zlacker

>>Clumsy+(OP)
I find it a bit sad that we've become so Puritan that even art is considered "adult".

>>yosito+74
Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with class.

(The nude-but-not-sexual viewpoint is pretty valid, but some of the fine art is definitely sexual once you know the context, and some of it was controversial in its time e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe )

>>pjc50+9i
He knew in his heart that spinning upside down around a pole wearing a costume you could floss with definitely was not Art, and being painted lying on a bed wearing nothing but a smile and a small bunch of grapes was good solid Art, but putting your finger on why this was the case was a bit tricky.

“No urns,” he said at last.

“What urns?” said Nobby.

“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added: “Or a plinth. Best is both, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”

“What about a potted plant?”

“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”

— Thud (2005), Terry Pratchett

>>teddyh+pz
"The Ankh-Morpork Fine Art Appreciation Society, hem hem. It's just men paintin' pictures of young wimmin in the nudd. Some of them don't even have any paint on their brushes, you know. Shameful." — Guards! Guards! (1989)