ive noticed something while studying for my exams and looking up paintings from world renowned artists such as Munch or Ingres, for example, that some of their works that showcase nudity are heavily censored and very hard to find in a decent resolution via simple google search . ive had this issue today with Munchs "Puberty" which i had to analyse for this specific exam . the masses have regressed to such a profound conservative mindset, where even the natural, nude body is seen as something disgusting and immoral .
this is what you people who are "pro-censorship" advocate . its unnecessary to argue with any one of you, because you are so heavily uneducated on art, as well as ignorant when somebody who is actually in the field of art theory and history tries to educate you .
what you stand behind will not only censor the weird drawn pornography you dislike, the ships you deem immoral, but rather all art, no matter the period it's from, no matter the status of the artist who created it .
where do we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not ? who makes such a decision ? who gives them the right to speak for us all ? what if its somebody who views homosexuality as immoral, they will censor any queer media . what about showcases of abuse ? or murder ? the censorship of those will heavily impact the horror genre . this does not only impact the things you dislike .
i always say: all artists should have the freedom to depict whatever they wish . you have the right to be critical of it . nobody has the right to censor it .
to be pro-censorship is to be against art . advocate for artistic freedom .
turnnoffyourmind
germansingergirl
gummygunk
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
origamiaround