The Sistine Ceiling: Is it just fancy pornography?

[Bozo Erectus]

The Sistine Chapel is the seat of the Roman Catholic faith, and has been visited by millions of people of all faiths for centuries. Many go mainly to see the exquisite artwork that adorns it, works created by some of the the greatest artists who ever lived. But what about the nudes depicted in the Sistine Ceiling itself? Is it appropriate for a house of worship to depict nudity? How about all the children who are taken to the Sistine Chapel, is it wrong to let kids see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, arguably the finest work of art ever created in the Western world? Do you think nudity in classical art can be considered to be pornography?

Note: please do not post any examples of classic nudes here. Discussion only.

 

[Iggy]

In this context I believe pornography should be intrerpreted as nudity with the aim to titilate. That was not the aim of the painter.

 

[thestonesfan]

No way. Nudity in no way indicates pornography.

 

[Dr Jimbo]

Different cultures have different values. Very few modern Europeans equate nudity per se to pornography. It's art, and a few cherubs shouldn't get any well-adjusted person too hot under the collar (or anywhere else). There's a lot more vulgar (in terms of ostentatiously displayed shows of wealth) art , both secular and religious, in the Vatican.

In short, you up-tight yanks need to lighten up.

Also, the chapel is just one of many buildings (actually a smallish room in a much larger palace) within the Vatican. I don't believe it has any particular religious significance. If anywhere is the seat of the Roman Catholic faith, I'd guess it's St. Peter's.

 

[Giotto]

I agree with the above 3 posters.

There is a huge difference between nudity and porno.

 

[Double Barrel]

Yes, its disgusting porn! It needs to be painted over with plain white paint in order to preserve human decency! (HA! I'm just kidding).

I agree with thestonesfan, nudity does not equal pornography.

 

[Zarn]

It's art. There is nothing sexual about the nudity.

 

[EzInKy]

Other than depictions of murder and rape very few images are truly obscene, and the Sistine Chapel is just a simply wonderful work of art.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Porn in this case would mean kiddie porn and a lot of catholic priest are visiting the chapel. We better raze the building to the ground immediately!

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Karl Lenin
Porn in this case would mean kiddie porn and a lot of catholic priest are visiting the chapel. We better raze the building to the ground immediately!

Your generalization of Catholic priests is sickening.

 

[Pirate]

I agree. Pornography has the intention of arousing and titilating. In fact, pornography doesn't even need to show nudity! In that case the line between porn and non-porn just gets fuzzier. Similarly, the line between art and porn gets fuzzier the more it shows nudity and sexual situations.

 

[Archer 007]

Reminds me of the Third Rock from the Sun episode where Harry is trying to figure out the difference bewteen nudity in art and porn.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Wow, thats weird, I could swear that there were 22 votes before saying that it isnt pornography, and now there are only 12.

Anyway, of course I dont think its pornography Even Popes 500 years ago, who were barely out of the Dark Ages, understood that tasteful depictions of the human form arent pornography. How could the human body be considered offensive?

 

[jack merchant]

Actually though, many of the nudes had their privates painted over and were given underwear some 20-30 years after Michelangelo was done. So the prudishness isn't confined to modern times alone .

 

[Mojotronica]

Larry Flynt would argue that something that arouses us has a lot more artistic merit than something we view with detached intellectual aestheticism.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Thats true JM. The power to censor isnt handled equally well by all who wield it. Its a shame those Popes didnt ask God first what HE thought, before taking such drastic actions.

 

[luiz]

No way!
It's one of the finest works of art ever created!

Seriously, only a very screwed-up person would consider it to be pornographic.

 

[Finmaster]

of course not, nobody would want to jerk off while looking at a chapel's ceiling.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by luiz
No way!
It's one of the finest works of art ever created!

Seriously, only a very screwed-up person would consider it to be pornographic.

According to the current poll results, the vast majority of people agree with us. Right now the votes are 17, 2 and 2. The 2 people who voted that nudity is nudity, whether in Playboy magazine or in the Vatican, I wonder if they would deprive their children of seeing the Vatican art collection?

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Thats true JM. The power to censor isnt handled equally well by all who wield it. Its a shame those Popes didnt ask God first what HE thought, before taking such drastic actions.

Maybe for fear of being labeled as nutcases.