Art, Nudity, and Morality?

Question

Remember when John Ashcroft draped cloth over the breasts of the statues in Washington?

I recently watched a travel program on the local public tellivision station. they were in the Louvre and actually blurred out the genetalia of a sculpture! I was FLOORED! It was something akin to the Discuc Thrower - not anything prurient. This seemed so puritanically ignorant that I was outright enraged. Is there anyone who thinks this was correct? And if so, WHY???

LOL! OMG, Mel! Can you imaging them putting big red "censored" labels on Adams genetalia on the Sistine Chapel ceiling?! Thank God it isn't in America!!!

Answer 1

It's troublesome to me. I resent censorship--but I do myself serve as censor with regard to my own children. I govern their experience (to the limited extent that that is possible) by, e.g., forbidding them to watch some things today that I will later allow them to watch.

So, if I think it okay to censor what my kids see and do until I deem them wise enough to see or do those things, why do I resent censorship of the kind outlined in the question?

I resent the arrogance of the censor, who has apparently decided that no one is mature enough to see a carved marble Greek dick, of course. But I must nevertheless concede that the decision that such a sight is impermissible isn't mine to make, in the circumstance of that decision.

It often happens that a 'moral' decision is made that the policymaker wouldn't make in a more private venue. But when the public at large is affected, conservative--even 'prudish'--decisions are defensible. And is there a more public venue than television?

Sure, it annoys, but having your local PBS channel shut down by the FCC would be even more annoying, wouldn't it? I can disagree with the call, chide the management for testicular lacks, etc., but it's only a more genteel form of Monday morning quarterbacking, finally.

I wouldn't have called the play that way. On the other hand, my job wasn't at risk, nor the license of my company. I have the Monday morning advantage: the game's over, and I can speculate endlessly about what the better moves might have been. I can cast aspersions on the judgments of people who didn't do what I claim I would have done. It's great good fun--but I think it's just a little dishonest, just a little unethical to do so.

The corrigible hypocrisy is on this side of that decision under scrutiny. If we do not fully understand how that decision was reached, we do injustice--however right our judgment might be.

Yeah, that censor might be an arrogant bluenose--but she might be a privately hardcore exhibitionist slut who during working hours worries that her public display of, say, "David", might clash with the 'moral programs' of some of her viewers, and that that is a more important consideration than is that the display should be uncensored.

Obviously, I'm trying here to de-monolithize the censors. In the case of John Ashcroft? I strongly suspect 'arrogant bluenose' is adequate understanding, and I share the resentment fully. In the PBS case? Maybe not.

Answer 2

These are some of the absurd mindsets that Christians have fallen into. Some of the reasons why stem all the way back to Rome, and what was happening as they converted by coercion. There have been many atrocities done in the name of God over the centuries. This so called "puritanical" view about art is only the tip of the iceberg, really. While the vicars of Rome were subduing the masses with constraint and ruling with fear, they themselves lived in a whirlwind of controversy. These mind sets have continued and like a bad hangover, they still exist in Christian religious circles today. To drape a statues body parts because they feel it is vulgar is not only ignorant, but insulting. (And I don't believe that God had or has anything to do with such absurdities either.)

Answer 3

Paradoxically, society goes to one extreme fearing genetalia in the Louvre, while making films that contain everything imaginably sexually rather easily available.

Though the puritans among us enjoy the self-righteousness of proclaiming they are draping statues 'for the sake of the children', it is obvious that they are mostly uncomfortable with their own sexuality. And the effect on children is likely to be one of curiosity, and it embeds the concept of 'taboo', so that the eventual adult effect will be a sexuality with elements of guilt, shame, humiliation regarding nudity and the other emotions of sado-masochism.

Having said this, the forbidden has always been a part of human sexuality. One could even argue it strenthens our libidos. I remember what filmmaker Louis Bunuel once said; "Sin is the sexist idea ever invented."

Strike a happy medium, and enjoy sex and love before it's totally under the control of the government. Another quote, this from Leonard Cohen; "Everybody knows the scene is dead, and there's going to be a meter on your bed that will disclose what everybody knows."

Answer 4

Actually if you look into any kind of christian painting Lot's of them have angels topless and body parts showing...rear's, etc. I don't think this is the problem. Not too long ago I remember watching on t.v. that a lady had a statue of a naked man on her lawn. It was all over the news and all the MOTHER"S...No matter what religion, were against having this in their neighborhood. They had 3 year old's asking "what is that?" She was ordered, eventually. to take the piece down. The body is beautiful and adults should enjoy this art form. But, children could be pushed into early curiosity which can cause much harm for the child....

Dahrma

Answer 5

This is a great question! In my opinion, nudity by itself - the simple fact of being without clothing - is neutral. In certain situations it can be extremely positive (like enjoying an awesome day at the nude beach, which I love) or extremely negative (like parading naked to disrupt a legitimate activity such as a church service, or to imtimidate impressionable children.) We can never seperate the act of being naked from the context in which it occurs if we're looking to make an intelligent judgement. One thing is certain - nudity in and of itself is not always linked to sexuality. It can be (and frequently is), but to equate all nudity with sexuality and then condemn it for being immoral is totally false. I personally love being nude in appropriate places, like a nude beach, friends' pool or hot tub, etc., and do not consider myself immoral at all. The individuals who encounter me naked in those situations are not hurt by the experience in any way. However, if an individual uses his or her nudity to inflict harm upon others, that is certainly immoral and needs to be prohibited. Bottom line: it's not the nudity that's either positive or negative, but rather the context in which it occurs. Bare hugs to all...

Answer 6

It's probably mandated by the FCC.

It's stupid really. It's not like seeing people with their clothes off will cause blindness. I doubt the youth of America will be corrupted by fine art. They're too busy being corrupted by the drug dealer on the corner, or something.

And, after all, if Gawd had wanted us to be seen nekked, we'd have been born that way doncha think?

Answer 7

Christians are ashamed of their own humanity. That's why they have a juvenile fear of even looking at images of genitalia. The existence of penises and vaginas can only mean that we are sexual animals and have much in common with other higher life forms on Earth. Because Church doctrine segregates humans from "mere" animals, even the celibate priesthood must deny their own instinctive drives. Christian parents deliberately raise their offspring in complete ignorance of their own sexuality. Ignorance is not equivalent to innocence. It's a miracle we don't have more perverts than we already do.

Edit: Thank you, Father Guido (above): "Christians are scared of boobies and pee pees."

Answer 8

I think it's insane, too. After all, it's not in any way meant to titillate viewers. The Greeks idolized the human form, and that's the reason why their sculptures are so detailed. Classical sculptures are beautiful, and anyone who is offended by them must have some serious issues!

Answer 9

America is ridiculous this way. They don't understand how it is like Prohibition was with alcohol. When you get all worked up about somewthing so normal and natural, you make a bigger problem than you could ever have had to begin with. American's warper view of sex is why there is so much weird pornaography, faile marriages, teen pregnancies, etc.

Answer 10

When showcases the Louvre it's only common sense not to censor it. Regardless of morality, or religion it's about respect. This isn't pornography, created to pleasure the perverted. It's art, intended to respect the subject, God's creation, and to be respected by the viewer.