This is an ambiguous argument but I began thinking more on it after I complained about a picture that I thought was offensive. I guess technically it is not pornography but the photo itself was in poor taste. Perhaps if it wasn't a poor quality photograph with little description even attempting to validate it just didn't appeal to me. Basically it was a bad photo of someone's penis with a rubber band placed just after the head. The appendage thus looked like a fleshy swollen tube not unlike the ones clowns use to make balloon animals. I found it in bad taste and decided to follow up on my complaint about there being too many pornographic and inappropriate images being uploaded on DA.

My violation report was denied.

Perhaps I'm just being too snobby about this sort of thing? I don't know. The picture did not have a mature warning on it.

And perhaps if the concept had been recontextualized it would be a bit more appealing. Somehow a painting of a penis is more acceptable to me than a bad photo. I recognize that it can still be counted as 'art', but I hope that someone addressed this Deviant about the lack of the mature warning. Perhaps it also depends on the context. If I saw a giant photo of this hanging in a gallery somewhere, I might would have a different impression of it. But the fact that it was on an online gallery with no real description and without a mature warning makes me wonder....

What do you guys think? Am I being too uppity about this sort of thing? Maybe I'm missing the point here....