Quote:
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jun 22 2004, 11:20 PM
Honeyblond,
I am sorry you are not convinced...
Metropolitan Museum of Art has different convictions, and I am sorry to say,
but I take THEIR art convictions over yours ANY TIME...
do you have a plausable retort to this:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Art1.html
|
As well you should, I sure they are far more learnered than I
However
Quote:
We should never assume that the Greeks, Romans and Etruscans considered images of penises as we do. They used them on amulets to ward off the evil eye, with no more thought for sexuality than we consider crossed fingers to be a Christian symbol. The faces of people on bowls are almost invariably in profile, but we do not suppose that full-face was considered "aesthetically displeasing". So the small penises shown on ordinary mortals may have been no more than a convention, to distinguish them from fertility figures such as satyrs and Priapus - which were much more significant in an age when the fertility of plants, beasts and people could not be taken for granted or brought under human control by material means.
|
From what I have read sofar it appears the humble penis was more symbolic as apposed to artistic ?