zlacker

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

>>yosito+74
There is definitely a lot of art that is "adult" for one reason or other. If I walked into my kids' daycare to see a reproduction of [0] on the wall, I'd definitely raise an eyebrow, and even [1] is probably enough to scare smaller children. We've kind of grown numbed to the iconography, but even as an older teenager I was fairly shocked by a closer look at [2].

The distinction between "art" and "pornography" is also somewhat artificial. It's hard to argue that [3] was not meant to be prurient when the model (underage, by today's standards) shortly thereafter became a mistress of the King of France, based on him having seen the painting. And some stuff that was painted might get you banned from OnlyFans even today, e.g. [4].

But the problem, it seems to me, is that the internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has to be "safe for children" and (2) said safety standards are defined (through US influence, I strongly suspect) to be highly permissive of violence, but super strict on nudity.

[0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-war/CwHM2HdTO3l2...

[1] https://www.wikiart.org/en/max-ernst/the-angel-of-the-home-o...

[2] https://www.wikiart.org/en/matthias-grunewald/the-crucifixio...

[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:François_Boucher_-_B...

[4] https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/girl-with-a...

>>microt+If
> internet has turned into a place where (1) everything has to be "safe for children

It is not just safe for children. Safe for work too. Safe for people who don't like porn in their feeds too. I think that these filters don't particularly care about high art, because that is insignificant percentage of overall nudity people post. Most of it is boobs and genitals.

The art you posted is all tame. But not all art is tame and like between porn, erotic and art is often blurry.

>>watwut+At
NSFW is probably quite a lower threshold than not for children generally. I have a couple pieces of art in my house that I definitely would not put up in a work office if I had one, a screen saver on a work laptop etc. I'm not sure it's even so much the case that someone would take offence but that people would be concerned that someone might and/or think (probably correctly) that I was trying to test the limits of what was appropriate for a work setting.

That said, someone will get upset at just about anything.

>>ghaff+AO
Yes. But I think that when people chalk it all to kids, they are massively oversimplifying. Because on forum like this it is easier to attack "safety for childer" arguing.

But in reality, people don't want to see erotica and such in their own feeds. The threshold of where it becomes unwanted is different for everyone. But most people want some level of filtering to be done for them.

Plus people want to be able to scroll Facebook or Twitter in work for few minutes without risking something inappropriate shows up.

And lines between art that feels good, erotics or porn, and basically bad art/photo that is super cringy just to look at and disgusting are blurry. And they are also subjective.