4 ms·

Yes, Magritte’s portrait of his wife is definitely more overtly erotic than Michelangelo's David. I think you could make that case for most of the surrealists i

Yes, Magritte’s portrait of his wife is definitely more overtly erotic than Michelangelo's David. I think you could make that case for most of the surrealists in general!

elliekelly 5y ago
What’s erotic about it? Her nipples? The David depicts nipples and genitals and yet isn’t considered erotic.
- quesera 5y ago
  The most obvious difference is color. White marble is "clearly" "art". Flesh-colored paint is closer to "real", so might be ambiguous if you're sensitive to that sort of thing. Either that, or it's the lusty way she is regarding the conch shell. Hey, people are into stranger things!
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    I don’t think flesh colored paint is the obvious difference driving the comments for a NSFW tag or else HN would consider the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel “erotic” and equally deserving of the label. I think the obvious difference is the gender of the person whose nipples are depicted and the different standards to which women are held.
    - Veen 5y ago
      Women are indeed held to different standards. For example, a woman viewing this image at work is unlikely to get in trouble for it. A man's motivations for looking at it are more likely to be questioned and judged, which is why they have to be more careful about any content that could be considered NSFW. The same goes for Michelangelo's David. Because there is a default assumption of heterosexuality (and gay men are not considered a threat by a protected group), David is not going to arouse suspicion, no matter who is viewing it. Female nudes are a different matter, not because nudity in art is judged differently by the subject's gender, but because the viewer is judged differently because of their gender.
    - quesera 5y ago
      Agreed: there is clearly a double-standard regarding subject torso nudity in the US, but I don't think that's the difference in the example under discussion (Olympia vs David). For the NSFW issue (i.e. coworker glanced and reacted badly to what you were viewing), this is just a matter of realism, plus a high sensitivity to what might offend other people and women in particular. But I also don't think it's entirely about the "different standards to which women are held", which I perceive you to mean female-as-subject. In some ways it's more about male-as-viewer: As sibling comment points out, when a male views a nude female, it is frequently assumed to be lecherous, or at the very least have prurient motivations. When a female views a nude male (or female), it is assumed to be incidental, art, or accident. This is also a double-standard, but honestly it cuts both ways.

Yes, Magritte’s portrait of his wife is definitely more overtly erotic than Michelangelo's David. I think you could make that case for most of the surrealists in general!

elliekelly 5y ago

What’s erotic about it? Her nipples? The David depicts nipples and genitals and yet isn’t considered erotic.

quesera 5y ago
The most obvious difference is color. White marble is "clearly" "art". Flesh-colored paint is closer to "real", so might be ambiguous if you're sensitive to that sort of thing. Either that, or it's the lusty way she is regarding the conch shell. Hey, people are into stranger things!
- elliekelly 5y ago
  I don’t think flesh colored paint is the obvious difference driving the comments for a NSFW tag or else HN would consider the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel “erotic” and equally deserving of the label. I think the obvious difference is the gender of the person whose nipples are depicted and the different standards to which women are held.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Women are indeed held to different standards. For example, a woman viewing this image at work is unlikely to get in trouble for it. A man's motivations for looking at it are more likely to be questioned and judged, which is why they have to be more careful about any content that could be considered NSFW. The same goes for Michelangelo's David. Because there is a default assumption of heterosexuality (and gay men are not considered a threat by a protected group), David is not going to arouse suspicion, no matter who is viewing it. Female nudes are a different matter, not because nudity in art is judged differently by the subject's gender, but because the viewer is judged differently because of their gender.
  - quesera 5y ago
    Agreed: there is clearly a double-standard regarding subject torso nudity in the US, but I don't think that's the difference in the example under discussion (Olympia vs David). For the NSFW issue (i.e. coworker glanced and reacted badly to what you were viewing), this is just a matter of realism, plus a high sensitivity to what might offend other people and women in particular. But I also don't think it's entirely about the "different standards to which women are held", which I perceive you to mean female-as-subject. In some ways it's more about male-as-viewer: As sibling comment points out, when a male views a nude female, it is frequently assumed to be lecherous, or at the very least have prurient motivations. When a female views a nude male (or female), it is assumed to be incidental, art, or accident. This is also a double-standard, but honestly it cuts both ways.