“I am dismayed that a company with the cultural clout of Facebook employs such simplistic and hypocritical criteria when deciding between what constitutes art and pornography,” Rimmer says.
Some nudity,“shared for a variety of reasons,including as a form of protest,to raise awareness about a cause,or for educational or medical reason",is permitted under Facebook's policy.
For example,"photographs of paintings,sculptures,and other art that depicts nude figures” are allowed.
Rimmer says he has been forced to delay the release of his work for a month and this has caused considerable expense and inconvenience to the curators,gallery owners,media and PR people who were anticipating the release ofConfluence.
“Clearly,these calls are initially made by an algorithm. However,upon appeal,the flagged images are viewed by a human and in my case,following this process,the image was still considered obscene and the 30 day block upheld.
“I think it's important to remember that it is simply the female nipple that offends the censors at Facebook. The remaining female breast is acceptable but the areola and the nipple must not be visible. The absurdity of this is almost laughable however,in my case,it has been anything but.”
If Rimmer's beautiful photographs are not art,I don't know what is.
Now,my take on this is,if Rimmer's beautiful photographs are not art,I don't know what is.
He is,of course,correct in highlighting the hypocrisy,unfairness and inconvenience of Facebook’s narrow prism of what it deems as acceptable imagery of women.
Especially at a time when social media feeds are full of influencers and models in barely-there bikinis that should carry depilatory credits,or showing off their rumps Kardashian-style in thongs so small they can’t be seen.
Loading
But what also annoys the hell out of me is the double standard:the male nipple is fine but the life-sustaining female nipple is not. It is only women who are being censored as to what passes as suitable attire,while men can wear virtually anything (or next to nothing).
I believe the women in Rimmer’s shots are beyond beautiful – proud,fecund,strong and feminine – and the manner in which he has shot them respectful,sensitive and well,exquisite. He didn’t provoke or persuade these women to take their tops off in some gratuitous act of perversion:this is how they dress every day of their own free will,adorned in traditional attire that symbolises and honours their people past and present.
If his photos pose a risk to children’s decency then I say Facebook should review its allowance (if not encouragement) of photoshopping,which distorts reality,alters perceptions of ageing and encourages the defiling otherwise healthy bodies.
What we are seeing with this ban is pure,indefensible sexism.
The women in Rimmer’s photography are being celebrated,not denigrated. It’s a shame Facebook can’t treat its female users with a similar respect.