The Sistine Chapel is located within Vatican City. Which means that the question of censorship would at least require to go through the Italian government ( Which has no reason to fuck with the Pope ) and the Pope himself ( Which has no current reason to fuck with its remaining real estate and art. )
So I'm pretty sure that the question of should we censor or not is actually out of our collective hands. Which drastically reduces the relevancy of this entire discussion.
Finally, somebody who is willing to think about this a little bit instead of being reactionary.
Thanks.
For now, I'm just trying to make an objective (or as objective as possible) moral/legal judgement.
I know that the people and organizations involved are too powerful to face any hypothetical consequences but I'm looking at this from the perspective of modern law and modern moral consensus applying equally to everybody.
Let's pretend that, if we have a societal consensus that this is CP, it will get censored.
Next, the question of, "should it exist".
Yes, because it existed before our time. You see, the funny thing about history is that you are supposed to keep as much as you can, and try your hardest to not try to sanitize it. This is an art piece that was the product of the Renaissance, where they rediscovered the Greek hard-on for the human body and its geometry. And that is the reason for the nudity shown in all types of subjects sculpted and painted in that era.
This interest gave us many great things: the very beginnings of anatomy and therefore modern surgeries, these art pieces, the drawing of the perfect proportions that a man should have according to Da Vinci...and so on.
This is not just a depiction of children-sized angels naked, this is a way to understand the past and see how it is different from the present.
OK, that's valid.
However, couldn't we make that kind of argument about any art piece?
That we should preserve the morally objectionable art of today because it will give future generations a better understanding of things?
You see, today we see the human body as a a major matter, but ultimately one tiny thing across a boundless universe, and within a fragile environment. To purge and prevent degeneracy and pedophilia, we understood that an uncrossable line should be drawn and that violators should suffer the full might of the law on that matter.
Indeed, we uphold the rule of the law and consider the rights of the individual to be sacred, which is why the protection of children, our collective legacy and the prolonging of our very existence, is that important.
I agree and I'm just trying to find out where that line is.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that this kind of art would be allowed to be displayed like this for the world to see if it was contemporary, even if the quality and intent were the same.
There are many people who would protest and even riot if it was done today, a modern equivalent of this would get cancelled in most countries.
From the...veneration of a human body and of its nature that reflects God himself ( A tenet of christianity, if you remember ) to the inalienable rights of an individual and of its progeny, I would argue that the Western World has drastically changed. And that this change must be kept safe for future generations to ponder upon.
Therefore, for you to apply our values onto works of the past...It is a mistake. We need to remember what the past held dear to perceive the change in today's values.
If Cuties has any merit, it is to remind us of these values. And the means used to do that are rightly denounced as degenerate.
I know I'm applying modern morality to classical art but that's the point of this, a little mental exercise (which seems to be too difficult for most people here).
I'm not trying to pass laws or set anything in motion, I'm just trying to explore a thought.
Also, we don't know whether Cuties has any merit, we need to see whether it stands the test of time or not.
Right now, it's new and most people are making up their minds about it without really thinking or without even seeing the movie.
I've mentioned Jodorovsky before in this thread. 99% of people have no fucking clue who that is but, if one of his movies went viral like Cuties did, I'm pretty sure that it would spark a major controversy as well (yes, those are adults i his movies but still, there would be a major shitstorm and the vast majority of people would be just as reactionary as they are about Cuties).
To make things short: Remember to keep your damn history in mind when you look at works of art made in faraway past. Art, no matter how hard it claims to be for itself, always carry the weight of centuries.
Therefore, it is a bad idea to censor, and the method will always fell wrong in our current society. What you do with it is your entire responsability, as you know in advance how society will react by interacting or thoughtlessly possessing these.
Again, I agree but the exact same argument can be applied to Cuties.
I don't live in the past, I live now in the modern society with modern laws and morality.
I've mentioned Birth of a Nation in the OP and how modern society doesn't give it a pass for being a product of it's time, I'm just taking this mindset a few centuries further back to see what happens.
I hope I made myself clear. And if this was a troll, well..it was funny to write this.
Thanks again for actually responding instead of name calling, you are the 2nd person to do so.
Congratulations!!!
![:\](/styles/custom/emotes/svg/chris-confused.svg "Confused :\")
