PDA

View Full Version : Venus is the difference between nudity and porn


gonzo
02-19-2008, 10:07 AM
Did they consider a fig leaf? The Victorians made one for Michelangelo's David, and I'm sure someone could have come up with a version to protect the modesty of both Cranach's Venus and the delicate sensibilities of travellers on London's Tube trains. Two days ago, Transport for London suddenly reprieved the goddess of love, who had earlier been banned from advertising the Royal Academy's forthcoming exhibition of the work of the 16th-century German artist. It followed a similarly abrupt change of mind over a poster for a dance show in which a muscular naked man clutches a cuckoo clock in front of his genitals.


This isn't the first time a female nude has been censored in this country. A few years ago, a poster for Opium perfume featuring the model Sophie Dahl in an odalisque pose was removed from advertising billboards, no doubt saving the lives of hundreds of drivers who were so unfamiliar with female anatomy that they would otherwise have crashed their cars.

I don't know how many times I need to point out that not every single image of a naked woman is exploitative; I loved the Opium poster and I love Cranach the Elder's pale nudes, especially the one TfL apparently considered offensive. She's wearing nothing but jewellery and holding a wisp of gauze, neither embarrassed by her nakedness nor showing it off; the image isn't even as overtly sexy as Kylie in one of her stage costumes or Victoria Beckham on just about any day of the week.

I didnt write it but read more here (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-venus-is-the-difference-between-nudity-and-porn-783278.html)