Chloe, in Young and Jacksons"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written." [Wilde]
If you accept this premise, then does this also apply to more visible art works such as a poster in an underground station? Is it relevant whether children can see it and indeed must see it if they go on the underground?
Jams O'Donnell raises just this issue on the banning of a nude on the underground. The official line was:
What of the famous Chloe, at Young and Jacksons, Melbourne? Technically she would only be viewed by over 18s because she's in a pub.
What of Donatello's David? Does the fact that it is one of the most famous art works ever excuse it for its pudenda?
What of the Venus de Milo? Or in literature, what of Pietro Aretino's lurid works? You'll notice I went coy on linking to his 16 postures.
You can keep your hat on.
What of this post on this blog? Has it overstepped the mark?
What of Life Drawers - are they all "pre-verts"?
Where do we draw the line? Is the line that when it draws attention to the erotic side it's questionable? I'd suggest that none of the works here are erotic but I'd also suggest that the first and last are pretty damned good.
Are we agreed that sexual acts [Aretino] are unacceptable for depiction in a public place? What of suggestion, e.g. a girl between two men in a soft drink ad?
I confess I just don't know.
Jams O'Donnell raises just this issue on the banning of a nude on the underground. The official line was:
"Millions of people travel on the London Underground each day and they have no choice but to view whatever adverts are posted there.
We have to take account of the full range of travellers and endeavour not to cause offence in the advertising we display," a spokesman said.London Underground advertising is vetted by a firm called CBS Outdoor, and Venus seems to have fallen foul of the guideline that advertising should not "depict men, women or children in a sexual manner,
or display nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly sexual context".
Venus, in the Royal Academy's show on the German artist Lucas Cranach the Elder
What of the famous Chloe, at Young and Jacksons, Melbourne? Technically she would only be viewed by over 18s because she's in a pub.
What of Donatello's David? Does the fact that it is one of the most famous art works ever excuse it for its pudenda?
What of the Venus de Milo? Or in literature, what of Pietro Aretino's lurid works? You'll notice I went coy on linking to his 16 postures.
You can keep your hat on.What of this post on this blog? Has it overstepped the mark?
What of Life Drawers - are they all "pre-verts"?
Where do we draw the line? Is the line that when it draws attention to the erotic side it's questionable? I'd suggest that none of the works here are erotic but I'd also suggest that the first and last are pretty damned good.
Are we agreed that sexual acts [Aretino] are unacceptable for depiction in a public place? What of suggestion, e.g. a girl between two men in a soft drink ad?
I confess I just don't know.
Pornography, as with American Judge Justice Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it", and that wasn't pornography.
ReplyDeleteWell I don't think anything you've written about there is pornographic.
ReplyDeleteI've seen plenty of porn, and none of that was it.
I think that if something is to be displayed in the public domain then it should at least be tasteful.
There is nothing wrong with David, or Venus and I actually do think that more people should be exposed to such works.
But then, that raises the question of what is conceived as tasteful and what is indecent.
It is an entirely subjective view and I don't really think that we are going to be able to please everyone.
Shall I complain and get you put behind a wall?
ReplyDeleteA very difficult question. When I saw the post at Jams I thought of all the kids on the trains so perhaps it is not suitable. However all those David replicas in public places around Florence don't seem to be harming the children there. I have come to the conclusion that they are being overly sensitive but I suppose if you think of the economics of it all, it would be costly to put posters up and have to remove them if there was a huge outcry. So better safe than sorry?
The Donatello is exquisite, isn't it? One of my favourites as is the Bargello where they keep it.
Yes, surely some sort of common sense needs to prevail here.
ReplyDeleteI have to confess I like pron ( as long as it does not degrade women) but LOVE erotic art.
ReplyDeleteI think the difference is one cheapens the human body whilst the other celebrates it's magnificence.
I love Michaelangelo's David better and I do not think any of thse classic works are too offensive to children , as theyare not sexual.
What a great shame it is that we are encouraged to view every beautiful thing through jaded eyes. Maybe those who are offended by the celebration of the human form, in all it's glory, get undressed in the dark should they inadvertently catch a glimpse of the body nature gave them and recoil in horror and are shocked at the sight of it (I recoil in shock and horror at the sight of mine sometimes, but that's for an entirely different reason, unfortunately).
ReplyDeleteSurely we are exposed, if you'll excuse the pun, to many other images which are far more sexually explicit than these works of art, and for less benefit.
No need to worry about the effect those posters would have on tube-travelling kids, anyway. They'll all be far too busy adding felt-tip moustaches, glasses and other graffiti to be offended by the nudity.
Ach I thought it was a daft decision to ban that Cranach advert. It certainly isn't offensive to me...
ReplyDeleteI love artworks like this but I have to agree the tube should not be the place for it. If you want to see the nude form in an artistic presentation then its readily available but if you don't (or you don't with your children ... yet) then you don't want that decision made for you on public transport. I don't like coercion, and this badly thought advertising smacks of that.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am generally against censorship and I do think we have to many strange hang ups about nudity. I tend to like nudes myself...
ReplyDeleteI think we are primed to be oversensitive where children and sex and nudity are concerned but there is a difference between what we choose to look at and what we are forced to look at. I agree with Wilde but not everyone does and although they can choose not to read books they think they may find offensive they cannot always avoid such things in public spaces. No one has the right to force others to make private choices in public places.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a question of morality and censorship, merely of consideration for those of differing opinion with whom we share public spaces.
I can remember kayaking through two nudist colonies in Southern France and thinking how unerotic hundreds of fat pasty people are.
ReplyDeleteAs for this issue, it has to be judged by the context in which it is presented. I am not sure that this kind of presentation would go down well here in South Australia. Most people are pretty conservative.