Michelangelo's David: Art, or Pornography?

Post Reply New Topic

Most of you are familiar at least with Michelangelo's iconic marble sculpture of a standing male nude, representing the Biblical hero David.

If not, then you will have to look it up yourself. I would not wish to be accused once again of offending the morals of the community, nor of violating anyone's virgin eyes, with pictures of male gonads, even if expertly crafted in marble.

No trip to Florence, Italy would be complete without at least taking a quick peek at the statue. Which may explain why some of our "Conservatives" have no desire to visit Italy.

I do know of some people who will absolutely not visit an art museum, for fear of seeing artistic depictions of nude humans.

I have no problem with nudity myself. I wear clothes only because I don't want to attract too much attention to myself. Plus to protect myself from cold and sunburn.

So, what do you think? Does Michelangelo's David merely represent crass, Continental European pornography? Or, is it one of the greatest pieces of art of all times?

False dichotomy. Who is to say that pornography isn't art? Art is any creative expression of the self intended to inspire emotion in an audience. Sexual arousal is an emotion, and sexuality is a part of the self just as worthy of expressing creatively as any other. Pornography is a basic genre of art, no different from comedy, tragedy or drama.
Whether David is pornography depends entirely on whether Michelangelo intended primarily for it to be sexually arousing. Which is obviously hard to know for certain at this point.

It could be claimed that the degree of taste depends where, when, and how you display it.
Much could be said of the description of such also, as the American non-Liberal would be
more likely to use the phraseology of "stick it".

Tadzio

Michelangelo was gay, so I'll go and say yes. Not like there's a problem with that.

|-----------------------------|
Art

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Porn


Just sayin

I don't see why people always equate nudity and porn.

There is clearly some sort of meaning to every work of art, and it is rarely what people see visually.

The argument was not about art itself, but whether it met Jesse Helms' criteria for receiving a government grant. This was about the time Robert Mapplethorpe hit the "art" scene, in the late 70s/early 80s.

The thing I noticed about Michaelangelo's David was its cultural inaccuracy. Assuming this was supposed to be King David from the Bible, the statue has him uncircumcised, when he was clearly Jewish.

Maybe it could be another choice somewhere in the middle and just categorize it as Erotica.

When the word Porn is used it does involve some eroticism but usually makes you think of it being done with a very crude production. The Cable Guy or the Pizza Guy shows up and ladies in the apartment quickly relieve him of his clothing.

But some people with actual talent and artistic vision as well as an interest in erotic imagery aspire to do something more highbrow.

It's a very fine statue of a young man who is about the fight a giant. He's thinking about the battle ahead of him and his tense expression contrasts with the calm pose. He just happens to be naked. I went with art.

Sexuality and sensuality are variable. I'm sure someone has beaten off to it at some point and for them it's a form of porn. Eye of the beholder.

What the majority thinks is just group masturbation. That they synchronize their stroking won't change the minds of the other camps.

If you look at some of the earliest works of art from our Paleolithic ancestors:

Do a search for Venus figurines. Once again, I do not want to be accused of debasing the morals of the community by providing links to overly-sexy images. (Yes, a moderator is watching me, and hoping for an excuse to pounce).

On your search, you will find small statuettes, 11,000-40,000 years old, of women where the abdomen, hips, breasts, thighs, vulva are exaggerated, while other anatomical details are neglected or absent (especially arms and feet), and the heads are often of relatively small size and lacking detail.

Speculation on the purpose of these images range from the religious to the pornographic. I doubt that our Paleolithic ancestors necessarily required something to w*k to.

Still, the human body (especially the female body) is something that I regard as being worthy of veneration, and not as something that is dirty and needs to be hidden.

To be whimsical....

If David was pornography, he'd have a thick, veiny, 13-inch schlong and one hand would be on his hip and the other behind his head with his hips thrust forward.

Covering statues with leaves is distasteful.