Okay, this is the final straw. What is DeviantArt coming to when pornography is being presented on the front page as art? I am the last person to say that creativity should be restricted or censored for sexual content, but there is a difference between a sexualised artistic nude and a naked cat girl with tits the size of basketballs sucking on her fingers like they're the teats of eternal youth.

Now, DeviantArt frowns upon the calling out of specific members by name in order to discredit them or their work. For that reason I'm not going to name the person whose gallery prompted the fury behind this journal. Instead I will direct you to the page of one of my most favouritest members, NeKoChAnK, whose work is in no way the subject of this journal and who I admire greatly for the sensitive and intellectually stimulating depictions of the female form. Take a good long look at this gallery and absorb the artistic merit of this incredibly popular member's work. Once you've done that, let your instincts guide you to the anonymous people who I believe are polluting our expectations with thinly veiled base erotica in return for blind adoration, and read on.

Members like the ones you have just tracked down all by yourself rely on a particular common ignorance or misunderstanding when they peddle their filthy wares around here. The argument is very common and goes like this: "If people are drawing and colouring these images by hand and submitting them for criticism, that means they have artistic merit and are not pornography." NO. WRONG. THIS IS THE WOOLY THINKING THAT ALLOWS THEM TO LEECH AWAY OUR POWERS OF JUDGEMENT.

READ THIS AND THEN READ IT AGAIN:

por · nog · ra · phy ( pôr-nŏg'rə-fē )
n.

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

The presentation or production of this material.

Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the … pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).

Point One: Pornography is material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Get that bit? ANY material. Whether it's hand painted, computer generated, writen in iambic pentameter or woven into a basket - if the primary purpose is to cause arousal it is pornography A prostitute who speaks only in shakespearian sonnets and has the mona lisa painted across her back in caviare is still just a prostitute. You could put her in an art gallery, but if her performance there consists of accepting money for sexual favours then she is still a prostitute. Pornography is pornography in any medium. Let's move on.

Point Two: The presentation or production of this material.

A minor point, but still relevant. One who is producing (drawing) and presenting (posting) pornographic material is a pornographer. A major hang-up of those who subscribe to the "drawings = art" theory is that these images are being presented for criticism and therefore are artistic images from an artist who wants to improve their art. There are two points here:
a) Just because it is possible to criticise the images does not mean the creator is presenting them for criticism. Realistically, even if you set your submissions to 'advanced critique encouraged', how many people will actually give in-depth constructive feedback? DA is almost exclusively used for presenting work these days, while critical response has become an optional extra. This is particularly true of very popular artists.
b) A prostitute could ask for tips on giving a better blow job. Doesn't make it art.

Point Three: ' Pornography' is descriptive of Lurid or sensational material.

This is where it all falls down for DA's pet pornographers. All join in now: "It's not pornographic - it's shock art!" Shock art? Art whose primary function is to generate shock through lurid sexual subject matter? You mean to say your artistic merit comes from the fact it is intentionally sensational material? Hey, I guess it is pornography after all.

DeviantArt is on a slippery slope at the moment. More and more of the front page is being taken up by knowingly derivative work and self-indulgent eye candy, while standards of criticism and support within the community drop steadily. People seem to confuse the idea of artistic quality with artistic ability. Instead of stretching further and further to categorise all possible forms of shit that people choose to shovel into the system, shouldn't Moderation of the community mean that the moderators...well...moderate the content? Straight-up pornography is not art. It's not even a grey area. Allowing it such prominent status in a community that is (or at least was) intended to help people to stretch themselves, widen their horizons and improve is incredibly damaging. It sends the message that shallow self-gratifying pop art is the standard to aim for. It kills creativity.

Since I don't have a gallery full of glistening anthropomorphic mammaries I don't expect that this journal will garner much attention. It's only a wall of text, after all. However, if anybody happens to pass through and stay long enough to agree with me, I strongly encourage you to re-post and discuss the sentiment wherever you are able and join me in saying:

FUCK PORNOGRAPHY.
SAVE THE ARTISTIC NUDE.