Two days and many hours later and I still don’t get how you thought my original comment was written by a “hyperconservative.” I took it as a joke at first, but it seems like you were serious about your accusation. Why is that?
Because only hyper conservative people are so incredibly sensitive to images of normal human nudity. Not every naked person is obscene. Bodies are not inherently shameful, indecent, sexual, or otherwise in need of covering up.
It’s not that I can’t find the beauty in this art piece. Whether that be the realistic look of everything in it, the dated shading technique, the ability to capture an intimate moment through painting, or perhaps something else. My humorous comment was to bring attention to the situation that not everyone wants to be able to see things with nudity in them, in their day to day browsing of Lemmy. I have family that come over and I don’t think it would be appropriate for my nieces or nephews to see nudity on my monitor without there being context and for there to be an appropriate occasion with their parents’ permission.
Pornography is not suddenly a great and important piece of culture just because it was nicely painted with a brush a long time ago. It is still pornography.
What do you mean by “getting some culture”? You mean perhaps studying art history? Because I guarantee countless artists, art historians and critics would deny this painting has much cultural value. The whole style has been heavily and justifiably derired. If anything, what is conservative here is the painting’s view of women (painted according to the sexual tastes of rich European men) and stereotypical treatment of foreign culture.
Why do you think that every image of a naked person is pornography? What kind of a sick mindset is that? Do you think every anatomy book is pornography?
No but you can get some culture if you let go of your backwards ass hyperconservative mindset.
Two days and many hours later and I still don’t get how you thought my original comment was written by a “hyperconservative.” I took it as a joke at first, but it seems like you were serious about your accusation. Why is that?
Because only hyper conservative people are so incredibly sensitive to images of normal human nudity. Not every naked person is obscene. Bodies are not inherently shameful, indecent, sexual, or otherwise in need of covering up.
I see your point. But I’m none of those things.
It’s not that I can’t find the beauty in this art piece. Whether that be the realistic look of everything in it, the dated shading technique, the ability to capture an intimate moment through painting, or perhaps something else. My humorous comment was to bring attention to the situation that not everyone wants to be able to see things with nudity in them, in their day to day browsing of Lemmy. I have family that come over and I don’t think it would be appropriate for my nieces or nephews to see nudity on my monitor without there being context and for there to be an appropriate occasion with their parents’ permission.
LOL, k.
Pornography is not suddenly a great and important piece of culture just because it was nicely painted with a brush a long time ago. It is still pornography.
What do you mean by “getting some culture”? You mean perhaps studying art history? Because I guarantee countless artists, art historians and critics would deny this painting has much cultural value. The whole style has been heavily and justifiably derired. If anything, what is conservative here is the painting’s view of women (painted according to the sexual tastes of rich European men) and stereotypical treatment of foreign culture.
Why do you think that every image of a naked person is pornography? What kind of a sick mindset is that? Do you think every anatomy book is pornography?
I don’t, in fact, think that every image of a naked person is pornography, so I won’t defend that view.