There's "pornography" in my history book!

[dancus]

Paris Blues:

Look peoples who think I’m some kinda naive young lady…I WAS MAKING A JOKE BUT SERIOUS IN A WAY, OKAY?


I KNEW for a fact that the naked statues were art, therefore they are not considered porn, GOT THAT? Like I said before, I was JUST MAKING sure, like you know, double checking!

Sorry if I sound pathetic like that but sometimes I mix my humor with my seriousness! I tend to confuse people that way and I apologize!

However, people, if I am giving you grief or blahness, than don’t read my posts.

By the way, I ignore the nakedness of the statues and love the human form! It’s a perfect shape! :yup:

Believe me I’ve picked up on everythin’ your puttin’ down. That being said, I’m simply wondering and remembering my Frat days. Something just rings a bell. If I’m wrong accept my apology.
Dan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Alterum:

I hope this is in line with the poster’s intent:

What is the difference between, say, looking at a painting of a nude person and looking at a picture of a nude person in the same context? Where does one draw the line between pornography and “art”?

Good question.

I prefer icons - the Sistine Chapel should be whitewashed, and properly Christian art substituted for the degenerate semi-paganism of what is at present on the ceiling.

Fra Angelico’s art woul be a great improvement on Michelangelo’s nonsense, as Fra Angelico’s painting was far more theologically symbolic; Michelangelo merely inflicts the paganism of Renaissance Rome on the notion of the Last Judgement. He makes Christ the Judge look, not in the least aweful, but like a mere Classical…something; but who knows what ? A mere Greek or Roman god, possibly.

The trouble with the stuff in the Sistine Chapel is that it is not in the least numinous - icons, & Fra Angelico, are always numinous. A talented atheist could have done what Michelangelo did - there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the artist was painting anything remotely Christian. The sooner the wretched thing is destroyed, the better.

 

[Alterum]

Gottle of Geer:

The sooner the wretched thing is destroyed, the better.

Haha, I’m glad someone said this! I know next-to-nothing about art, but it always seemed to me that a lot of that “classical” stuff was pornography; the artist, lacking the technology to take a photograph, replicated a nude person as realistically as possible. Really, what is the point of statues and paintings of naked people?

Is looking at a photograph of a new person stretched out on a couch - for its “artistic merit,” naturally - a sin?

Is looking at a painting of the exact same thing a sin?

Is admiring a nude person showing off his body in public - again, for artistic merit - a sin?

Is admiring a nude statue showing off the naked human body a sin?

Granted, our hearts may not be moved to lust while seeing nudity in art – but what on earth is the point? I never understood drawings of naked people, other than that they were a form of socially acceptable nudity because they could be admired under the guise of “art”!