Subsequent to my preceding article concerning my ban from Artreview.com due to nudity being prohibited on the site, it has been suggested to me that if there are nude paintings or drawings on the Artreview website, it would in-fact amoun to discrimination against my art, as opposed to simply a general rule of not allowing nudity.
I decided to look into this possibility a little further, and discovered that another photographic artist did indeed have nude photographs on the site, and nude paintings and drawings were also present.
I wrote an e-mail to the Web Editor of Artreview “Mr. James Westcott”, asking him to explain first and foremost why nudity was banned from a website that proclaims itself to be at the forefront of the art-world. I subsequently raised the question as to why I had been banned when another photographer had nude images on the site. Unfortunately, Mr. Westcott has to date elected to ignore my correspondence. It would seem that Mr. Westcott’s preferred method of answerability is to ignore all / any such questions that he either cannot answer or will not answer.
Today, I have noticed that the other photographer in question to whom I referred, seems to have disappeared from Artreview.com, along with all of his images. Perhaps yet another victim of Mr. James Westcott’s attempt to rid the art-world of nudity !
Sadly for Mr. Westcott, he seems to be fighting a losing battle, because despite being the Web Editor of Artreview.com, he seems to have seriously over-looked the fact that one of the member artists has created a Group entitled “Erotic Art”. This Group not only contains images (including photographs of nudity, but blatant pornography ! The link to the page in question is the following:-
Now either Mr. Westcott is oblivious to the fact that this Group exists (although surely when a Group is created it is at least moderated to some extent by the Web Editor ?), or Mr. Westcott has decided that the images do not breach his rules of no nudity ? In whatever case, there are clearly questions be be answered.
My concern in this matter is not to have my ban at Artreview lifted, but to identity the true motivation of the Web Editor in question. If indeed I am facing discrimination here, I will certainly be considering my recourse options. If that is not the case, and it is simply a matter of Mr. James Westcott trying to protect the world at large from nudity and erotica, I think the UK registered company Art Review Limited should series be asking themselves is this how an art based website should be edited ?
Ultimately, only Mr. James Westcott can enlighten us. he is a prolific writer, having written many articles relating to art and art based subject matters. What a pity therefore he does not have the time to comment on this art-based issue and reply to my e-mail correspondence !
Mr. Westcott, if you should read this (and I shall ensure you do), I and many artists like me would be interested to read your explanations.
NOTE: Since posting this article, Mr. Westcott has deleted the link in question. Notwithstanding, the site still contains nudity, so seemingly, this is a matter of discrimination.