When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Turn it around and ask the same question about the state.

Do you consider that the government should always be the arbiters concerning everything they deem "is for the good of the children"?

I think either absolute is a dangerous position to take but to assume that parents always know what is best for their children has often tragically been shown to be wrong.

Nor has anything other than physical abuse been addressed. There are other ways to abuse an individual, especially by those who have legal power and control over that individual.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Bond could be a jerk even in his time. He wasn't exactly a "nice guy." He was basically an assassin. "Licensed to Kill" and all that.

The character was a product of the author and Fleming's social background and career reflected his attitudes.

That is why I really have enjoyed Daniel Craig's portrayal of the character. He moved it back to him being like a shark entering the room -- a very dangerous individual and not a smarmy playboy spouting one-liners.

Basically, if the woke scolds who appoint themselves the guardians of our sensitivities could just simply not read the books that might offend them we'd all be better off. But the only thing worse than a bunch of Nanny's seeking to enforce their views on everyone, are those who follow their dictates.

I think we can safely acknowledge that we are of the same mind on this.

[Bill the Cat]

So a school alerts the police simply on suspicion?

Yes.

Isn't that rather authoritarian?

No.

What about the rights of the parents who may be entirely innocent?

They are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing happens to them unless the police witness clear signs of abuse (which they are adequately trained to recognize) which may result in the child being temporarily removed from the home until the matter is adjudicated.

[Diogenes]

Nor has anything other than physical abuse been addressed. There are other ways to abuse an individual, especially by those who have legal power and control over that individual.

Teachers (allegedly) secretly meeting with a 12 year old over gender identity confusion to the point the the 12 year old attempts suicide by hanging themselves in a school bathroom would certainly fall under "abuse".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes.



No.



They are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing happens to them unless the police witness clear signs of abuse (which they are adequately trained to recognize) which may result in the child being temporarily removed from the home until the matter is adjudicated.

And if you were suspected of physically abusing your children you would have accepted the situation even if it meant that your children were removed from your home while the investigation was underway? Not forgetting that your friends, neighbours, and fellow church members would all have been aware of the suspicions made against you.

[Bill the Cat]

And if you were suspected of physically abusing your children you would have accepted the situation even if it meant that your children were removed from your home while the investigation was underway? Not forgetting that your friends, neighbours, and fellow church members would all have been aware of the suspicions made against you.

Yes. Now can we get back to the actual discussion please.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes.

An easy answer to write regarding a hypothetical scenario. The reality might be quite different.

Now can we get back to the actual discussion please.

You consider that a teacher showing a photograph of a world famous sculpture of a figure from the Bible [the young David] was inappropriate for children aged 11-12. because the sculpture depicted the figure in the nude.

I and many other people disagree you. I also consider your attitude not only prudish but to exhibit an unhealthy attitude towards nudity. An attitude that [again in my opinion] can lead to psychological issues concerning guilt and shame, particularly when that attitude is foisted on to the young.

What is there to discuss?

[Diogenes]

An easy answer to write regarding a hypothetical scenario. The reality might be quite different.


You consider that a teacher showing a photograph of a world famous sculpture of a figure from the Bible [the young David] was inappropriate for children aged 11-12. because the sculpture depicted the figure in the nude.

I and many other people disagree you. I also consider your attitude not only prudish but to exhibit an unhealthy attitude towards nudity. An attitude that [again in my opinion] can lead to psychological issues concerning guilt and shame, particularly when that attitude is foisted on to the young.

What is there to discuss?

Ah yes, because David is from the Bible the nudity should be accepted.

Apparently art theory is not something "to discuss" and it's just about you wanting mere nudity in schools.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah yes, because David is from the Bible the nudity should be accepted



Apparently art theory is not something "to discuss" and it's just about you wanting mere nudity in schools.

I sincerely doubt that BtC wanted an in-depth online exchange on art theory. Nor I suspect, do you.

[Diogenes]

I sincerely doubt that BtC wanted an in-depth online exchange on art theory. Nor I suspect, do you.

Seeing as you're only concerned with 1) exposing sixth graders to nudity for nudity's sake is good and 2) parental subversion of the State is bad, we all know you're not interested.

The statue was created within a revival of Humanism. The statue was created in the school of heroic nudity. Saying this is the greatest statue without teaching the cultural period it was created within not only is pointless but cheapens the masterpiece that is the statue to mere technical skill. Perhaps a benefit of how "I am a flake" (which is an ableist slur that you and Star seem to have no issue to apply to opponents) is that I can separate my ambivalence for art in general, my personal aesthetic taste in art (which I actually do I have), and appreciation of the statue within its aesthetic context.

That you are more shallow than I is your loss. That you consider me as shallow as you is also your loss.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Seeing as you're only concerned with 1) exposing sixth graders to nudity for nudity's sake is good and 2) parental subversion of the State is bad, we all know you're not interested.

The statue was created within a revival of Humanism. The statue was created in the school of heroic nudity. Saying this is the greatest statue without teaching the cultural period it was created within not only is pointless but cheapens the masterpiece that is the statue to mere technical skill. Perhaps a benefit of how "I am a flake" (which is an ableist slur that you and Star seem to have no issue to apply to opponents) is that I can separate my ambivalence for art in general, my personal aesthetic taste in art (which I actually do I have), and appreciation of the statue within its aesthetic context.

That you are more shallow than I is your loss. That you consider me as shallow as you is also your loss.

Do I detect a flounce?

You may find that the reasons behind the commission also had a distinctly political motive for the city of Florence and its powerful ruling elites.

[Mountain Man]

An easy answer to write regarding a hypothetical scenario. The reality might be quite different.


You consider that a teacher showing a photograph of a world famous sculpture of a figure from the Bible [the young David] was inappropriate for children aged 11-12. because the sculpture depicted the figure in the nude.

I and many other people disagree you. I also consider your attitude not only prudish but to exhibit an unhealthy attitude towards nudity. An attitude that [again in my opinion] can lead to psychological issues concerning guilt and shame, particularly when that attitude is foisted on to the young.

What is there to discuss?

You are a shameless person, so any discussion with you about what is or isn't shameful is entirely pointless. I'll simply note that raising young children to be modest in appearance and behavior does not lead to any psychological issues.

[Diogenes]

Do I detect a flounce?

No, I'm just more complex than you can or are willing to accept. As for an overall aesthetic taste, I prefer the beauty of the real as opposed to the inauthenticity of the ideal. (Edit: I'm sure this will be taken out of context or otherwise twisted in regard to nudity. In general, I prefer realism in art and tend to disfavor merely the human body as the subject of art.) Of course, religious figures in Renaissance art are depicted anachronistically and such a practice is often considered cultural appropriation. Last I checked, David would have been an ancient Middle Eastern Jew.

You may find that the reasons behind the commission also had a distinctly political motive for the city of Florence and its powerful ruling elites.

No where have I dismissed the politics of art patronage nor would I.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are a shameless person, so any discussion with you about what is or isn't shameful is entirely pointless. I'll simply note that raising young children to be modest in appearance and behavior does not lead to any psychological issues.

To your first question, why is the depiction of a naked body "shameful"?

To your second question shame and guilt are powerful emotions that can scar a person for life. I am sure you can remember incidents from your early life that still cause you to feel those emotions [NB. I am not specifically referring to any sexual incidents]

[rogue06]

I think either absolute is a dangerous position to take but to assume that parents always know what is best for their children has often tragically been shown to be wrong.

Of course the exact same thing about the government. The difference usually is that when the state does it it's usually on a much larger scale affecting far more people.

Further, unlike most parents, if the government screws up they simply shrug their collective shoulders and moves on trying something different with the next group. Parents, OTOH, tend to have strong motives to see their kids succeed.