I just got an email notice from jan-u-wine....
J: "Mechtild! Photobucket has taken down images from your Frodo albums! Did you know?"
M: "No!!! Really???"
J: "Yes. There are notices in the spaces instead, something about the images being in violation of their terms of service."
M: "What the ----?!?!?!? I'll check that right away!"
Sure enough, images are down from three different entries....
1. They took down ALL the images of Michelangelo's "David" -- every view of the statue that included its genitals.
2. They took down ALL the images of "Bacchus and Ariadne" by Guido Reni, which is another male nude.
3. They ALSO took down my Frodo Art Travesties based on them. Here are cropped versions of them.
4. AND they took down the Frodo manip made from Clare Park's art photograph from
"The Joy of Sex":
I checked all my other art that's in my "Art Images" Photobucket album, which include many nudes from all the eras of art, including very explicit erotic art from ancient Greece, which I posted to illustrate the Reni manip.
I don't get it!! Anyway, I just dashed off a heated email to Photobucket.
Here's the big question:
If it turns out that Photobucket can really bar me from posting art works that are nude and the Art Travesties made from them, is there another image-hosting site I can use?
What about the LJ's image gallery? I have never used it because the instructions are so complicated (compared to Photobucket). But I have a paid account at LJ, so there's gobs of space on it I've never used.
At Photobucket I have a paid account, too. I'll be cancelling that, though, as soon as I learn how to load images into some other source. It'll be a ton of work, but I am really irritated.
In the meantime, I apologize for the loss of the art work from my journal entries.
I've been chatting about this and the best explanation I've heard is that these images were reported and taken down because of a complaint from the viewer of this LJ. And the complaint, judging from what precisely was taken down, was not prompted by male nudity per se, but the male nudity of Frodo.
Jan-u-wine wrote that although she did not think the manips were porn in any way, one had to allow for other people's sensibilities, and that I had perhaps attracted someone who thought Frodo HER province (since, basically, it was the nude Frodo and erotica which was taken down -- the other, David, might have been an error on the part of whomever did the taking down). It couldn't be that 'whomever' was simply offended by erotica: the other images with "bits" were not removed from the hosting site. So, Jan opined, the images had to have offended a Frodo (or maybe even an Elijah?) person.
Jan reminded me that we (she/me/everyone) needed to be sensitive to whomever did this. We were scratching our heads and going "whaaaa????" but that other person might have been terribly offended. In fact, Jan was sure that person had been, or else they would not have gone to the trouble. This did not mean I didn't have the right to post what to most seemed perfectly artistic and gently erotic images ("I don't know about you, but i've not been inspired to run off and find a vibrator after looking at your images, any more than i would after viewing the lovely original David"), but it also meant that this person had the right to complain if she/he found them offensive. And they might have found them offensive for reasons having to do with, but not limited to, the nudity: ie: the depiction of Frodo so far off from a canon type situation.
[I]n the realms of Tolkien fandom, Jan said, there is every sort of person, especially with regards to Frodo and sex. Some are joyously sexual -- "as I feel you are," she assured me. "[You] have opened my eyes to who Frodo might have been behind the person we see undertaking the Quest," she said, "[and have] helped me visualize his whole persona, for surely any person has a sexual persona." *kisses jan-u-wine*
On the other hand, she noted, there were probably many people who were offended and even frightened at the thought of Frodo (whom they had come to view as "safe" in his non-sexuality) having sexual parts, and, worse yet, actually desiring to use them. To them, she suggested, seeing these manips would be like a modern day Christian visiting a site which depicted Christ [feeling and eliciting sexual desire].
So, she said, she thought that perhaps my best plan is going to be to have my LJ friends-locked.
Well. This means I have to rethink keeping this journal public, which has always been my wish. I hate "private", "keep out", and "friends only" signs with a passion, and always have. I do always post warnings for my nude or erotic material, so that people who might be offended will not have to look, but, apparently, that has not been enough.
I'll let everyone know if I decide to go friends-only. I really, really don't want to do that.