Of course, I would want it to be as accessible as possible, while also not undermining my mission statement, which is to exhibit the beauty (and sometimes eroticism) of the human body, absent arbitrary and superficial taboos surrounding our anatomy. Toward that end, I've been brainstorming ways to categorize and filter my images, so as to enable viewers to cater the experience of browsing my portfolio to their individual comfort level - so that general audiences could "step into the gallery" (metaphorically speaking, as it would almost certainly be done online), confident that they're not going to be exposed to anything they'd prefer not to see, while at the same time giving bolder viewers the option to see more.
And I think I've come up with a system that's fun, but effective, while also being inoffensive - which is to say, it won't require the most sensitive of viewers to endure a bunch of language or symbolism describing or depicting the very things they wish to avoid. It's based around the usage of common emojis to symbolize levels of exposure that will be encountered in my photography, so viewers can choose how much they're comfortable with seeing. Now, I could have gone with a food-based theme, based on popular trends. But I decided instead to use a space/weather/science theme, which is a little bit less ribald (I mean, looking at symbols of peaches and eggplants is pretty suggestive all by itself), but allows for a pretty effective gradation of exposure and coverage of themes. Plus, I relate more to science and weather than food. Anyway, tell me what you think of it.
"Fully dressed."
(Basically just a background/default category, but could describe some of my fashion/glamour portraits).
"Dressed, but in minimal clothing."
(This could be useful for describing some of my skimpier outfits, including swimsuits and underwear.)
"Effectively naked, but with the sensitive bits covered."
(This would be a great category for the safest of my nudes; the kind where I'm either posed coyly or with an object or feature of the environment blocking the view.)
I imagine that the above categories would be revealed by default, since they show nothing scandalous, or that would get anybody into trouble. And though that definitely includes blatant implied nudity, that is the name of the game, after all.
"Partially exposed buttocks."
(These are relatively safe nudes - all things considered - but slightly more scandalous and less coy than the Partly Cloudy category.)
"Fully exposed buttocks."
(Pretty self-explanatory. Definitely cheeky, if you'll forgive the pun, but still tamer than full frontal nudity. This is stuff they don't even bother to censor on Naked and Afraid.)
"Full frontal nudity."
(Here's the bread and butter of my artistic showcase. I think many of my frontal nudes are relatively innocuous, but society has this weird hangup about genitals. Go figure.)
"Explicit nudity from the back."
(Because sometimes you can see everything from the back - and I don't mean just the butt. And I feel like that's, in a way, more explicit than seeing it from the front.)
The next two categories probably won't be included in a public gallery. Not because I don't have a lot of great art that crosses the line into explicit eroticism, but because anything that could credibly be described as "pornographic" runs the added risk of legal complications. But I include them here for the sake of completion.
"Absolute exposure - nothing is left to the imagination."
(Reserved for images that feature graphic nudity, in a way that is less likely to be considered tastefully erotic, and more likely to be interpreted as outright pornographic.)
"Contains explicit themes of sexuality."
(I've gotta have a category for my beautiful erection photos, right? I mean, not for public consumption, I guess - but theoretically speaking...).
Finally, we have three more designations that could be added as modifiers. The first two to temper the severity of a given category, and the last to enhance it. I could imagine using them to gently guide viewers to step outside of their comfort zone (only with their consent), or in the last case, to caution viewers about particularly arresting images (with the option, of course, to disable such warnings if desired).
"Anatomy is visible but partially obscured."
(There are always going to be images that straddle the line or defy categorization. This way I can denote those exceptions without excluding or misidentifying them.)
"Anatomy is visible, but only from a distance."
(Because I feel that at a certain distance, even full-on nudity loses much of its sting, and that fact deserves recognition.)
"Anatomy is visible up close and in detail."
(I don't know how many close-up shots I would include in a public gallery, but they definitely pack more of a punch, and I feel that deserves its own warning.)
Anyway, this is just a proof of concept. There's still the matter of implementing such a filtering system in the context of a photo gallery, which I'm not sure yet how I'm gonna manage (I'm better with ideas than implementation). But I really like the concept. I think it's playful, and I think it suits my needs quite well. And it's fun to look through my photos and figure out how each one would be categorized under this system. There are borderline cases of course, but I think it's fairly comprehensive!
