zlacker

TBH I think 0-2 would pass as completely fine depending on the context. #1 could probably be put anywhere and would only scare the most easily scared children. I could definitely expect to see stuff like #0 and #2 at maybe not the corner street daycare but maybe a prestigious private catholic school's daycare would have that nearby.

#3, #4 would just seem out of place because of their nudity. Most sane people would realize it is art but it would still seem weird.

Part of the US's double standard involves being exposed to stuff like the crucifixion and the concept of torture at a very young age. The concept that nudity can be appreciated or even expressed outside of a sexual context is not really a thing in the US. The issue is that the only use cases for nudity in movies & TV is going to sex related 99% of the time because if you are going to show nudity you might as well use it to suggest or depict sex.

>>KingMa+(OP)
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.