>>jstx1+Db
Not in my experience, personally. There's a fair few artists who have art accounts on mastodon.socal and the related mastodon servers - especially handy for NSFW artists of all stripes.

two examples: https://mastodon.social/@kradeelav https://mastodon.social/@chirart

>>Nikola+sc
https://twitter.com/goyalsanjeev/status/1448953085770960899 https://twitter.com/along_live/status/1448896904520077320 https://twitter.com/adolitics/status/1448906467558387713 https://twitter.com/ColVKChauhan/status/1448894875118624769

There are hundreds of them (just search by hashtags in the posts above). Of course same set of videos/pics repeated over & over, but my point is that such stuff is present all over Twitter & FB and anyone accessing those platforms can stumble upon them. Twitter doesn't even seem to put them behind a "Violent/NSFW" click-through.

I don't see how nudity can be more damaging or pernicious than such content.

>>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...

>>Nikola+sc
Source is probably Mexican narco torture videos.

Warning, extremely disturbing content:

https://elblogdelnarco.com

>>microt+If
What the...?: [1] Artworks of Max Ernst are not aviable in your country on copyright grounds. https://i.imgur.com/LHeQimw.png

>>microt+If
And then there's Goya[1]. Not necessarily pre-school appropriate either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son

>>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 )

>>vmcept+vn
> nothing gets judged as legally obscene in the US as nobody wants the actual decisive court case

There are a lot of court cases on obscenity, some of which hold decisively [1].

> a man was sued under copyright laws for pirating pornography and their defense was that because the work was obscene it could not be have any copyright restrictions…since the law firms suing over piracy are just spraying and praying, they don't want an actual trial

Nonsense. Porn companies regularly go to court to protect their IP [2]. (To your example, in which venue was your defendant defending himself if not in a court?)

[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecut...

[2] https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/porn-piracy-forbidden-to-set...

>>Clumsy+(OP)
> There are 2527 videos about “nudity” on Vimeo, the home for high quality videos and the people who love them.

https://vimeo.com/tag:nudity

>>KingMa+0N
I agree that #1 would be considered harmless by most people, and except for the fact that it's still copyrighted would not be subject to a takedown anywhere. As you say, #2 would probably be widely accepted due to the religious context, even though objectively it is quite gory.

I disagree with your assessment of #0. It is extremely gory, repurposes religious imagery in a secular context, and was considered such a menace to society that it could not be shown in museums and had to be hidden for 15 years.

And I think #3 and especially #4 were not meant to depict nudity devoid of a sexual context. With Fragonard, there is often an acknowledged voyeuristic element, even in paintings where there is no nudity, such as https://www.wikiart.org/en/jean-honore-fragonard/the-swing-1... (cf also the original French title).

But it's kind of twisted that we consider it less weird to look at a person nailed to a cross than one engaged in a prelude to a reproductive act.

>>JumpCr+iv
Everything in your [1] source says obscenity itself gets further and further diluted, and that the judges decisively say "obscenity exists" but are not trying cases themselves on obscenity grounds. and then stops before the year 2002. that is a laughable source as it doesn't even know what happened in the final court case mentioned and then lacks 20 years of data. this is a chronology, on this topic the relevant cases being the later ones, even in your article.

I mentioned one specific court case where one specific defendant was sued over one specific piece of content, where one specific plaintiff didn't move forward with the case after being presented with a defense, because they are serial plaintiffs that only want settlements. Your own source [2] says serial plaintiffs is what is happening! Not even sure where to start with you. The only point being about why there is not a decisive case on that particular defense because it never reached a judge.

More specifically, Liuxia Wong v Hard Drive Productions is a countercase, referring to Hard Drive Productions demanding a settlement from Liuxia for infringing on their copyright of a porn movie. Liuxia sued them back saying it wasn't copyrightable. What you will find online are motions to dismiss, which were denied. Then you'll find there was a settlement

https://casetext.com/case/liuxia-wong-v-hard-drive-prods-1

short discussion (about why its largely unsatisfactory in establishing any precedent and reinforces how there likely won't be any precendent on this matter as nobody is interested in taking it above trial courts): https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/case-closed-won...

>>microt+If
> [0] https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-war/CwHM2HdTO3l2...

That's far from what your kid can see just watching a few minutes of news. (And I'm not even talking about this email I received from the kindergarten explaining to all parents that kids of this age aren't supposed to watch Squid Game at home!)

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

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

What's wrong with those two? These are innocent painting of naked people (also children have no sense of pudency before way after kindergarten so they just can't see the problem with this)

>>_fat_s+HA1
They are quoted saying as much in the NYT coverage of this story:

> Mr. Kettner said that the OnlyFans account is not a permanent solution, but rather a protest against censorship and a call for conversation. “We want to draw attention to a certain thing,” he said. “We want to put it out there, to talk about the role of artificial intelligence, of algorithms.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/style/onlyfans-nude-art-v...