4 ms·

Having never visited, I did not realize until how high the density of nudity per square meter was.

by j2kun 12y ago

tormeh 12y ago
There are uncovered breasts! Penises! Can't find any vulvas unfortunately. It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right. Another way to think of it: Miley Cyrus is actually more covered than many of the characters in the Sistine Chapel.
- salgernon 12y ago
  Bush's attorney general would have it his way: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/valentine.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/valentine.asp
- jacquesm 12y ago
  There was in those days significant opposition to the way the work was executed, which led the artist to pull some pranks on some of his most active detractors.
  - coldcode 12y ago
    The back wall is full of faces that Michelangelo didn't like. I remember some guy added clothes to the painting later to try to make it less nude.
- swang 12y ago
  I believe if its "art" they don't need to censor it. See: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/will-michelangelos-david-collapse-n95311 http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/will-michelangelos-david... At the very least, they don't do any close ups.
- WoodenChair 12y ago
  "It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right." Re: What would fit on American television today. Pretty specious argument. Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. We also don't find hanging people in public squares appropriate anymore, or a million other things... There are arguments to be made in favor of allowing more nudity on television. "They used to do it back in the day" is not one of the good ones.
  - jedberg 12y ago
    I think OP was commenting on the irony that the reason given for no nudity on tv is a religious reason from the same religion that puts naked people in one of their most sacred places.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Exactly.
  - visarga 12y ago
    > Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. That means current church dogma is just temporary ... it has no 'absolute validity' in it, which is even worse than allowing the nude pics. Or current theology is just creative thinking that happened in-between then and now. Why should a religious man submit to recent theology instead of the original Christian theology of 2000 years ago?
    - joeclark77 12y ago
      Since when does the Catholic Church have a say in U.S. broadcasting standards?
wrongc0ntinent 12y ago
All "offensive" details in The Last Judgement were covered soon after Michelangelo's death (1564). The fresco was restored 1980-1994, without the added loincloths, but a couple of the figures were actually heavily modified and impossible to restore. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo...

Having never visited, I did not realize until how high the density of nudity per square meter was.

by j2kun 12y ago

Having never visited, I did not realize until how high the density of nudity per square meter was.

There are uncovered breasts! Penises! Can't find any vulvas unfortunately. It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right. Another way to think of it: Miley Cyrus is actually more covered than many of the characters in the Sistine Chapel.

salgernon 12y ago
Bush's attorney general would have it his way: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/valentine.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/valentine.asp
jacquesm 12y ago
There was in those days significant opposition to the way the work was executed, which led the artist to pull some pranks on some of his most active detractors.
- coldcode 12y ago
  The back wall is full of faces that Michelangelo didn't like. I remember some guy added clothes to the painting later to try to make it less nude.
swang 12y ago
I believe if its "art" they don't need to censor it. See: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/will-michelangelos-david-collapse-n95311 http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/will-michelangelos-david... At the very least, they don't do any close ups.
WoodenChair 12y ago
"It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right." Re: What would fit on American television today. Pretty specious argument. Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. We also don't find hanging people in public squares appropriate anymore, or a million other things... There are arguments to be made in favor of allowing more nudity on television. "They used to do it back in the day" is not one of the good ones.
- jedberg 12y ago
  I think OP was commenting on the irony that the reason given for no nudity on tv is a religious reason from the same religion that puts naked people in one of their most sacred places.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Exactly.
- visarga 12y ago
  > Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. That means current church dogma is just temporary ... it has no 'absolute validity' in it, which is even worse than allowing the nude pics. Or current theology is just creative thinking that happened in-between then and now. Why should a religious man submit to recent theology instead of the original Christian theology of 2000 years ago?
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    Since when does the Catholic Church have a say in U.S. broadcasting standards?

wrongc0ntinent 12y ago

All "offensive" details in The Last Judgement were covered soon after Michelangelo's death (1564). The fresco was restored 1980-1994, without the added loincloths, but a couple of the figures were actually heavily modified and impossible to restore. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo...