• cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    No, hard disagree, but, like, being precious about this shit us frustrating to me as well. The even circumstantial censorship of art for corporate droning reasons is disturbing to me.

    • Hyperrealism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Counter argument: a lot of what we now think of as fine art, used to basically be porn. Old rich pervy men or the clergy having an ogle at young women, pretending to be fancy and holier than thou.

      If this was a photograph, plenty of people would consider it more NSFW.

      This one’s not too bad, but it’s arguably creepy when the women in these kinds of painting look younger. John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, for example.

      I mean, it’s a bit weird that it’s ok to have Paul Gaugain nude’s on the wall. Beautiful and important paintings, but invariably they’re paintings of the underage girls he raped.

    • frizzo@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I was kinda making fun of all the nsfw losers, I hope their children enjoy the social credit system looming in the near future. I would hate to piss off some corporate Karen/s