How problematic is the Sistine Chapel? - Do we need to cancel it?

[Idiotron]

This will be a spicy thread but I want to start a discussion.
Buckle up, people.

As everyone knows, there's a movie called Cuties out right now and it sparked a major controversy.
Some are calling it art but most say that it's CP and it's exploiting children.
Even if it is art, the general consensus is that it should be censored out of existence.
That's fine. If that's how things are, so be it.

However, that got me thinking:
What else does this apply to?
How about the Sistine Chapel?
Michaelangelo's paintings on it's ceiling are considered some of the best art ever created but... there's some really messed up stuff up there.
Here are some examples:

Naked Child #1

Naked Child #2

Naked Child #3 (full frontal nudity)

There are many more depictions of naked children and it's kind of disturbing... isn't it?
Also, just in case someone tries to make the argument that those are angels and not children, you're using the same argument that loli fans use: "it's not a 10 year old girl, it's a 3000 year old dragon".

Here's the thing:
If I were to paint something like that and then post it on social media, it would be immediately deleted and I would be put on a list, I would probably have to pay a fine, maybe even face jail time.
Why should we make exceptions for art like this? Because it's old? Because it's beloved? I don't think any of that matters, Birth of a Nation was a beloved critically acclaimed hit movie when it came out but now not so much.
Should the Sistine Chapel be left alone or should it be censored?
Should this be considered high art or well made CP commissioned by the Catholic Church?

This isn't a troll, these are genuine questions because I really don't know.
The world is very different than it was 10 years ago and I want to keep up with the new rules.
We can't just police some art and then pretend not to notice other art.
The rules should apply to everything equally or nothing.
Otherwise, we might as well have no rules.

Feel free to dislike this thread but if you do, tell me why you dislike it.
Tell me what do you think this art is and why do you think that.

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

GG, OP.

 

[Idiotron]

GG, OP.

View attachment 1627027

This is the kind of response I've anticipated: "lol bait" and you don't address anything from my OP.
Typical Kiwi Farms.

 

[Lemmingwise]

You forgot two bigger problems. It was made by white people and it's owned by christians. Of course it should be taken down.

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

This is the kind of response I've anticipated: "lol bait" and you don't address anything from my OP.
Typical Kiwi Farms.

Because your entire premise is retarded and unworthy of a considered response. Retrospectively policing art is retarded. Like your premise.

 

[DJ Grelle]

The difference is that the nudity in the sistine chapel doesnt have any sexual undertones. Yeah the babies are nude but tis to depict purity and innocence (like a newborn.) Cuties on the other hand revolves around sexuality and how children can be sexual. Twerking is nothing innocent, it has massive sexual undertones.

 

[Black Yoshi]

This is the kind of response I've anticipated: "lol bait" and you don't address anything from my OP.
Typical Kiwi Farms.

Don't you have a Lincoln statue to take out of context and tear down?

 

[Idiotron]

The difference is that the nudity in the sistine chapel doesnt have any sexual undertones. Yeah the babies are nude but tis to depict purity and innocence (like a newborn.)

So.... having naked kids in your art is OK as long as it's not sexualized?
Babies with asses and genitals exposed is fine.
I think the law disagrees with you on that, at least in Europe, North America and Australia.

Because your entire premise is retarded and unworthy of a considered response.

Just say that you're unable to do so instead of making excuses.

Don't you have a Lincoln statue to take out of context and tear down?

What does Lincoln have to do with child nudity?
Is there a Lincoln statue holding a naked kid that I'm not aware of?

 

[Basil II]

Accurate username

 

[DJ Grelle]

So.... having naked kids in your art is OK as long as it's not sexualized?
Babies with asses and genitals exposed is fine.
I think the law disagrees with you on that, at least in Europe, North America and Australia.

I've seen child nudity pass in state sponsored art exhibitions here, so I'm pretty sure its allowed.
And yeah it's okay. Sometimes little children play naked in the river. Nothing wrong with that.
I just don't come from some puritan hellhole where every bit of skin more than an ankle means that you'll have hardcore sex.

 

[HeyYou]

nigga are you seriously comparing the sistine chapel to a shitty award bait movie

 

[Idiotron]

I've seen child nudity pass in state sponsored art exhibitions here, so I'm pretty sure its allowed.
And yeah it's okay. Sometimes little children play naked in the river. Nothing wrong with that.
I just don't come from some puritan hellhole where every bit of skin more than an ankle means that you'll have hardcore sex.

OK then, let me give you a hypothetical:
Everyone now knows that Kevin Spacey likes underaged boys.
If he funded a movie full of naked underaged boys but it was presented like in a Jodorovsky movie, would you be OK with it?
Would you be fine with Spacey making a movie full of underaged full frontal nudity?
There's no sexual context... but you know that he and many other pedos will wank to it.
Give me your take on it.

nigga are you seriously comparing the sistine chapel to a shitty award bait movie

Look down at me all you want but can you please address the OP?

 

[DJ Grelle]

OK then, let me give you a hypothetical:
Everyone now knows that Kevin Spacey likes underaged boys.
If he funded a movie full of naked underaged boys but it was presented like in a Jodorovsky movie, would you be OK with it?
Would you be fine with Spacey making a movie full of underaged full frontal nudity?
There's no sexual context... but you know that he and many other pedos will wank to it.
Give me your take on it.

I would not be okay with it. If some random dude made a photographical art exhibition about the human body and some of the pics were of nude boys and girls then idc.
All pedo's get the rope. It's not difficult to discern sex pests and creeps. Humans quickly feel when someone's 'off'.

 

[Cyclonus]

 

[Idiotron]

I would not be okay with it. If some random dude made a photographical art exhibition about the human body and some of the pics were of nude boys and girls then idc.
All pedo's get the rope. It's not difficult to discern sex pests and creeps. Humans quickly feel when someone's 'off'.

You say it's not difficult but could you really tell whether that random guy was a pedo or not?
Or are you just giving him a free pass for no real reason?
For all you know, that random dude took hundreds of pics of naked kids and only the tame ones made it to the exhibit.
You have to consider these things. Otherwise, you might be turning a blind eye to some disgusting perverted shit.

Going back to the Sistine Chapel, we know for a fact that the Catholic Church likes diddling little boys.
Wouldn't it be at least a little suspect that the chapel, as well as hundreds if not thousands of other churches across the world, have depictions of naked kids, mostly boys, everywhere?
I'm sorry but I can't look at art the same way after this recent controversy.
DiCaprio and his team went into my subconscious and planted this in my head, there's no going back.

Also, thanks for actually having a conversation with me.

 

[DJ Grelle]

You say it's not difficult but could you really tell whether that random guy was a pedo or not?
Or are you just giving him a free pass for no real reason?
For all you know, that random dude took hundreds of pics of naked kids and only the tame ones made it to the exhibit.
You have to consider these things. Otherwise, you might be turning a blind eye to some disgusting perverted shit.

Going back to the Sistine Chapel, we know for a fact that the Catholic Church likes diddling little boys.
Wouldn't it be at least a little suspect that the chapel, as well as hundreds if not thousands of other churches across the world, have depictions of naked kids, mostly boys, everywhere?
I'm sorry but I can't look at art the same way after this recent controversy.
DiCaprio and his team went into my subconscious and planted this in my head, there's no going back.

Also, thanks for actually having a conversation with me.

You can't tell 100% if he's a pedo or not, but you can be 90% certain the guy is a fucking creep who has either fucked up fetishes or likes to diddle kids.
There have been scandals in the past but if you put them in context it gets a little different.
a) the Church is massive. So there will be rotten apples in it. Just a question of numbers.
b) the Church is massive. So a pedo priest in an org everyone knows is different than the local prot sect pastor/ school teacher diddling kids. It gets into the news easily because everyone knows the Catholic Church.
c) the imagery of the naked boy has existed for centuries and has scriptural backing (baby jesus). If you're talking about putti, then they do exist in a lot of churches but they're not standard.

And yeah you should be suspicious about stuff.
My father always told me that only the paranoid survive. Words to live by tbh.

 

[keyboredsm4shthe2nd]

kek none of these toddlers are being sexually coercive, checkmate pedo.

 

[Krystal]

The Simpsons predicted it again.

TBH, I think it's in a gray area like all forms of art. Context does matter as Renaissance art was more focused on anatomy and made to depict spiritual and biblical figures more human. Cuties is less art and its context doesn't help in it's favor. The message was muddied from how disgusting the film was.

 

[Cyclonus]

We've had naked children in newspapers for decades, so why not church ceilings?

 

[Dick Justice]

YEAH AND HOW COME IN PORN THEY ALWAYS FUCK THE PIZZA GUY BUT WHENEVER *I* SHOW MY HOO-HAH SUDDENLY IT'S WEIRD