February 10, 2009
-
Porn, Art and Censorship
Chinese censors are taking on nude Renaissance art with their anti-vulgarity campaign. Here is the link: Link
They are adding clothing to some of the most famous art.
Do you think Renaissance art should be censored when it displays nudity?
Comments (156)
The human body is beautiful and should be displayed in the nude.
Art of any period should never be covered. That’s a part of what makes art, art.
I really can’t believe how ridiculous that is.
No, it shouldn’t be censored.
No!
Its art….
*sighs*
Its kinda late to be censoring things anyways!
No
Heavens, no. It’s art! It’s been around longer than we have.
Sigh. I don’t understand.
um… no?
that ruins the point of the art?
god, people are so squeamish.
no, duh. grow up and accept the fact that humans are nude sometimes. if you can’t handle it, don’t look.
nopee
No! That is completely changing the artist’s intention. I majored in art. I also consider myself a modest person when it comes to the human figure. Seeing nude models in class made me blush. But it isn’t our right to re-do what an artist in the past has done. If the nudity is that big of a deal, put it in a separate section of museums, but don’t alter the artwork.
Sounds like vandalism to me…
Though that poses an interesting question: once all the nudes are covered are they going to rewrite all the books with “obscenities” in them?
Absolutely NOT! At its very best, that is revisionist history. At its worst, it’s defilement of true art. If they don’t LIKE it and are offended by it, they should just not look at it at all.
It’s beautiful, it’s educational, it’s history, it shows the progression of thought/philosophy.
GAH. My blood pressure!
no
gosh, have they never seen a naked person before?O_xso melodramatic
This is beyond ridiculous; this is RICOCKULOUS. Nudity in art is not meant to be vulgar and therefore should not be included as a target in an anti-vulgarity campaign.
absolutely not. but im not about to try to convince the chinese government of that…
definitely NOT! while there are a handful of places it is not at all appropriate (say, a preschool classroom) – it is a valuable part of our history and culture, and does nobody harm..
no!
that would make as much sense as muting anything close to profanity with a BEEP sound in films, TV shows and songs on the radio
No. It’s not even intended to arouse.
No!
It’s a well known fact that Chinese people have serious foot fetishes.
HECK NO! It’s art as-is!
The human body was made for us to enjoy. Covering it up, especially in art, is an atrocity.
(No, I’m not a nudist. XD)
Ridiculous! Art is art. This is as ridiculous as censorship Donald Ducks because he doesn’t wear pants.
Nope…
hahaha. i have an inappropraite comment about the size of some of the nude men, but i will keep it to myself.
the censoring is dumb but then again they have strict belief if im not mistaken.
maybe musuems should just not display the nude art or at least give warnings of explicit art before the gallery to prevent having to censor or get rid of the art
Congratulations on bringing to my attention the biggest piece of bullshit I’ve read all day. This is absolutely hilarious. We should be opening our minds to nudity, rather than covering it up. Everyone should be required to take a trip to Europe. There is nudity everywhere. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. And we should certainly not be covering up famous (and beautiful) artwork. That would be the crime.
No.
Yes penisi and vagjayjays make me weep
i want to punch censorship in the face.
the end.
Absolutely not. Ridiculous waste of money.
ROFL.
LOL! I personally liked the chinese suit on that statue hahahaha.
Nudity should never be censored (except for ugly naked people).
Hmm, you and I are on the same wavelength or something because I was about to post about a subject very close to this….
I do not agree with censoring art at all. I do agree with having “art” censored though. By this I mean people who create pornographic iages and then try to pass them off as “artistic nudes”.
no of course not!!
hell no
No.
No, there’s a difference between nude art and pornography. Although that difference isn’t always “made during the Renaissance”. There were plenty of horny noblemen back then, so some stuff really was intended to be erotic.
Though you should point out, Dan, that the pictures you’ve shown are not the work of Chinese sensors, but people parodying Chinese censors.
Kind of ruins the point of artistic expression, doesn’t it? Let’s give the Venus de Milo arms next!
I chuckle every time I read about Communist regimes, that are officially atheist, who engage in the kind of censorship that you would expect from a religious oligarchy.
With respect to China, is this a cultural trait that would be exhibited no matter what political system, or is this a regime that is afraid that the “people” would be distracted from their duties by sexually explicit art?
ROTFLMAO!!! Ooooooh, that is too too funny. I love the fact that Adam has to wear socks. Hahahahahahaha! Oh, those dirty, dirty feet….
It’s art. It’s completely different from porn. It’s a celebration of the beauty that can be found in the human form, not an vulgar exploitation of it.
And this is coming from the girl who famously hates porn.
hello its art
How in the hell is Renaissance art vulgarity? Screwing up art with a fucking cartoon tie is what’s really vulgar.
I’ll be scared when they cover up David…other then that I’m okay! But still…all in all that’s history…it’s bullshit to cover it!
Holy Crap, is that a Mao suit on David?
absolutly not
I like the art the exactly the way it is originally, but that’s just my opinion.
hahahahaha
no, it’s art. porn, i can see, but that is classical art.
NO
No! It looks horrible!
.@Darn_it_danube - i’ll keep that thought in mind when attempting to get girls naked (:
Nudity is not inherently vulgar. I see myself naked at least twice a day and it doesn’t give me dirty thoughts.
If you want to tackle this from the Christian perspective, think of it this way:
God made man in His image. And it is in that image he wished for us to live in paradise. Adam and Eve were naked, and free, and very happily so. It wasn’t until they decided there was something wrong with that picture, that they ought to feel ashamed and embarrassed for their natural state, that they were cast out of Eden. Sure, that itself was not the original sin, it was partaking from the forbidden tree and all that, but consider what those ramifications were. God would have been content to let us live and prosper in Eden, naked, for eternity.
The human body on it’s own is not inherently vulgar. It is made to
appear vulgar by certain (IMO: close-minded) individuals. They don’t want us
to sexualize ourselves so much, yet by telling us to cover up they’re
making us believe our naked bodies are dirty, or wrong in some way. Perhaps they feel that observing nudity will cause some to feel lust, and therefore they would be sinners. But honestly. If somebody had no idea that being naked should be associated only with sex, would lust be their first reaction? It’s hard to know having never been in that sort of situation. We’re so programmed to think that nudity=sex and sex=sinful that we cannot step back and look at a naked person without automatically pulling sex into the equation.
Essentially, I am saying that it is stupid to censor art when it utilizes the naked human form. It’s not as if the art is pornographic, or depicting sex acts. The first image you show is “The Creation of Adam” on the Sistine Chapel. What is sexual about that? Who looks at that image and feels anything but amazement at the entire scene painted before him? Adam wore no clothes when God created him, so why falsely clothe him in order to shield us from the nudity?
There are so many reasons I think this is the wrong way to handle things, but I feel I’ve probably exhausted my welcome in this comment.
For the record, since I believe it to be relevent, I typed this post fresh from the shower and almost entirely naked, aside from the towel on my head.
lol! this is hilarious. I’m sure the artists would be so angry about this…if they were alive
omg no! there destroying those pieces of art. in my opinion the human body is art. and its beautiful. y is it that even adults cant look at something so pure as naked flesh and see something dirty?
No. If someone doesn’t want to see it, then they can just not go to the gallery where it’s being displayed.
no.
Okay… that first one? Hilarious.
But back on subject, no. Renaissance art should not be censored.
No… that’s just silly
no, but if the nudity is a problem, then they could seperate it into PG and PG13 areas – any pics with nude people in them go to the PG13 area, and the rest go to PG13.
This is more of a biggie if you have kids
Absolutely not! But I don’t believe in censorship anyway…
no it shouldn’t be, it is representative of a time where the human body was hailed for what it represented…not just the anatomy of it. art is art, it represents an idea, a belief, a societal value. putting restrictions on that only serves as an injustice to creativity. just another example of censorship at its max.
Socks? Are you shitting me? SOCKS? No.
No! The art of the Renaissance was meant to show the human body as being beautiful.
they should absolutely not censor art if you cant take it don’t look screw people and their fragile psyches and screw political correctness it aught to be about the intent of the art
Absolutely not.
No. The whole point of creating portraits and sculptures of people in the nude, especially during the renaissance, was to display the its beauty. It’s not sexual or vulgar in anyway. They were trying to portray that the human body in itself is a work of art. Covering it up is ridiculous
@shinymeshapples -
TITCR
if the chinese want to censor their art it is perfectly okay with me. different strokes for different folks. not my culture.
no
I see absolutely nothing vulgar about the naked human body.
Oh, China! That tie is ridiculous.
Never! that’s blasphemous! ugh. stupid.
Once again… the Chinese government fails to see the dignity of the human person, as is displayed in the art of the Masters.
Can the human body be pornographic? No… but it can be USED in a pornographic way. When it is displayed to entice… to be vulgar… to be base… then it is pornographic. John Paul the Great wisely said “the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much, but that it shows too little.” It reduces people to their anatomy and its functions. The human body, especially the female body, is God’s Masterpiece. Now… we should not all run around naked, we are a fallen people after all, but to display in the human body in art, to champion the beauty of Creation, this is why the Church has supported art throughout history. Creation glorifies the artist!
No. Back when this art was made, the human body was considered beautiful. To take the nudity away is to take away the beauty of the art. I mean, yes, I’m sure David would have been amazing clothed, because of his size… but would he have been an artistic triumph of the time? Probably not. You take away the meaning of the art if you cover the nudity.
That’s like telling the artist that they CAN’T express themselves freely, which is the whole point of art: freedom of expression.
Really. Besides, it’s too late now.
Firstly, standards of vulgarity is culturally defined. The standards of Western society can be vastly different from some fo the more closed societies of the Middle East or of East Asia. It would be China’s perogative to determine fair social standards.
Case in point: While nude advertisements may be socially acceptable in Germany or other parts of Europe, most states in the U.S. are much more conservative.
The second idea is the inherent value in unaltered Renaissance art. Adding a fig leaf takes a bit from the history and it erodes just a bit of the original artist’s intent.
But on balance, I feel that societal standards take outweigh this second idea.
A seperate concern is the Chinese government being overly anal about it– where their rules are much stricter than the actual standards of the Chinese people. And come on, it’s the communsit government. I fucking hate the Chinese Communist Govenment.
no…granted, pretty much nothing offends me in that respect….in most respects.
No,that is just stupid.
Censorship will be the demise of creativity at its best.
what. the. fuck.
that’s way too far. don’t mess with the classics.
Nope. You certainly shouldn’t put a tie and black socks on Adam. Brown socks maybe, but not black.
Besides, people know what they are getting into when they visit ‘David’ and the Sistine Chapel. Much better to not have a representation of the art at all than to alter it like they did.
Kind of a clever protest, though.
No, the dorky men’s dress socks and tie do not fit the era, and it’s stupid to clothe the statues in the first place!
Kathi
NO.
I saw some (actually, quite a LOT) of that art in Italy with school, and it is so incredible and just absolutely beautiful. It’s such a shame that they’d be covering it; it completely destroys the whole Renaissance style. They just *shouldn’t* display it or something…they’d be taking away its value and significance by doing anything else.
Maybe the Chinese are just embarassed about ole David’s size…
@meadowland_dreams - Nudity is not inherently vulgar. I see myself naked at least twice a day and it doesn’t give me dirty thoughts.
That’s a lame example.
Sure, what you say is true: Nudity isn’t inherently vulgar. But it doesn’t work the other way around: Nudity isn’t inherently clean.
Different cultures hold to different standards, and some societies are simply more uptight or simply different. In Japan, it is common practice for parents to bathe with their children. In America, a 40 year old father bathing with his 10 year old daughter would be looked at with an eye towards pedophilia.
It’s a bit persumptuous to immediately transport our standards to an entirely foreign society– one with their own culture, their own traditions, and their own histories.
@conphettirainphall - Censorship will be the demise of creativity at its best.
Yes and no.
Every society has limits to their standards of decency. The very existance of these limits doesn’t mean som earth-shattering curtailing of artistic creativity.
heck to the no, yo
No!
it’s sad that the government of a country known for its beauiful art cannot appreciate the masters… Michelangelo would be PISSED if he found out David was wearing a pantsuit in China!!!!
Uh, no.
God! No!
My horrified artist self aside, we should change all clothed art to be naked!
@ltl_rvr - He’s actually quite small.
@CallMeQuell - true enough. yet i’ve heard asians are smaller that’s all!
@ltl_rvr - Ha! Oooh. Ouch.
wow. no.
@huginn - Every society has limits to their standards of decency.
This is precisely the problem. Creative expression of any form should not have standards, especially those of decency.
No it should not be censored, but even in the US some classical art cannot be shown on TV.
What?! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nooo…can I jiggle their heads so that they will regain their senses?
It kind of defeats the purpose of the art from that period. I mean, it’s not bad exactly. Both art exist now. So it’s an art in itself. If someone can perceive it that way I suppose.
It’s not bad. It’s not as the whole period of that art will be eliminated.
When it comes to issues of Censorship, the Chinese government fucking sucks. They’re being sore assholes right now.
~1~
No, that’s human art.
No. Don’t tamper with the original.
oh thats just crazy. the artwork should not be changed in any way. if it is, then it wouldnt be the original piece of art. and who’d want to see that?
No!
nah it was art back then, no need to waste time correcting the past
No, they should let art be art. No one is being harmed by it.
Wake up people! The world economy is on the brink of collapse … and everyone is worried. Unlike us, the Chinese aren’t sitting around scratching their heads about what to do next. They know a big growth industry when they see one. Just imagine for a moment … if only the Vatican decided one day ’to dress’ their immense holdings of pre-Renaissance, Renaissance and post Renaissance statuary, well then … much of the world would be employed on this project alone … for years!
nooo
The chinese can do what they want with replicates, but should never mess with the originals.
@conphettirainphall - This is precisely the problem. Creative expression of any form should not have standards, especially those of decency.
So Jenna Jameson, if she should choose, can fuck outside the steps of the local nursery school as a means of creative self-expression.
Absolutely not. Art is important because it’s expressing things of the time periods… so to cover it up and censor it is ignoring that whole message!
No, it’s art.
they made david shorter.
ahahahaha.
I don’t think this is anything different from when “leaves” were used to censor such art.
No, those photos are laughable and don’t make sense. They should censor them for kids maybe, but even at a young age kids need to learn to appreciate nudity.
The human body itself is a work of art, how it works, looks etc and in this case, and in most art featuring nudity, it isn’t in a sexual way so no, this is silly and it ruins the artwork so much!
Nope, that’s really stupid.
absolutely not if they don’t like it they shouldn’t display it is all.
Hell no! These artists conceived their art to display nudity. Censorship of art, especially classic art such as this, is just plain wrong. Whats next? They’ll tell people theyre not allowed to have full length mirrors?
eeewww weenies.
No. The human body is a beautiful thing. We shouldn’t have to suffer other people’s shame over the naked form. If they don’t want to look at it, then they don’t have to look at it. It’s as simple as that.
Absolutely not, as an artist, I am kinda offended that they would even think of changing the most famous pieces! The human body id beautiful, some artists can truly embrace that and recreate it. Its a very rare skill. DON’T CLOTHE THE ART!
No! The point of those works of art was to show the beauty of the human body. And besides, if those examples are for real, they’re both ridiculous. Dressing David, an ancient Hebrew shepherd, in modern day clothes that weren’t even invented back then? Um…no thanks. Putting a tie (and just a tie) on the newly-created Adam? So God created men wearing ties? “Let’s see…I’ve just created this beautiful garden, and I want to make a man to live in it, but I don’t want him naked, so I’ll give him a piece of clothing that not only covers nothing, but gets caught in all the trees whenever he tries to take a walk through the forest.” Anyone else find that a bit silly?
no
It absolutely annoys me when people feel that the human body is something that should be censored. Everyone either has a penis or vagina or knows what one looks like. It’s a natural thing. What’s the big deal? And i hate when, on certain tv shows, they censor out the words penis and vagina. They are not profane words, they are BODY PARTS! The world is full of too many prudes.
No. Art should not be altered for censorship. It should be viewed in it’s original form or not at all.
@huginn - Two words: Straw Man. Google it.
@conphettirainphall - Justify it.
Easy enough to barf unsubstantiated claims.
Lol!
no cencorship if we dont like it we dont have to view it now on the other hand art and porn are two different things but these pictures are art not porn
I don’t think it should because, the nudity is an aspect of the work but it does make for interesting melding of 2 cultures (bottom).
PS: Creation of Adam looks kinkier with the tie.
No. It’s nothing like porn. Porn is vile and disgusting, art is beautiful. If you can’t see the difference, you need to pull your head out of your bum.
No. It’s art, not porn.
As a complete lover of art, especially Renaissance pieces, I think I just felt part of my brain explode.
reading the comments makes me laugh
What?! Those works of ART weren’t done as porn! No, they shouldn’t be censored.
Absolutely not.
No. It was intended to be shown nude.
No
That is funny.
no way, totally ruins the meaning of the art work… if they censor it, it’ll make it a different type of art… and it won’t be counted as the original (anymore)
HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Love the tie!
No.
Only when it’s female.
jk… I wouldn’t look at the art at all if I were that offended by it, morally. Why ruin art? Art is like a man… either accept it or reject it, but don’t try to change it.
One does NOT alter art to accommodate people who can’t deal with its content. If you censor it, you kill part of the reason it was created.
I hate people.
Why are people to uptight today? GAH.
goodness, no! it goes against the artist’s intention… besides that… some of these pieces of art look mighty fine..
That’s HORRIBLE! I am so angry!!!!
Nudity in male sculpture symbolizes idealization, naturalization, and strength. Depicting a woman nude symbolizes purity and virtue! Not vulgarity! Its out society today that needs fixing, that’s horrible. I cannot believe they’re destroying art work done by Michaelangelo! The single greatest Renaissance artist. I bet he’s rolling in his grave!
I can’t believe it. It’s ruining works of art. Ugh. If anything they should keep these pieces in a designated area in museums away from children if they feel that strongly about it.
Preidictable from a government that is repressive. What is vulgar, to me at least, is the compromising of the integrity of the original aestheic of the art pieces…no one has that authority only the artist to add or take away from the original, and since most of the artists have been dead for centuries that pretty much narrows it down to no one. China blows!
This illustrates the difference between prudishness and decency and, concurrently, the difference between pornography and art. None of the artworks shown were, in any way, attempting to display vulgarity, sexuality or human degradation. Instead, they were intended to feature beauty and ennobling attributes; spiritual as well as physical. That’s what separates art from porn.
To liken Adam or David with, say, the centerfold of Playgirl magazine, is ludicrous. I can make allowances for a culture that takes human nudity more seriously than we do. But to display images of these masterpieces clothed is just making the Chinese authorities look silly- both to us and, likely enough, to their own citizens.
No it takes away from the art.
If your not mature enough to enjoy the beauty of the human body naked don’t look. Plus art is recreating what is there and showing its beauty. I’m not saying walk around in the nude but art helps to show the beauty of things that we take for granted.
No, it’s art.
No art shouldn’t be tampered with. The artist created it that way for a reason.
old post. i know. but seriously? this reminds me of that DMA visit with that teacher a long time ago, and she got fired because a kid saw a nude piece.
GET OVER IT. it’s art. it’s Greek. it’s the human body. something to be appreciated and not seen as vulgar. as long as the piece isn’t vulgar, and isn’t nakedness, people should just shove it.
adam was naked. tada, would it be correct to show adam with clothes? David, was naked, would it be right to show him with clothes? i think this topic is stupid. get over it. everybody was born naked.