Art or Child Pornography? What Say Ye??
This comes from a piece in the NY Times. It is about a famous painting that is being protested as representing the sexualization of children. Keep in mind this painting is from 1938. It has been seen as representing a particular style and has been quite popular for decades. For over 70 years this was just a painting; or was it?
Today activists are attempting to get the MET to remove this painting. They claim it is a "blatant objectification" of young girls. Is it? I have seen this painting before and never really gave it a second look. Did I not see the objectification, or was it not there until someone "said" it was?
This goes back to a famous case in the late 60's where Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that while it is hard to pin down what "porn" is exactly, he "knows it when he sees it". So what do you all think? Is it objectification? Is it pornography? Is it promoting pediphilia? Color me confused.
Here is the original source of the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/arts/met-museum-balthus-painting-girl.html
I wouldn't show this picture in a museum. But still I think it's kind of art. At least I will never go into a museum to watch art because I#m just interested in other things. So the decision is up to you. :D
I wasn't looking for help necessarily on my own view, more so about how others see this painting. And if not in a museum, then where?
Just put it on auction. Then it's going to be in private hand. Much better than in public.
Interesting position. Would everything public be better in private hands/care?
No, not everything.
If you look at the basic rights of people like water it should still be in public hand. Things like this are going to get exploited by privates.
But the art in museums, or like it happens with the infrastructure in different cities these would be much better in private hand. The contest with other museums will make them more interesting, trying more to be better than other.
Very little water is in "public" hands, just to be clear. And a lot is leased from the states/government. That said, I am not as committed to the good of capitalism as you appear to be, but I hear ya. Ayn Rand would agree ;-)
I know that water is not everywhere in public hands. But in Germany where I come from there is a public water supply instead of companies selling it.
But in my point of you, you have to divide into should be public and should be private.
Public should be everything which is necessary to live on.
Private everything else.
Yeah, I know, it's very liberal and much capitalism :D
Haha, fair enough.
Congratulations @gigantomachia! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP