Difference between revisions of "Talk:Muralism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Violation of Commandment 3: "Art" is an excuse for...) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::: You should not go to the [[Louvre]]! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT) | ::: You should not go to the [[Louvre]]! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::: An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT) | :::: An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::: What does that have to do with the discussion at all? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:18, June 5, 2008
Violation of Commandment 3
Commandment 3: Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
Bare breasts are not "family-friendly" in my opinion. You couldn't find a different example of a mural? -- AdmiralNelson 08:46, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- This is art. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:47, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- So that means anything goes? Art is above the rules? Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- You should not go to the Louvre! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? Philip J. Rayment 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- What does that have to do with the discussion at all? Wandering 13:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? Philip J. Rayment 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- You should not go to the Louvre! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)