ART is, or is it not?

**no1_vern** · March 9th, 2005, 06:17 PM

I had never thought of it like this but there seems to be a lot of controversy over whether a womans naked breast(s) is "allowable" as a work of art. Before we go to far, I need to say that the artwork I am talking about is on the outside of the buildings. At least two court cases have happened over these murals. Both of the murals are copies of famous works, yet the officials of the towns seem determined to have them covered or removed.

In this article about artwork the writer believes there is an attack on artwork by the "ultra-rightwing" religous groups:
http://www.opednews.com/fisherwillia..._other_war.htm

In both of the murals have women who are half nude, so the breasts are exposed.

Stross, 43, told the Detroit Free Press newspaper: “This is one of the world’s most famous paintings. This is not my work. It is Michelangelo’s, and all I am trying to do is brighten up our community. ... They’re trying to turn my message into something it’s not.”
In a press release, national ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg commented, “It is disturbing that an artist can be imprisoned for replicating a masterpiece from the Sistine Chapel on the side of his art studio.”

So I ask is a copy of a famous painting which portrays a womans' naked breast art, or not??

**Hungrycookpot** · March 9th, 2005, 06:28 PM

i really hate censorship in our society. Half of our population has breasts, what is so evil and wrong about them? I really don't find breasts offensive in the least.

(My definition of offensive: Would I be embarrased to see/hear something if my grandma was present?)

**originel** · March 9th, 2005, 06:28 PM

I think it is art. The particular painting in question is a masterpiece and the nudity in question is that of Eve. If it were just a cheap porn shot, that would be different IMO, but in this case it is definitely art.

**The Real Bingo** · March 9th, 2005, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Hungrycookpot

Half of our population has breasts...

Half?! More like 4/5ths with all the obese men and boys walking around!

Anyway, I couldn't care less. If you haven't seen a boob yet in your life, you're bound to see one eventually, so you may as well see it in a non-erotic context.

**Warthog** · March 9th, 2005, 07:27 PM

Half?! More like 4/5ths with all the obese men and boys walking around!

Yes, don't you have breasts, cookpot?

I see no problem with the art.

Warthog

**Theophylact** · March 10th, 2005, 09:26 AM

Unless you've had a mastectomy (yes, men do get mastectomies; men get breast cancer, although it's quite rare), you have breasts. What do you think those silly little nipples are attached to?

Yeah, for [most] men they're non-functional. But they're also non-functional for women who aren't nursing, for prepubescent girls, and for postmenopausal women. That covers probably 95% of humanity right there.

**Theophylact** · March 10th, 2005, 09:39 AM

Basically this is a stupid controversy. On one side are idiots who think the female breast is always indecent, even on a world-famous piece of art. On the other side is what seems to be a publicity-hungry artist using a world-famous piece of art to grab attention.

Apparently he's not violating any zoning regulations, though, so he should have the right to display the art; the idiotic jury seems to have decided that the "violation" was based on the "indecency." And even if it were indecent, it's clearly not obscene (there is a difference).

**Knothead** · March 10th, 2005, 12:03 PM

Right on, Theo!

I can hardly believe people gettin' their panties in a wad over stuff like this.

IMO, obscenity and/or indecency has nothing to do whatsoever with human bodies...unless it's those bodies being oppressed or slaughtered.

Now THAT's obscenity for ya!

**Cyclone2** · March 10th, 2005, 08:32 PM

(My definition of offensive: Would I be embarrased to see/hear something if my grandma was present?)

My definition of offensive would be MY GRANDMA'S BREASTS!!

But a famous piece of art- Well there is a time and a place for everything, and though I am not a prude -outside on a building- NAW, take it down
In an art gallery, or in my house then fine..........so says me

**Angela** · March 11th, 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Knothead

Right on, Theo!

I can hardly believe people gettin' their panties in a wad over stuff like this.

IMO, obscenity and/or indecency has nothing to do whatsoever with human bodies...unless it's those bodies being oppressed or slaughtered.

Now THAT's obscenity for ya!

Well said!!!

**-FMA** · March 11th, 2005, 04:29 PM

"Its artwork and should be left alone."
Being in an advanced drawing class, I fully understand art.

**gambler2611** · March 11th, 2005, 04:37 PM

I think it is art. Yeah, there's a time and a place for everything, but I think the whole thing about art is giving your own responces to things in life. This just happens to be a responce from one of da vinci's original drawings (at least I think it was da vinci)