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.
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.
Did I say fine art, or art?
And I know I said
So maybe you’re responding to the wrong comment? Doesn’t seem to relate to anything I was saying.
My mistake. I was responding to the right comment, but the wrong person. Have a nice day.