Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Prudery for some seems to know no bounds.

    Irrespective of Victoria's apparent shock at male full frontal nudity even depicted in marble, I am left wondering if the child[ren] of the complainant have never seen either their own or their siblings' naked bodies.
    Or their own bodies.

    IMO, it's not pornography if it isn't meant to stimulate. An ancient marble statue of a naked man standing alone - not engaged in anything - has been considered acceptable to view by children for centuries.

    But hey, every community is allowed to set their own standards.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      So you do not consider nudity to be pornography?

      I gave my response within the context of the statue of David. I would not consider nudity per se to be pornography but that does not mean the State (or even private schools) should be


      So?

      Why?

      Why?

      For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

      Because I'm a repressed prig, obviously.




      Should younger children not be exposed to art?

      I don't think art history has any pedagogical importance outside of an art elective. It also depends on the art itself.



      Do you extend that to illustrations in children's books?

      For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

      Yes, ban all illustrations.





      Should Tenniel's illustrations for the Alice books be banned because some of the characters look rather sinister or monstrous? What about Maurice Sendak's wild things? Or Rackham's illustrations for Brothers Grimm?
      In the very least reserved for when it's more age appropriate.



      Without showing the art that depicts naked human beings which was common throughout the classical world [especially the male form]?

      Again, I don't see art history of great import, especially at younger ages. I don't see the necessity of the State imparting aesthetic taste to those in its charge. As I said, 8th grade and up, I can see nudity in art as acceptable, just not in a art class with live models.



      As all of us [including children] see our own naked bodies every time we get undressed. How does showing children a photograph of a sculpture lead to "Densensitization"?
      Why not just have adults come in and give a practical demonstration for sex ed classes? Which would give better educational experience with condom fitting, a proxy or the real thing?

      P1) If , then I win.

      P2)

      C) I win.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Are 11 and 12 year olds not familiar with their own bodies or those of their siblings?
        Please don't pretend that being familiar with one's own body is equivalent to being familiar with other people's bodies.

        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          "People who disagree with me are repressed prigs".
          No people who regard a classic sculpture as pornography are repressed prigs. No doubt the same person would consider the Venus de Milo pornographic .

          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          Ah yes, let's compare something happening under the auspices of the State to a movie rated "Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children."
          The rating was given in 1988. I have no idea if it still applies.


          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
          Ah yes, depictions of bestiality or other depictions of sex acts not "remotely pornographic".
          You have some rather unhealthy fixations.

          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Please don't pretend that being familiar with one's own body is equivalent to being familiar with other people's bodies.
            You don't think children see the bodies of their siblings? What sort of household do you live in?
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              You don't think children see the bodies of their siblings? What sort of household do you live in?
              Please don't pretend that catching a glimpse of a sibling's body in passing is equivalent to viewing depictions of nude adults.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                No people who regard a classic sculpture as pornography are repressed prigs.
                So regarding a classic sculpture as pornography does not characterise a person as a "repressed prig"


                No doubt the same person would consider the Venus de Milo pornographic .
                That contradicts the prior statement that rather humorously lacks a comma. Shall we go over the differences between the sentences "Let's eat grandma." and "Let's eat, grandma." ?


                You have some rather unhealthy fixations.
                How else would you describe humans having sexual relations with non-human animals and their depictions?
                Last edited by Diogenes; 03-26-2023, 01:44 PM.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  I don't think art history has any pedagogical importance outside of an art elective. It also depends on the art itself.
                  In this instance we both agree that Michelangelo's David and Botticelli's Birth of Venus do not constitute pornography. However, I see no reason why ten or eleven year old children should not be shown such works. In my opinion children should be given as wide an education [age specific] as possible. The same goes for music.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                  Yes, ban all illustrations.

                  Some nineteenth century illustrations of children's texts might be considered "inappropriate" for a variety of reasons.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  In the very least reserved for when it's more age appropriate.
                  Young children read fairy tales and Maurice Sendak and Alice.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  Again, I don't see art history of great import, especially at younger ages. I don't see the necessity of the State imparting aesthetic taste to those in its charge.
                  Hence the view that children should be given as wide an education as is age appropriate. And I do not consider nudity overly shocking. Depictions of the Christ-child in nativity scenes often show him naked. Should they be banned as well for all children under the age of thirteen/fourteen years?

                  And what about dolls? Should young children not be permitted to play with them?

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  As I said, 8th grade and up, I can see nudity in art as acceptable
                  I do not understand your age "cut off" point.

                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  just not in a art class with live models.

                  Why not just have adults come in and give a practical demonstration for sex ed classes? Which would give better educational experience with condom fitting, a proxy or the real thing?
                  Once again you exhibit your fixations with sex and various deviant practises. Have you spoken to anyone about this?
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    Please don't pretend that catching a glimpse of a sibling's body in passing is equivalent to viewing depictions of nude adults.
                    The topography remains the same regardless of the age.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      Or their own bodies.

                      IMO, it's not pornography if it isn't meant to stimulate. An ancient marble statue of a naked man standing alone - not engaged in anything - has been considered acceptable to view by children for centuries.
                      Quite.

                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                      But hey, every community is allowed to set their own standards.
                      The complaint was by one parent - which suggests the community [i.e. the school] is capitulating to the view of a very small minority. I am not sure that is something to be applauded.

                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        In this instance we both agree that Michelangelo's David and Botticelli's Birth of Venus do not constitute pornography. However, I see no reason why ten or eleven year old children should not be shown such works. In my opinion children should be given as wide an education [age specific] as possible.
                        Who determines what is age specific? Parents or bureaucratic agents of the State?


                        The same goes for music.
                        Music is hardly the same as artistic nudity.


                        Some nineteenth century illustrations of children's texts might be considered "inappropriate" for a variety of reasons.
                        So now we're now back in the 19th Century AD? Song of Solomon tends to be avoid in children's lessons as well for "a variety of reasons".


                        Young children read fairy tales and Maurice Sendak and Alice.
                        Early on, reading "Alice" is more on the lines of the Disney version, not the original version.


                        Hence the view that children should be given as wide an education as is age appropriate.
                        The disagreement is obviously in what is "age appropriate".


                        And I do not consider nudity overly shocking. Depictions of the Christ-child in nativity scenes often show him naked. Should they be banned as well for all children under the age of thirteen/fourteen years?

                        And what about dolls? Should young children not be permitted to play with them?

                        For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                        Ah yes, nude depictions of the Christ-child in the Nativity and dolls that lack genitalia are completely analogous.






                        Once again you exhibit your fixations with sex and various deviant practises. Have you spoken to anyone about this?
                        It seems rather priggish to call a practical demonstration of safe-sex practices to possible sexually active high schoolers a "deviant practice". I find it odd that cautious in the State exposing minors to nudity in art or other sexual topics is a "fixation with sex" and it's not a fixation on sex to want to espouse children to sexual topics, like for example a drawn depiction of minors engaging oral sex.

                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Prudery for some seems to know no bounds.

                          https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989

                          A principal of a Florida school has been forced to resign after a parent complained that sixth-grade students were exposed to pornography.

                          The complaint arose from a Renaissance art lesson where students were shown Michelangelo's statue of David.

                          The iconic statue is one of the most famous in Western history.

                          But one parent complained the material was pornographic and two others said they wanted to know about the class before it was taught.

                          The 5.17m (17ft) statue depicts an entirely naked David, the Biblical figure who kills the giant Goliath.

                          The lesson, given to 11 and 12-year-olds, also included references to Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" painting and Botticelli's "Birth of Venus".

                          Principal Hope Carrasquilla of Tallahassee Classical School said she resigned after she was given an ultimatum by the school board to resign or be fired.

                          Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson.

                          They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.

                          In an interview with US outlet Slate, the chair of the school's board, Barney Bishop III, said that last year the principal sent a notice to parents warning them that students were going to see Michelangelo's David - but that this wasn't done this year. He called it an "egregious mistake" and said that "parents are entitled to know anytime their child is being taught a controversial topic and picture".

                          "We're not going to show the full statue of David to kindergartners. We're not going to show him to second graders. Showing the entire statue of David is appropriate at some age. We're going to figure out when that is," Mr Bishop said.

                          On Thursday, Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, moved to expand a law that banned public schools from teaching sexual education and gender identity.

                          Teachers who violate the law face being suspended or losing their teaching licences.

                          The David was completed by Michelangelo between 1501 and 1504. It was instantly hailed as a masterpiece, with Renaissance artist Giorgio Vasari saying the David "surpassed" any statue that had ever existed before.

                          Queen Victoria gifted a copy of the David to the South Kensington museum - later the V&A - in 1857. When she first saw the cast, she was apparently so shocked by the nudity that a fig leaf was commissioned to cover up the genitalia.

                          The V&A's website says that the leaf was kept "in readiness for any royal visits, when it was hung on the figure using two strategically placed hooks."


                          Irrespective of Victoria's apparent shock at male full frontal nudity even depicted in marble, I am left wondering if the child[ren] of the complainant have never seen either their own or their siblings' naked bodies.


                          Given the long history of painting being repainted to add fig leaves and strips of cloth.... That below is the actual fig leaf that has been at various time strategically attached to Michelangelo's David

                          I'll hazard a guess at... a heck of a lot longer than recently, stretching back into the Renaissance itself.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            The topography remains the same regardless of the age.
                            I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point, or if you're just a moron.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              IMO the complaint reflects an attitude just as warped as the attitudes of people wanting to do strip shows for children. Just the opposite end of the scale.
                              Yup.

                              It's the inevitable counter-push that can easily go just as far. Seen this show before.



                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post




                                Should younger children not be exposed to art? Do you extend that to illustrations in children's books? Should Tenniel's illustrations for the Alice books be banned because some of the characters look rather sinister or monstrous? What about Maurice Sendak's wild things? Or Rackham's illustrations for Brothers Grimm?
                                Should classic children's books get banned like six Dr. Seuss books[1] after claims of "racist and hurtful" imagery?




                                1. the publisher will no longer publish them, resulting in several school systems banning them (starting in Virginia IIRC), libraries removing them, old Joe striking them from 2021 Read Across America Day[1]and several bookstores removed them from sale. Ebay even went so far as to cancel even already completed orders -- IIRC, me brudder, Cow Poke, can tell you about that.





                                1. The prodder of bovines will be so proud -- a footnote in a footnote! In any case, that day is intimately associated with Dr. Seuss -- it even takes place on his birthday.


                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                82 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                278 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X