Should there be any restrictions placed on art?

Should there be any restrictions placed on art?

Other urls found in this thread:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/therese-dreaming-petition-metropolitan-museum_us_5a260869e4b0f9f0203ec645
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Only as long as no one cares when they're ignored.

No, but shit and people who produce shit should be binned instead of glorified by idiots.

is this loli

For context:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/therese-dreaming-petition-metropolitan-museum_us_5a260869e4b0f9f0203ec645

The painting does kinda sexualize a prebuscent girl, but I don't see the romantic part. Sexualizing or not though, who cares? Sexuality is part of human nature and it's a depictio, not the real thing anyway. It's painted better than a lot of modern artist cancer anyway.
And no OP there shouldn't be restrictions placed on art.

...

Not if it's sexy like this.

the heads of people who displease God by suggesting such dumbshit.

Any paiting depicting an underage person should be banned. I dont care how innocuous the painting is, someone somewhere will view it sexually and in that vain gain pleasure from it. This should be a practice that is actively discouraged and the consumers of paintings - such as the op - thrown in jail.

Its nothing compared to the degeneracy the internet has to offer.

"Pedophilia" was common practice until pretty recently. Is that what it looks like to be offended by everything?

i know its boring but i have to say it depends and art can take so many shapes

like using ivory or a skin of an endangered animal or doing something very unsanitary

Only goes to show how much society has progressed

Progress is great. Look at the art we have now.

No

Not a sexualised child in sight.
Pretty good

Getting rid of children, real or imaginary, will fix the pedo problem.

>durr hurr you should be able to make child porn if it's "art"
Retard, either you can exploit children or you can't, you can't make an exception simply because in your opinion it's "tasteful"

>not a sexualized child in sight
WEW

>Not a sexualised child in sight.
????? Are you blind or fucking retarded? Perhaps both, you fucking idiot.

Just by defining art we place restrictions on it, because we differentiate art from non-art. Meaning that only things that conform to certain standards can be considered art. The exclusion of that which does not conform to it as non-art is a restriction immanent to the term "art". Therefore, while there is art, it is restricted.

And then you have an absolute madman exhibiting a fucking urinal just to shit on my words.

DESU some things like Mary painted with elephant shit and Jesus painted with urine should be censored for being needlessly offensive and having no artistic value outside of how edgy and controversial they are. Although I'd also be satisfied by simply not exhibiting them in state-owned galleries and public places. As for the OP pic, it's not as bad, I suppose. Not like it would fall under CP.

Yes, art should be called culture so certain things would be called uncultured and that would be much healthier discussion.

Gggnnnnhhhh
Brrrraaaapppppppp
>anyone being this assblasted over artistic depiction of the female gender.
BREAKING NEWS!!- Females have legs! AND HIPS! RUMORS THAT GIRLS HAVE DIFFERENT PHYSIOLOGY THAN MALES!!!
-wew lads

No.

Thx 4 the proof

You're really not gonna like Norman Rockwell..,

Yes. Only good art should be displayed in public places. I am sick of cities subsidizing shit-tier artists by putting their orange abstract dildo in the middle of a park.

Mod*rn art should be banned and the practitioners hanged
>oh l drew 4 squiggly lines on canvas made entirely of recycled materials
Fuck off

What the fuck... These people are mentally ill, they have a morbid obsession with sex. In fact it's them who sexualize everything, I wouldn't let a kid under their care.

>some things like Mary painted with elephant shit and Jesus painted with urine should be censored for being needlessly offensive and having no artistic value outside of how edgy and controversial they are
~t. triggered artlet who needs Big Government to intercede on behalf of his bruised feelies

>hard, masculine body
>boyish face
>no really feminine or pretty features
>b-but some of her crotch is showing
so sexual guys

>tfw you will never have a lewd daughter in the late XIX century who want to have spontaneous sex with you
Why even live?

thats no even his most controversial painting

Quads of truth. She looks more like a young feminist power girl, surprised the sjws don't like it.

...

...

If they could stand on their own merits, they wouldn't need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.

Slippery slope. There will always dumb twats offended by stuff. If you indulge them you will have thought police before you can say ''8/10 would bang"

Pls also ban pic related

Shit, that's funny.

>offensive
Who decides what is and what isn't?

Yes. Modern art is nothing more than a scam on the retarded plebs with money who try to look "cultured" with trash hanging on their walls.

>What are lolis / shota

So are we continuing the porn painting thread from the other day or what?

>the guitar lesson
What a legend

Why is there a big black blob in the middle of the painting?

That's her skirt. Some pigments don't age well.

Dunno, it's drawn like shit, see picrelated for a loli done right.

I saw this picture on Veeky Forums the night before I saw it on yahoo this morning.

Everything made by human is culture, only natural processes are uncultured.

I hate to burst your collective bubbles. but art can only be considered art if someone perceives something to be art. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think something is good then its art. From the the most complex objects to the lowest, most crude and meanest of objects. Moreover there is no limit to art, It is most often a product of an artists self expression and discovery. Hence art can be considered also in literature, music and painting, because it demands imagination and creativity. If you seek to place restrictions on what people beleive to be good are you basically telling people what they can or cannot like. This is my opinion to your question

>From the the most complex objects to the lowest, most crude and meanest of objects.
No. Art has no function. The most beautiful wrench in your eyes is not a "piece of art", it's a "tool".