Let's think a bit about content filtering...

... and how the real world works. These thoughts were triggered by (and are in response to) some of the comments on my recent "victory filth!" journal entry.

We currently live in a world where content filtering is permanently enabled. And we all, including me, consider it a good thing. What we don't agree upon, of course, is how good our content filtering should be. Allow me to explain.

We human animals are social creatures, and live within the unescapable context of the societies in which we are raised, for better or worse; and when it comes to artwork, our notions of beautiful and appropriate are largely governed by the time and place in which we live. That's why, if you lived in Vienna, in the 1830s, you were vastly more likely to hear Beethoven's 9th Symphony than you were, say, Balinese drum music. Was it because the Bali drums were bad? No; it was just a matter of time and place. Time and society are the primary filters that control what media we'll see.

There are controls everyplace, however; perhaps the most effective society-derived filter being consensus on taste. Aristophanes, Faulkner, Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky are household names in any educated western family, while Diana Gabaldon is - most likely - not. Why is this? Because many, many, many people, over extended periods of time, have read and enjoyed the works of the great writers and fewer are exposed (and impressed by) the lesser-known purveyors of cheesy bodice-busters like Gabaldon. Similarly, when you go to a museum, you are likely to recognize the names Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, or Goya - and see their work - than you are to see the spray-paint masterpieces of modern graffiti artists. It's the same as with literature: generations of humans have looked at Michaelangelo's works and gone "wow!" - forming a consensus surrounding greatness and quality. Everywhere we go, we are confronted with the results of this kind of consensus filtering; one could argue that the prevalence of Starbucks' coffee is a result of consensus filtering that concluded Starbucks is the masterpiece of coffee-making. Personally, I disagree with that consensus but 40,000 Starbucks stores ought to carry more weight than my opinion.

If you're with me so far, perhaps you can see other ways in which what you see and hear is constantly filtered by society. Popular music lists, Digg and other community interest sites, The oscars, etc, etc. Everywhere, it seems that social filtering invisibly and silently truncates our list of options. And we like it - in general, at least. Except for when we want more options; an interesting problem when we don't actually know what those options are. This is why going to a university's library is often much different from a popular bookstore. Aside from the classics like Faulkner and Aristophanes, the bookstore is likely to be filled with books that will sell rather than great stuff nobody has ever heard of. Do you see how this applies to art?

If there is any value to a site like DA, it's that it exposes us to artists we've never heard of before. Yes, if Michaelangelo had a DA page, I'd +fav him and he'd be on my watchlist. But so are
and
and 120 other DA artists. They are all artists whom I never would have encountered if not for the Internet and DA. DA would be utterly worthless without being a place that puts us in contact with new artists and exposes us to new ideas.


Now, let's talk about the 18+ filter.

In my previous journal entry ( [link] ) several commenters raised the point that "the 18+ filter has its uses." Indeed. One of the commenters pointed out that it's useful to filter out the "cheesy webcam penis photos." Possibly. But here's the problem: there is already a much better, more reliable, filter in place namely the consensus DA filter of quality. I guarantee you you will never see a cheesy webcam penis photo if you only look at Daily Deviations. I guarantee you won't see a cheesy webcam penis photo on the "top 120 images of the day" search unless it's a very well-executed webcam penis photo, indeed. When you go to The Metropolitan Art Museum, in New York, you do not expect the galleries to contain all the art in the world with complex filters to let you sort out what you like and dislike - The Metropolitan only presents the "top 2 million" consensus-choice of great artworks. I guarantee you won't see a cheesy webcam penis photo in The Metropolitan unless it is a truly masterful rendering. The problem with museums like The Metropolitan, that have limited space, is that they cannot present all the art; they have to apply their own "quality filter" and the index of greatness of such a museum is how well they filter the entire realm of art in the service of their visitors. On DA we have people who take it upon themselves to offer such filtering as well; sort of online curators - i.e.: [link] by
"Putting the art in artistic nude"
or
"Oibyrd's DDs"
I can guarantee you, if you follow her links, you will never encounter a cheesy webcam penis photo, unless it's really well executed.

I fact, I haven't seen a cheesy webcam penis photo on DA; all the art I look at is linked from galleries of artists whose work I respect, or from the DD page, or the top daily images page. When I go browsing for new stuff, if I am bored, I start with the "most favorited images of all time" list and jump around from there. With millions of images, I'm pretty sure DA has a few cheesy webcam penis images; isn't it interesting that I don't have to encounter them, unless I choose to? Doesn't that tell you something?

The problem comes when someone fires up their computer and says "I want to see everything the world has to offer me. except cheesy webcam penis photos." Well, if you really don't want to run the risk of seeing whatever thing it is that bother you, you're vastly better off sticking with the online art museums rather than asking for "everything." When you ask for "everything" I don't think you should get the right to say "...except." You're either a brave and interested explorer of the world of art, or you want to be part of the huddled mass in the galleries and museums. There's nothing wrong with consuming along with the consensus reality, but asking that artists check the "this image contains cheesy webcam penis imagery" box when they upload their image is as silly as asking restaurants to warn "we serve weird ethnic ingredients" or, worse, "we serve coffee that is not Starbucks." And, that, in a nutshell, reveals the problem with filtering: you can either positively list the good stuff, or try to filter the bad stuff. Guess which is likely to have any chance of possibly working?

The reason I am dismissive and contemptuous of filtering and the people who encourage their use (or worse, mandating them) is because they are a huge waste of time, for the reasons I describe above. Not only do they waste the artist's time (every time I post an image, must I ponder checking the "cheesy webcam penis image"?) but they waste the viewer's time - because someone might accidentally or deliberately mis-mark an image. Lastly, they waste everyone's time by requiring massive administrative overhead for people to police correct interpretation of the nebulous categories. I have been on DA since 2005 and have uploaded 2,000 or so images between my art account and my stock account - the total amount of time wasted setting 18+ flags is effectively zero; I don't mind it. But how much time, site-wide, has been spent on this silliness, just to cater to people who want to look at the wide world of art through a narrowing filter? Nor do I mind the people who haven't seen my work because they don't like the kind of stuff I do. What I mind is the intellectual cowardice - the poor taste, really - of people who are so hidebound that they want to live their lives only drinking safe Starbucks and eating McDonalds' happy meals. Art is supposed to challenge you. Indeed, good art will rattle your brain; that's what it's for. When someone says that they want to cut themselves off from part of the vast artistic experience of humanity, because they don't want to run the risk of seeing a thumbnail of a cheesy webcam penis shot... Well, how can I respect that? Someone who'd ask for a filter doesn't belong on the Internet; they belong in a kindergarten or a big-name art museum that guarantees them a safe experience. It's pathetic that a site with the word "Deviant" in its name caters to such, but that's the site's owners decision. If you want to encourage mediocrity, and be mediocre yourself, be proud while you're doing it.


mjr.