Photographer Spencer Tunick Can't Stop Running Afoul of Facebook's Baffling Rules on Naked People

Spencer_Tunick_nude_library_small_pixels.jpg
Photo by Spencer Tunick; image courtesy of the artist.
New York-based photographer Spencer Tunick takes beautiful pictures of naked people. You've probably seen some of those photos; he's become internationally famous over the past two decades for staging photos of "nude figures in public settings," as he puts it, everything from a lone woman curled around the cab of a truck to thousands of people splayed across Mexico City's Zocalo.

Tunick's work, though it isn't remotely sexual or pornographic, has still incited controversy; he even made it all the way to the Supreme Court, after he was arrested five times between 1995 and 2005 while staging his public nude shots. He was usually charged with "unlawful assembly." At least once, his camera was confiscated. Eventually, Tunick sued New York City and the NYPD, arguing that the constant arresting was an infringement on his First Amendment rights. He won.

But now Tunick faces a different and more implacable foe: Facebook. He can't share an uncensored photo of his work without it immediately being taken down. And as he recently discovered, even a pixelated photo is apparently not OK, unless the pixels are so enormous they take up most of the photo. Smaller pixels resulted in Facebook freezing his account and threatening him with deletion. Instagram is also not fond of nudes. So what's an artist whose subject is the naked body to do?

Tunick's latest bout with Facebook began in late December, when he put the above photo on his professional Facebook page. It was meant as a playful advertisement for his new book, European Installations, which, if you look hard, you'll see in the hands of one of the bookish ladies.

Tunick also made the executive decision to pixelate the photo before he put it on his page; he'd previously had another photo deleted, a flyer for a friend's art show. It depicted the artist, Mia Berg, nude in silhouette, sitting a tree.

"You couldn't even see breasts," Tunick says. But he wanted to be cautious this time, and figured some tasteful pixels covering everyone's relevant parts would do the trick.

It didn't. The photo was removed and Tunick's account was frozen; he also received an email telling him his account could be permanently deleted.

Tunick was horrified. "There's so much work on Facebook friending people and developing professional relationships," he says. "If someone just randomly after maybe three or four offenses takes down your site and you lose all your contacts, that's like years and years and years of work lost." He's had photos removed on Instagram as well, but Facebook, where he has some 18,000 followers, would be a much bigger blow if he were to lose it. Besides that, he says, "I believe that the naked body in art is free speech.
I think it promotes a more healthy and openminded society."

Tunick emailed Facebook, asking why an already-censored photo was removed; in response, Chris Park, a representative from the company, told him that Facebook's terms of use, called their "Community Standards," place "limitations" on nudity, adding, "Unfortunately, the photograph violates these standards notwithstanding its pixelation."

Other than the word "limitations," Facebook doesn't get much more specific about what constitutes permissible nudity on the site. The relevant section of the Community Standards reads, in full:

Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people's right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo's David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

Tunick had also sent Facebook this version of the photo, where the pixels block out not just nipples and pubic hair of the models, but the entire breast, the whole nether region, and a good bit of their arms and shoulders. It looks like this:

Spencer_Tunick_library_large_pixels.jpg

In a follow-up phone call, Tunick says, Park told him "the bigger pixels were OK, and the one scene was OK where I have 5,000 people in front of the Sydney Opera House." The Sydney photo is shot from a distance, so nobody's dangly bits are really visible.

But Tunick still wasn't sure what the nudity rules actually are. Would a photo he took of 1,000 people in the Dead Sea be permitted, where some people in the foreground are more visible?

"What do I do about works that are in between 19 people in a frame and 5,000?" he asks. "How do I know what to print or not print? They said if I have any images I'm questioning, I could email them and they'd help me with a yes or a no, which I thought was very nice." But he's still not quite comfortable with the idea, as he puts it, "that someone in an office in the middle of wherever - Nebraska, San Francisco - that one person decides what's OK or not when it comes to the body in art."


My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
Michael_Connolly
Michael_Connolly

The sad thing is FB is so interwoven with life these days & if you have something to sell or promote it's the best way to reach the masses.... trouble is FB's "Community Standards" are starting to influence some area's of society  #facebookmustchange #freethenipple

Alirox
Alirox

Real artists don't do Facebook -- that scene got lame-o when the 'Like' button replaced 'Fan' five fuckin years ago.

Lamdba
Lamdba

A nipples a nipple; it's completely ridiculous that some nipples are deemed more offensive than others.

peggy2013
peggy2013

As a former advertising photographer I must say this picture is extremely original and interesting.

Adam Schroeder
Adam Schroeder

Sounds like Facebook needs to be shown what the definition of pornography is.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...