"David" is declared obscene

luvnaturism · #1 10-05-2002, 01:41 PM

Nudes In The News has a link to a story about a shopping center that invested in replicas of classical artworks as part of its effort to provide a beautiful ambiance. A few hyper-Christians, considering themselves to be the moral authorities for the community, made such a fuss about Michaelangelo's David that the owners ended up placing a plaster fig leaf over his "offensive" parts. Other classical works were removed from view.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=183019&rfi=6

At the end of the story there's a place to add your comments. Not sure that it makes a difference, but I added mine. Others might like to do the same. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img]

luvnaturism · #2 10-05-2002, 01:41 PM

Nudes In The News has a link to a story about a shopping center that invested in replicas of classical artworks as part of its effort to provide a beautiful ambiance. A few hyper-Christians, considering themselves to be the moral authorities for the community, made such a fuss about Michaelangelo's David that the owners ended up placing a plaster fig leaf over his "offensive" parts. Other classical works were removed from view.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=183019&rfi=6

At the end of the story there's a place to add your comments. Not sure that it makes a difference, but I added mine. Others might like to do the same. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img]

#3 10-05-2002, 06:45 PM

Well, I added my 2 cents worth if it gets posted. I can't understand why some people are so offended by God's greatest creation that they want to destroy art.

I never cease to be amazed at what one person can do in a negative way. One person got prayer and the Bible removed from schools. When I was in school, we started the class with prayer and Bible reading, and the pledge of allegience with the words "under God" included. One person also got a religious picture removed from a school wall. He was the only one offended enough to want it removed.

These works of art have been around for centuries, offending no one, and suddenly someone decides they're obscene. Books that depict homosexuality as normal are offensive and obscene though. Works of art that depict nudity in a positive light are not.

Be nude and have fun. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

**Bob S.** · #4 10-05-2002, 10:26 PM

In the story, there is a paragraph that states,
"The RLC {Republican Leadership Council} is an arch conservative faction of teh Republican Party that believes in the strict adherence to the party's platform."

Just to clarify, the Republican Party's platform does not involve censorship. This is a part of the ultra-right, anti-nudity sect that goes against what I believe is the Republican platform that believes in smaller government and less governmental interference. Ironic that the groups that usually are into censorship are the religious right who are usually Repubs.

Bob S.

nudistwheelchair · #5 10-05-2002, 10:53 PM

I put my two cent also about this some people r just brain wash. I pray to God and ask him for giveniss for people thinking his creation is bad. Also to have a mouth were we could all go nude for a week just like one of the prophits did in the Old Testiment

#6 10-05-2002, 11:29 PM

If" David"was created in "all his male glory "with an erection , would most here then consider it obscene...... as that seems to be the standard for removal of photos from this forum?

#7 10-06-2002, 12:27 AM

Do most naturists consider erotic art obscene? Is there a difference between erotic art and porn? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

gamblefish · #8 10-06-2002, 04:19 AM

I submitted my opinion yesterday (Oct. 5) but it hasn't been posted as of this morning (Oct. 6). Probably because this is the weekend.

It's sad to say, but sometimes I do not want people to know that I am a Christian because I do not want to be associated with the likes of the Whitts. I'm sure they think they are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, they are somewhat misguided.

Speaking from a Christian perspective: If your children see something that you deem offensive and wrong then use that situation to teach. Tell your kids why you believe it is wrong. You cannot sheild your children from every evil thing in this world. It is better to let them know how the world is and to teach them right from wrong so that when they are older they will have that firm foundation to base their decisions on.

luvnaturism · #9 10-06-2002, 04:52 AM

quote:
Originally posted by outdoorbare:
[qb]Is there a difference between erotic art and porn? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [/qb]

Yes, there is and it has to do with motive.

Greek mythology contained many erotic characters, and these were widely depicted on such objects as pots and urns. Satyrs (creatures that are half man, half animal, and constantly aroused) were typically drawn with an enormous erection. Many ancient cultures had their fertility gods, commonly depicted with huge sex organs. Similarly there are many depictions of men and women coupling.

I've seen a lot of this kind of thing in museums, and none of it has ever seemed pornographic to me. However, when I see the same figures mass produced and sold for profit (little figures with big erections are commonly offered by vendors at tourist stops in Greece), then I do consider them to be pornographic.

The line between erotic and pornographic is subtle and highly subjective, definitely in the eye of the beholder. Even if something clearly remains on the erotic side of that line, most people wouldn't want to populate public areas with reproductions of that sort of art.

David was created originally to be placed on the roof of a cathedral, a use that would have made an erection unacceptable. Had the artist given him one, the statue might still be considered great art ? but you wouldn't see so many reproductions around the world.

#10 10-06-2002, 12:26 PM

The nude male body with a flaccid penis is not erotic. An erect penis is meant to be erotic. The man is sexually aroused. There is definitely a difference between the two.

Be nude and have fun. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]