matthew

...I would like to revisit this pic with Rachel... Rachel's reasoning for not uncensoring this pic was because of the "graphic nature" of the pic...

...I still see it as a beautiful pic not a gory pic...

Here is the link to the pic...
http://www.thinkdraw.com/picture.php?pictureId=22733

...Please share your opinion with me here... I am hoping that if enough people agree with me, I may be able to get the censor lifted...

...Thanks for your time...

Shanley

it's a good, expressive pic...and I don't really understand the objection...I hope the censorship will be lifted, Matthew.

sheftali52

Matthew, the pic is graphic, but certainly not gratuitously graphic. I believe most people would not be offended.

Nylecoj

I think that people should know what Jesus did for us, so even if it is a little graphic, it should be seen.

GOLDIEGIRL8

I agree with Sheftali, I don't think many people would get offended...

belladonnis

It is a beautiful picture, not only of itself but for what it stands for. I hope that it will be uncencored!

GOLDIEGIRL8

Its censored?

Shanley

I'm confused about two things:
1) how is it censored if it still can be seen?
2) isn't 'graphic' supposed to be a good thing when it comes to art? ('graphic' as in 'expressive'...) I can't think of anything that could be offensive about this pic.

matthew

Censored = You can't find it in the gallery... You have to search it out on my page...

pollyesther

I think it's an outrage that it was censored. I've always thoughts so.

puzzler

I don't find it offensive.
More to the point, is what method should be used as an alternative to censor pics which people deem offensive, if the current system is thought to be defective? Or is Matthew's pic just a casualty of a usually fair system? If so, is it reasonable to have an appeal system and how would that process be applied?

Doug

Riddle me this, riddle me that. For pics to be censored they need to be "scat". If thy eye offends thee, then pluck it out. Hitler taught us a valuable lesson about the value of human sacrifice, burning books, and making war, not love. Censorship at any level is offensive. The name of the website is THINKdraw not Well ya better think before you draw. For Matthew or anyone else censorship is unacceptable although we as the players in the grand ThinkDraw psychological experiment I've heard before are still just drugged mice in a maze. Amen. oops, sorry, this message will self destruct due to one, possibly two references to religion.

coho

I find it obscene not to allow tasteful nudes, the gruesome image of the crucifixtion has always given me the creeps, but it is such a common image in the western world, millions of people hang it on the wall, people, even little kids, see the image often, it is absurd to censor it.

Qsilv

ooookaaayyy... time to weigh in on this. And what it comes down to is I totally agree with Coho's statement and reasoning....

censorship of this image is itself offensive and absurd.

However, the process of allowing 3 complaints to activate the process of review seems reasonable to me.

Login

Have we lost sight of the original reason Matthew gave us for it being banned (Community Forum - Goodbye - 19 Feb 2009)?
I have no objection to the drawing, whatsoever, but as we can view it in Matthew's gallery, why go to the bother of getting it reinstated?

matthew

Oh, I believe the original reason was spite... but the reason Rachel gave for it staying banned was its graphic nature...

Why bother... Because Christ should not be banned...

marg

sorry all..

if we are directing ALL these comments to Rachel (as in ThinkDraw feedback), then ..

a) I can't see why matthew's pic shouldn't be 'unbanned'.. unless..

b) we have to put up with it being somehow entered into every Forum thread or other avenue where, matthew, you want to advertise yourself.. rather like the terrible, repeated 'earrings' picture..

To be honest, I actually DON'T agree that this pic should have been censored, but in the absence of any constant monitoring of the site, I guess we all have to abide by the rules as they are.

P.S. matthew.. no one ever talked about banning any religious picture or icon of any faith - just about your picture, which some people may have been upset at (as in, they may have thought you sullied their own feeling for the subject)

marg

LOL..

just re-read what I wrote and I apologise - my comment b) should have been entered in a different forum, because it wasn't a comment or request to Rachel/ThinkDraw (jeez, it's hard not to comment sometimes, isn't it ?)

I ditto Qsilv and Login's comments, anyway.. Rachel, please note !

maddyjean08

Matthew, this Jesus is kind of gory, but not too much. I'm not offended. It did surprise me at first......

Luna

I'm not offended by the picture, but the description in the Bible was of a single wound to the side, so what was the point of adding multiple wounds all over the body?

I think there should be a review of censored pictures, so that is can not be done maliciously.