Michelangelo's David: Art, or Pornography?

Post Reply New Topic

chopping off their manhood first was also common,
barbaric beyond redemption the whoe lot of em.

If you were to label the statue of David as porn then you would have to accuse about half of the art world as being pornographic. Eye of the beholder is a good way to put it as mentioned before but I find it hard to justify the statue as being porn even if the Michelangelo was gay. I don't even think a lot of modern artists who display shocking and highly controversial art as being pornographic.

I see it as simply a brand of art they are trying to indulge in to reach a more isolated portion of the public. I frankly don't like it as someone taking a picture of someones defecation to me is what I call bad art. That's my opinion on it. Shock is way to easy. If I wanted to I could go around taking pictures of shocking material and call it art just as easy. Takes little creativity and hangs solely on those who wish to see something controversial just for the sake of controversy. As the saying goes. "Whatever floats your boat"

As for porn I consider it a lesser art. I don't want to divulge into to much as it is a sensitive topic on this thread.

While I don't see any beauty in the male body I don't think their is anything more beautiful than the female form. It is a testament to beauty in the human race. To me all the beauty of the world can be seen in the female form. A woman can represent the roaring falls, the winding river, the budding flower, the swans grace, the stars glory, the flowers scent, the birds eternal song, the moons allure, the sirens call, the storms rage, the oceans depth, the feathers touch and all that brings the human heart to its knees and bleed of unkempt wonder.

They can represent those things to you, but my body to me represents a sack of fat, blood and hormones

I find women sexually attractive myself but I do not understand why some people overrate them so much aesthetically, especially as most of them don't look like Aphrodite (I certainly don't and I'm about average in terms of looks for a woman). I also don't understand the general attitude that men have no aesthetic value, when even a hetero dude should be able look at David and think he's nicely sculpted. You even get straight women who say that women are better looking.

Call me messed-up, but I actually prefer the way men look, aesthetically (though I'm pretty much not fussed about gender sexually).

How do you compare to the Paleolithic Venus figurines?

I am a straight guy. That's probably why I view this. Yeah not all women are beautiful in my eyes but the ones that are... I can say the statue is beautifully made but the male genitalia just does not strike me as something attractive again for the fact I am straight. As it shocks you I say this about women it shocking to me that you find the male body more attractive but you are a straight woman so that just makes sense. I am a pathetic romantic I guess. I will probably die alone because of it to I am no better than a ball of fat.

Interestingly enough both men and women in the Greek culture considered the male body to be more aesthetically beautiful. Also oddly enough the Greeks considered small male gentiles to be more attractive and desirable. Our culture has the exact opposite view. Your practically considered a woman in today's society if you are not considered big enough.

the aphrodite statue in delphi were not a size 0 model either.

Censorship is disgusting, and I'm frankly offended that more people aren't offended by such vile behavior.

Me. I am the head of the Art Penis Regulations department of the United Nations.

Aye, for the most part. But there's a difference between censorship bars on a penis and A Serbian Film.

As gratuitously disturbing and meaningless as a movie may be, it still has the right to exist, provided nobody is getting exploited against their will for real. And when there is actual exploitation and victimization involved, it becomes not a matter of censorship but a matter of privacy. The right of an artist to express things ends where another person's right to not be exploited begins. Not before, not after.

True, true. YOu have convinced me that all censorship is evil. Although age limits would be useful.

Well, I'm not THAT fat, I have arms, and I have features on my face...but then I'm not a religious/fertility symbol, I'm a person.

I thought that all women possessed a dual role: that of a person, and that of a religious/fertility symbol.

If you want to think that, fine. I can't bring myself to worship anything, even nature.

It's very hard for me to see myself as having that dual role when I:
1. Am a mega-atheist/materialist
2. Really don't want kids.

Yes, I will agree that age limits do have a use, to an extent (as a guideline), but that shouldn't affect what's legally allowed and availible. Adults shouldn't be robbed of their choices just because some things may be psychologically damaging to kids whose parents don't take the time to keep an eye on what their kids are exposed to and indulge in conversation about important topics such as the difference between art and reality.

Nudity/porn can be seen as art, take 9 songs for example(have no intent of watching it myself but you may like it).

Having said that if you wish to be able to express yourself at a certain website/organization you have to respect their own rules(if you dont like the rules you are more than free to look for something that has rules that are more similar to your ideals), you may see it as a way of censorship, I see it as a way of making sure that the organization remains true to its original intent.