Do people understand the difference between 'art' and something that is sexually explicit?

Question

It seems that people cannot seem to understand the difference between works of art and something that is intentionally sexually explicit. It is only fairly recently that our society has become so upset at the mere sight of nudity even in the context of art.

Art is all around us. The Statue of "The Spirit of Justice" which sits in the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C. wears a toga- like dress with one breast exposed.

So now, are people going to lobby to have works of art taken off walls and statues dressed just because they show the human body? If peoples two hundred years ago thought nothing of putting up nude sculptures on buildings - our forefathers and mothers whom many consider to be wiser than we are - then why is there such a problem with it now?

Answer 1

Reminds me of the field trip my kids' school went on to the art museum. They wanted the Hall of Nudes to be shut down for the trip. I had to fight them tooth and nail to leave it open. I was the only mom that took my kids into that area. My daughters know that there is nothing wrong with the human body, and it is beautiful. They also have been taught to appreciate art and to try to get a message from each piece.

People who are so easily offended by nudity have repressed sexual issues and need to seek therapy.

Answer 2

Art and explicit nudity are very very distinct. But they are mixed up because of the lack of knowledge on the context in which the Artist or the Person expresses it. Also the minds of 2 people wont work in the same way and hence its much more challenging.
The best way to preserve them is up to the artists to give a detailed idea of what the art represents to him, no matter what others think then it may a even be master piece if the expression is not only in form of sexuality. If he or she cannot express it any other form other than sexuality then its nothing but another form of Erotica or Arousal that has been created by the personal imagination of the arist. The Society can then judge on this and make the decision.

Sex is a Symbol of representation for many artists as its the most personal and it directly reaches the audience. But it also has its flags from socialist's, conservatives,religious leads etc as it depends on the interest of each of these people.
Though i believe that there should be no oppression in any form on anyone ..i do believe that sometimes its necessary to protect the young from going into the wrong path.

Answer 3

Well, it seems that some of these so-called artists are the ones who don't know the difference between art and perversion. Then, these faux pas artisans, have audacity to use the first amendment to justify their vulgarity.

Where, in the content of civility, does a severed head, an aborted fetus, a mutilated body have any aesthetic value...THEY DON'T!

Being an artist doesn't give a person carte blanche in using "shock value" to make a name for themselves.

No, I don't believe the nudes of old are perverse, but today, most nudes --playboy, hustler, other porn, have no artistic value, they're just another way exploit and demean women.

What's sad is those women who allow themselves to be exploited have NO sense of self-pride only a sense for money.

It because of these people, that true art is taking a hit and suffering from their lack of artistic knowledge, finesse and responsibility.

You give people an inch, and they take it a million miles, in the wrong direction...it's pathetic.

Blame society's reaction on those who vomit the dark and disgusting. They're the ones who have caused "the extreme that begets the extreme" mentality.

Answer 4

The cause is, I think, Barbara, a combination of confused churches desperate to get people back, a sensationalist press desperate to sell newspapers, and the TV equivalent. Couple that with the astrological movement of the planet from Pisces into Aquarius (or not, if you don't like), and we have a very confused world. Have no fear, it will pass, given time. There are elections coming up in the US, UK and Australia this year. Things will settle down after that.
I hope . . . .

Answer 5

Wow. The aborted fetus. The man or woman above me says we can't have those artists doing an aborted fetus. Paraphrasing what he or she has said.

Now, we are all familiar with the movie people vs larry flint, where the lawyer argued the difference between pornography and art and political commentary,

who are we to say that the fetus artwork isn't political speech?

I would propose, since abortion is a topic, a major topic on the national discussion, that the aborted fetuses, now I'm just using my brain on this one,

IS POLITICAL SPEECH, and pro-life political speech at that.

This must be protected by the government, in accordance with the first amendment,

and all those churches with their rhetoric to get members, protected speech,

my right to go look at a naked breast, protected speech.

Answer 6

Ahhhh, the Simpsons did a brilliant episode on this where Marge railed against public indecency and then found herself supported by people who would ban things like the statue of David. She backed down then.

To be fair, I think this is mostly an American issue; you seem to have inherited the Puritan spirit. After all, they migrated in droves when they thought they might be persecuted in Europe.

Answer 7

Actually, I think people understand very well the difference. Our society is hooked on pornography but they would never dare to call it art. They prefer to call it "entertainment" (ughhh).

Those who see nudity as a problem in TRUE art are maybe reacting to the sexual immorality of our culture as a whole. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm just trying to understand them.

Maybe they feel that our culture has such a skewed view of sex that they can't appreciate the human body even when its painted or scuplted in a beautiful way.

So, to be on the safe side they lobby for no exposure of any kind?

Just my thoughts...

Answer 8

My mother goes insane when she sees any form of nudity. I mean ANY. She accuses my father of staring at it for erotic pleasure. To her, it's leading him into temptation......I really don't understand it. The sad fact is I couldn't even take them into the Met Art Museum without fear of her freaking out. To be honest, I feel it has more to do with growing insecurity of our bodies and some use that as an excuse to enact legislation. All of us are grown women and she still has to 'edit' what we see when we're around her.

Answer 9

No, I think you are wrong. That kind of art did not used to be a problem until some "artists" exploited "in the name of art" for absolutely vile displays. Remember the "work of art" of The Virgin Mary if I remember right created with feces?

What has become acceptable now has so gone over the line!

Answer 10

A growing away from God presently in this country; even the Lord told Isaiah to go naked for a while (Isaiah 20:2).