Loyce, please add a poll option demanding a ban of people who, being accused of being cunts, reply with famous fine-art paintings of cunts. Thanks.
Subject: Re: Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt
Subject: Re: Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt
Despite my political and aesthetic disagreements with Courbet, I will defend this in Meta if Puritanical Americans whine for censorship of a painting that is currently displayed in the Musée d’Orsay in Paris:
[...]
[...]
WTF, are you John Ashcroft? Or perhaps are you one of those people who irreparably damaged Renaissance artworks in European churches by effacing artistic displays of genitalia and/or female breasts? Would you Bowdlerize Shakespeare, too?
[...]
Some people wonder why I have become habituated to using my highlighter pen. I will illustrate here by example: My point was, of course, that if a painting is hanging in full public view in a major Parisian museum, and is displayed on that museum’s website (try my links!) with no 18+ check or other indicia of so-called “NSFW”, then I am sure it can embedded on this forum.
[...helpful highlighting to assist with comprehension...]
I even showed the museum itself, for a reason. Do you suggest that this Very Venerable and Serious Museum publicly, openly displays things that cannot be embedded in posts on the libertarian cypherpunk Bitcoin Forum?
WTF, are you John Ashcroft? Or perhaps are you one of those people who irreparably damaged Renaissance artworks in European churches by effacing artistic displays of genitalia and/or female breasts? Would you Bowdlerize Shakespeare, too?
Quote from: Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (modernized spelling for the ineducable peasants and proletarians here)
[...famous Shakespearean pun about “country matters”...]
[...]
Some people wonder why I have become habituated to using my highlighter pen. I will illustrate here by example: My point was, of course, that if a painting is hanging in full public view in a major Parisian museum, and is displayed on that museum’s website (try my links!) with no 18+ check or other indicia of so-called “NSFW”, then I am sure it can embedded on this forum.
[...helpful highlighting to assist with comprehension...]
I even showed the museum itself, for a reason. Do you suggest that this Very Venerable and Serious Museum publicly, openly displays things that cannot be embedded in posts on the libertarian cypherpunk Bitcoin Forum?
The above-linked Telegraph article, in pertinent part:
Quote from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1383108/Curtains-for-nude-statue-of-justice.html
Curtains for nude statue of justice
By Toby Harnden in Washington
29 January 2002 • 00:01 am
AMERICA'S puritanical attorney-general, John Ashcroft, has had the half-naked statue of the Spirit of Justice covered because he was annoyed at being photographed in front of the exposed right breast.
Curtains costing £5,500 will now shield the aluminium art deco work - nicknamed "Minnie Lou" - and its companion, the Majesty of Justice, a male figure naked apart from a loincloth.
[...]
Last November, after announcing a restructuring of the department to cope with the threat of terrorism, Mr Ashcroft was presented with press pictures showing his serious visage next to the Spirit of Justice's breast.
By Toby Harnden in Washington
29 January 2002 • 00:01 am
AMERICA'S puritanical attorney-general, John Ashcroft, has had the half-naked statue of the Spirit of Justice covered because he was annoyed at being photographed in front of the exposed right breast.
Curtains costing £5,500 will now shield the aluminium art deco work - nicknamed "Minnie Lou" - and its companion, the Majesty of Justice, a male figure naked apart from a loincloth.
[...]
Last November, after announcing a restructuring of the department to cope with the threat of terrorism, Mr Ashcroft was presented with press pictures showing his serious visage next to the Spirit of Justice's breast.
A coda for those who may be confused by modern false dichotomies: Unlike “conservatives”, who want to turn back the clock by about fifty years, or “paleoconservatives”, who want to go back about a hundred, I want to return to the Renaissance—or to classical antiquity.
With a few exceptions, most of the nude artwork that I have posted is classical or (more or less) neoclassical—not Courbet, of all people; but Courbet is unavoidably a part of nineteenth-century art history, and is not pornographic or “NSFW”. —Unless famous museums are deemed to meet that description. I dispute that, which is why I am raising this issue in Meta.
