely on this question: Nudity, of and by itself, does not equal pornography. Yes, there are expressions of photographic work which straddle the gray line between art and pornography. That does not mean that all art which depicts nudity is equally ill-defined. There are also expressions of artistic work which contain nudity and are clearly NOT pornography; I submit Resnick's own example, Michaelangelo's "David," as one illustration. The idea that a work which contains nudity must always be difficult to define as pornographic or not is legally and culturally unsupportable. And then we reach the final, and most interesting, of Resnick's arguments. Resnick writes, "There is a wonderful book called /Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore? Reclaiming Intimacy, Modesty, And Sexuality/ by Manis Friedman. The gist of the book is that many of the ills of our society can be traced to the fact that our culture looks down on modesty and encourages public displays of the human body, through modes of dress, what you read in magazines and advertising, as a form of self expression." According to this book, "People are less likely to blish because things that would have made us blush a generation ago are now part of popular culture. The book goes on to encourage readers to reserve healthy enjoyment of their bodies and their sexuality for their private lives, and that true freedom comes from public expressions of modesty." An interesting idea indeed. Resnick says "I like this concept," and it's easy to see why. The idea that the ills of society can have a reasonable explanation--you need only point at this one thing and say "Here! Here is why this problem exists!"--is very seductive. But it doesn't bear close scrutiny, for two reasons. First, this argument is hardly compelling when one looks at the historical and cultural record. Yes, our society has problems; of course it does! Every human society which has ever existed or will ever exist has problems. Immanuel Kant said, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made." Yet I would not for an instant trade the social woes of modern America for those of the ever-so-modest Victorian England, where physical and sexual abuse of children was the unspoken norm and the role of woman in society at large was somewhat less significant than that of her master's horse. Modern-day Afghanistan is a paragon of modesty; women may not show even a single square inch of skin in public, on pain of beating; shall we conclude from this degree of modesty that this society must be Utopian indeed? Even a cursory look at the record is sufficient to reject catagorically the idea of a casual link between degree of public modesty and the ills of society.

This argument fails on a second level as well. There is a catagorical difference between the exploration of the human form in art and public immodesty. Even the Catholic Church, for centuries committed to an unwaveringly conservative view of public decency, has sponsored works containing depictions of nudity; and there is no contradiction here. I doubt that even Manis Friedman would attempt the claim that what goes on in a life-drawing class is fundamentally the same as the sorts of immodesty immodestly ascribed as the sun source of modern social ills!

Ultimately, though, the question is not about whether or not anybody will "miss" links to nudity on this Web site; and ultimately it's not even about whether or not people can go elsewhere to find nudity. What it comes down to is this: Is this site, which is dedicated to the exploration of a particular medium of art, the best that it possibly can be? I submit that if this site, as a resource for understanding and exploring the art of the black and white photograph, catagorically rejects one entire class of photographic expression, then the answer is "No." It doesn't matter if the class of expression being summarily rejected is depiction of the nude human form, or depiction of landscape photography, or even depiction of any scene containing a halibut.

Understanding any medium and any kind of art requires--no, demands--understanding of both the masters of that medium, and of the kinds of expression which are possible in that medium. Catagorically refusing to explore and understand one particular class of subject matter in the exploration of that medium makes one's comprehension shallower, not deeper. Refusal to consider significant works of art because of their subject matter makes this site, as a resource, weaker, not stronger. Separating artistic expression into "acceptable" and "unacceptable" classes makes understanding of ALL artistic expression narrower, not wider. If this site considers certain forms of ex

-- Franklin Veaux (tacitr@aol.com), October 26, 1999

Answers

Hey, no sweat, Mason. Hang in there baby. I like necked bodies better in dirty videos, anyhow. Mitch

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 26, 1999.

Franklin,

Parts of your argument I agree with, others I see as specious, specifically the analogy to landscapes and the idea of challenging minors with nudity (I'm not trying to offend you there - the latter is obviously not what you said, but the practical effect would be the same).

Alternately, would I wish to be deprived of Michelangelo's David or Botticelli's Venus? Of course not. Or in a different vein, some of Bruegel's works (e.g., The Triumph of Death) are downright gruesome, but nonetheless wonderful.

So having said that, the proof of the wisdom of Mason's stance on this issue is to my mind embodied in our very messages; reasonable people have reasonable, but passionate and diametrically opposed viewpoints on this issue. I come to this site to help advance my command of photography. Period. I have no objection to nudes and in fact appreciate many of the examples I have seen, but if I feel the need to see them, it is perfectly easy to go elsewhere to find them. And to have them here would only serve to clutter the core purpose and inevitably foment debate to no useful end.

Said another way, would their inclusion add something? Possibly. But it would certainly detract far more than it would add. Let's keep it simple.

And speaking as the father of two children and as one whose interest in photography dates back to my childhood and stems largely from the tutelage of interested, kind, and responsible adults, I value those few places where my children can go, virtually or in reality, free from the excessive and premature clutter of sexual tension latent in society today.

Gee, that got far heavier than I intended.

With respect,

Chris

-- Chris Werner (cbwerner@att.net), October 26, 1999.

One of the things I've discovered this month is that "Pandora's Box" has turned out to be a very apt title!

You've made some well-reasoned, if time-worn, arguments in favor of nudity, but unfortunately you've also made some assumptions about my reasons for the "No Nudes" policy which are simply false. To wit:

It's quite likely that nobody would "miss" the landscapes; nobody would send email saying "You should link to pictures of landscapes!"

Actually, a few people have politely suggested I link to MORE pictures of Ansel-type images. But you're right, it's unlikely people will complain about the absence of something. OTOH, I did get a few complaints on the handful of occasions when I did link to nudes in the past.

Resnick feels a moral responsibility to children who leave his site and arrive at a destination which is "inappropriate," does not this moral responsibility extend one more click down the line? Through how many Web links does moral responsibility pass before it expires? One? Two? Seven? Given seven clicks, I can find nudity from the purest of religious sites!

Ahh, but can you find a religious site seven clicks from a site with nudity?

My "moral responsibility" is not to link directly to sites that contain nudity. That's all. What the owners of the sites I link to link to from their sites is not and should not be any of my business.

The next argument--the Argument from Legality--seems particularly suspect. Resnick says "Then there's that finnicky legal issue: is it Porn?"

Um, you forgot my next sentence: "I don't know and frankly, that side of it never really concerned me. The law keeps on changing anyway." Please if you quote me, do so in context. I believe the second second completely changes the meaning of the first--which is why I wrote it--and neutralizes your entire argument regarding the legal aspect.

I agree with you that nudity, of and by itself, does not equal pornography, but based on 4 years reviewing URL submissions I feel the lines have become irreversably blurred. Unfortunately I've seen sites that are advertise in email submissions for the Top Ten as "tasteful erotic photography" that turn out to be softcore or even hardcore porn. I don't have the stomach to risk being forced by misleading email to view this garbage in the interests of "understanding the medium". The ideal you espouse is a fine concept, but it simply falls apart in the cyber-trenches.

Yet I would not for an instant trade the social woes of modern America for those of the ever-so-modest Victorian England, where physical and sexual abuse of children was the unspoken norm and the role of woman in society at large was somewhat less significant than that of her master's horse.

Neither would I. Read the book and you'll see that the author agrees with you, too.

Modern-day Afghanistan is a paragon of modesty; women may not show even a single square inch of skin in public, on pain of beating; shall we conclude from this degree of modesty that this society must be Utopian indeed?

No, we can conclude that Afghanistan is a brutal, repressive, sexist regime. This comparison is quite a leap of logic! Freidman's argument is that every individual is free to express themselves any way they wish--but that our society would benefit if more individuals were more restrained in their behavior. He does not say this should be legislated or imposed in any way. If he did, I wouldn't have recommended his book.

I submit that if this site, as a resource for understanding and exploring the art of the black and white photograph, catagorically rejects one entire class of photographic expression, then the answer is "No." It doesn't matter if the class of expression being summarily rejected is depiction of the nude human form, or depiction of landscape photography, or even depiction of any scene containing a halibut.

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm glad you shared it. I'm sorry if B&W World does not completely meet your standards, but I do hope it has helped you on some level, as it apparently has helped many others.

In any case, I'll be writing about my new "No Halibuts" policy soon :-)

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 26, 1999.

Chris Werner writes, "Parts of your argument I agree with, others I see as specious, specifically the analogy to landscapes and the idea of challenging minors with nudity (I'm not trying to offend you there - the latter is obviously not what you said, but the practical effect would be the same)." I don't think either argument is specious. With regard to the landscape analogy: I think that almost anyone familiar with the works of Ansel Adams would say that a discussion of the art of the black and white photograph would always be incomplete if it did not consider his works and his contribution to the medium. I similarly think that a discussion of the art of black and white photography is, and must always be, incpomplete if it disregards /any/ subject matter. You can argue, of course, that the landscapes of Adams have had a greater impact on the medium of black and white photography than, say, the nudes of Mapplethorpe; however, the fact remains that catagorically refusing to consider the contributions or the works of either photographer must diminish one's understanding of the medium as a whole. You can't separate the medium from the subject.

Of course I'm not suggesting challenging minors with nudity; my goal was simply to say that refusing to consider a subject matter just because it might make someone uncomfortable is not a valid way to explore artistic expression. The B&W Photography site /does/, in fact, link to sites that almost certainly will make some people uncomfortable! So that argument, of and by itself, is not compelling to justify refusal to link to any site containing nudity. In fact, if you take that argument to its logical extreme, you will find you can't link to sites containing anything more challenging than crushed-velvet paintings of dogs playing poker! (And even that may offend some people--myself, for example.)

Chris also says, "I come to this site to help advance my command of photography. Period." I submit that the discussion of whether or not links to sites containing nudity is highly relevant to the goal of advancing your command of photography. I can't speak directly to your skills as a photographer, but I know that I can myself learn a great deal from the likes of Man Ray and Herb Ritts. Again, you can't separate the subject from the medium; I believe very strongly that the best way to advance your own command of the medium is to study as many of the masters of that medium as possible, and as many different kinds of works in that medium as you can. Catagoric refusal to study one particular form of expression in the medium is not the best way to achieve mastery of the medium; in fact, I would suggest that it cannot help but /decrease/ your understanding of the medium, or at the very least impose a limit on how far your understanding of the medium can go!

Finally, Chris says: "And to have [links to nudity] here would only serve to clutter the core purpose and inevitably foment debate to no useful end." Which is, as this message thread indicates, precisely what /not/ having them is doing; although I for one would argue that debate does /not/ have "no useful end." Debate, just as much as study, is a useful and necessary tool to inc

-- Franklin Veaux (tacitr@aol.com), October 27, 1999.

My own site (Unblinkingeye.com) does not have a no-nudes policy, but I don't hold Mason's policy against him, nor do I plaster nudes all over my own site just to make sure people know I'm pro-nude. Black and White World is an EXCELLENT site, and the photographic world would be poorer without it. It isn't possible for any site to be all things to all people.

I believe we should appreciate the beauty of the human form and, in general, be more comfortable with our own bodies, but a lot of people disagree and I respect their opinions. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere--Mason has drawn his a few yards to the right of mine, but that's okay.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), October 27, 1999.

Thanks for the complement, Ed! BTW Unblinking Eye is also a terrific site and fills an important niche. I encourage everyone who like B&W World to check it out.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), October 27, 1999.

And then there is the fact that this "is" Mason's site. And that is that. Thankyou Mason. No nudes is good nudes. James

-- lumberjack (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 28, 1999.

How about a site with images of nude photographers making portraits of fully clothed models? Maybe even over-dressed models?

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.

The greatest value I get from this site is the interactive discussions in these bulletin boards. The No Nudes policy does not keep anyone from starting a discussion in this forum on approaches to photographing the human form (nude or otherwise), and while a picture may be worth a thousand words, the discussion of technique would still be valuable to the community at large. If images are requested to illustrate examples, we all display an e-mail address with our posts, and can exchange those images in that manner, or send URLs privately.

I agree with the statements that the nude has played a significant role in the world of B&W photography. The fasination with the human form strikes deeply in our collective mind. Capturing its image in our medium of choice is worthy of discussion. I would enjoy hearing techniques and approaches exchanged here.

If, however, Mason has recieved complaints when links to nude photos have been presented, then it is his perogative to institute the policy he is most comfortable with.

Just my two cents worth ;-)

-- Chip Coons (chip@bellsouth.net), October 28, 1999.

Mason Resnick writes, "You've made some well-reasoned, if time-worn, arguments in favor of nudity," to which I would reply that attributing social ills to "public immodesty" is also a somewhat time-worn argument, which dates back at least to the time of Socrates (who was decried as an "immoral corruptor of youth") and more recently to William Shakespeare, who's been accused of immodesty on literally thousands of occasions. So it seems this debate has been around for a while...

Mason then asks, "Ahh, but can you find a religious site seven clicks from a site with nudity?" The answer to that question is a resounding "yes." I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "six degrees of separation," in whihc everyone in the world (supposedly) is related to everyone else through a series of no more than six acquaintances; the Web works in much the same way. In fact, there's a game called "Chain Gang," in which two people agree on a particular type of Web site they want to find (a Christian site, a porn site, whatever) and then, starting from a random site, see who can find it in the fewest clicks. The rules prohibit typing anything; the players must search only by following hyperlinks from the starting point. A good player can find anything from anything usually within seven clicks. It's entertaining, but it's also very telling, and germane to this conversation. Mason says, "My "moral responsibility" is not to link directly to sites that contain nudity. That's all. What the owners of the sites I link to link to from their sites is not and should not be any of my business." But I think this ignores a fundamental truth about the way the World Wide Web is built. To wit: Let us suppose there are two Web sites, 'a' and 'b'. Let us further suppose that 'a' and 'b' are in text and design exactly identical to one another, and that 'a' and 'b' contain identical hyperlinks to a photographic gallery which contains nudity. However, let us suppose that this gallery, which is in every way identical on both sites, is stored on a remote server in the case of site 'a' and stored on the same server as 'b'. So here we have two Web sites, word-for-word and pixel-for-pixel identical to each other; Mason's policy would allow a link to 'a' and prohibit a link to 'b', because in the case of 'a' the gallery is on a site which is linked to by 'a' whereas that same gallery is on the same server as 'b'.

I'm not saying that this situation is one you are likely to encounter every day; but I do think that something analogous to this is possible. The very interconnectedness of the Web makes it hard, /from a user's point of view/, to determine what links are stored where. It is possible that a second-generation link to a site containing nudity is closer, in terms of clicks, to the Black and Whte World main page than some of the pages within the Black and White World main page are!

Mason then says, "I agree with you that nudity, of and by itself, does not equal pornography, but based on 4 years reviewing URL submissions I feel the lines have become irreversably blurred. Unfortunately I've seen sites that are advertise in email submissions for the Top Ten as "tasteful erotic photography" that turn out to be softcore or even hardcore porn." I've been the victim of this kind of bait-and-switch as well, but I don't think that the fact that unscrupulous people falsely advertise pornographic sites "irreversibly blurs" the line between art and pornography. Unscrupulous Webmasters aside, I still submit that there is a qualitative difference between Botticelli and "Free Live XXX Sex!!!".

The next part of the statement is possibly most telling. Mason continues, "I don't have the stomach to risk being forced by misleading email to view this garbage in the interests of "understanding the medium". This suggests to me that your aversion to pornography, and by extension to nudity, is primarily emotional; based on this and some statements made in your original essay, I suspect that your decision not to link to sites containing nudity is primarily, or at least partially, emotional, and that it was in fact made /before/ the argument you put forward to support it was constructed.

Finally, Mason says, "You are entitled to your opinion and I'm glad you shared it. I'm sorry if B&W World does not completely meet your standards, but I do hope it has helped you on some level, as it apparently has helped many others." The fact is that I believe B&W World is an excellent site, and I have already linked to it from my photographers' resources page (which, FWIW, is located at www.xeromag.com/fvresrc.html--and before anyone accuses me of a bait-and-switch, I will say up front that my site does contain some nudity). B&W World is a valuable resource, an excellent site, and it does have a great deal to offer to anyone interested in photography. I'm not arguing otherwise; my point is simply that any catagorical refusal to consider any particular kind of artistic work is ultimately a limitation. That does not imply that such an examination can have no value; on the contrary, in spite of this limitation, B&W World still manages to do a better job of exploring the art o

-- Franklin Veaux (tacitr@aol.com), October 28, 1999.

"Lumberjack" (james_mickelson@hotmail.com) writes:

"And then there is the fact that this "is" Mason's site. And that is that." To which I say: Absolutely. And he asked for feedback on his reasoning.

-- Franklin Veaux (tacitr@aol.com), October 28, 1999.

[Apologies if anyone gets this twice. I keep getting server error messages attempting to post it.] Mason Resnick writes, "You've made some well-reasoned, if time-worn, arguments in favor of nudity," to which I would reply that attributing social ills to "public immodesty" is also a somewhat time-worn argument, which dates back at least to the time of Socrates (who was decried as an "immoral corruptor of youth") and more recently to William Shakespeare, who's been accused of immodesty on literally thousands of occasions. So it seems this debate has been around for a while...

Mason then asks, "Ahh, but can you find a religious site seven clicks from a site with nudity?" The answer to that question is a resounding "yes." I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "six degrees of separation," in whihc everyone in the world (supposedly) is related to everyone else through a series of no more than six acquaintances; the Web works in much the same way. In fact, there's a game called "Chain Gang," in which two people agree on a particular type of Web site they want to find (a Christian site, a porn site, whatever) and then, starting from a random site, see who can find it in the fewest clicks. The rules prohibit typing anything; the players must search only by following hyperlinks from the starting point. A good player can find anything from anything usually within seven clicks. It's entertaining, but it's also very telling, and germane to this conversation. Mason says, "My "moral responsibility" is not to link directly to sites that contain nudity. That's all. What the owners of the sites I link to link to from their sites is not and should not be any of my business." But I think this ignores a fundamental truth about the way the World Wide Web is built. To wit: Let us suppose there are two Web sites, 'a' and 'b'. Let us further suppose that 'a' and 'b' are in text and design exactly identical to one another, and that 'a' and 'b' contain identical hyperlinks to a photographic gallery which contains nudity. However, let us suppose that this gallery, which is in every way identical on both sites, is stored on a remote server in the case of site 'a' and stored on the same server as 'b'. So here we have two Web sites, word-for-word and pixel-for-pixel identical to each other; Mason's policy would allow a link to 'a' and prohibit a link to 'b', because in the case of 'a' the gallery is on a site which is linked to by 'a' whereas that same gallery is on the same server as 'b'.

I'm not saying that this situation is one you are likely to encounter every day; but I do think that something analogous to this is possible. The very interconnectedness of the Web makes it hard, /from a user's point of view/, to determine what links are stored where. It is possible that a second-generation link to a site containing nudity is closer, in terms of clicks, to the Black and Whte World main page than some of the pages within the Black and White World main page are!

Mason then says, "I agree with you that nudity, of and by itself, does not equal pornography, but based on 4 years reviewing URL submissions I feel the lines have become irreversably blurred. Unfortunately I've seen sites that are advertise in email submissions for the Top Ten as "tasteful erotic photography" that turn out to be softcore or even hardcore porn." I've been the victim of this kind of bait-and-switch as well, but I don't think that the fact that unscrupulous people falsely advertise pornographic sites "irreversibly blurs" the line between art and pornography. Unscrupulous Webmasters aside, I still submit that there is a qualitative difference between Botticelli and "Free Live XXX Sex!!!".

The next part of the statement is possibly most telling. Mason continues, "I don't have the stomach to risk being forced by misleading email to view this garbage in the interests of "understanding the medium". This suggests to me that your aversion to pornography, and by extension to nudity, is primarily emotional; based on this and some statements made in your original essay, I suspect that your decision not to link to sites containing nudity is primarily, or at least partially, emotional, and that it was in fact made /before/ the argument you put forward to support it was constructed.

Finally, Mason says, "You are entitled to your opinion and I'm glad you shared it. I'm sorry if B&W World does not completely meet your standards, but I do hope it has helped you on some level, as it apparently has helped many others." The fact is that I believe B&W World is an excellent site, and I have already linked to it from my photographers' resources page (which, FWIW, is located at www.xeromag.com/fvresrc.html--and before anyone accuses me of a bait-and-switch, I will say up front that my site does contain some nudity). B&W World is a valuable resource, an excellent site, and it does have a great deal to offer to anyone interested in photography. I'm not arguing otherwise; my point is simply that any catagorical refusal to consider any particular kind of artistic work is ultimately a limitation. That does not imply that such an examination can have no value; on the contrary, in spite of this limitation, B&W World still manages to do a better job of exploring the art

-- Franklin Veaux (tacitr@aol.com), October 28, 1999.

Mr.Veaux, my only complaint with your argument is that you have twice referenced Herb Ritts and Man Ray in the same sentence. Please...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 30, 1999.