Talk:Muralism

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)

It has to do with whether the "this is art" response in any way answers the objection. It is meant to show that "this is art" should not be a valid response. Philip J. Rayment 17:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, photographs of naked minors are pretty clearly not art. Non-pornographic murals quite clearly are. Wandering 17:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

That may be your position, but many artists here defended the photographs (which were hanging in an art gallery) as art. As for "non-pornographic", surely that's begging the question? Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, Liberty is often represented as a woman with one or both breasts bared. Don't ask me why. Hope that helps. --Leda 17:19, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

When John Ashcroft headed the DOJ, such displays of Lady Liberty were modestly draped or even totally covered up, if I recall. There were no bare boobs in the Ashcroft DOJ. I mean this IS Conservapedia people. Can't you at least photoshop the nipples out? -- AdmiralNelson 21:28, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Done. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much. I was just worried that some young person might inadvertently stumble upon this article and take offense. The new picture is much nicer and safer. -- AdmiralNelson 21:52, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

More nudity and possible violation of Commandment 3

I hate to be bothersome, and rather than do any editing, I thought I'd bring this up here first before proceeding. Given the history of this article, issues of explicit nudity concerns me. The current picture of a mural for this article which is captioned Mural Presencia de America Latina (Chile), by Jorge González Camarena has an almost totally nude woman in the center of the existing picture. See here. I know that it's not that clear, but if it leads any young children (or others who might not expect nudity) to actually search for this mural specifically they could easily find THIS picture (warning, not safe for those who are offended by explicit erotic pictures of naked women or young children) which is totally inappropriate for Conservapedia per Commandment 3. Note: I have Google's SAFE SEARCH turned on and still retrieved this picture and even this more unambiguously erotic picture (same warning as before). Can't we put an example of a mural that is not so potentially bothersome in this article? I suggest finding something that shows mexicans being patriotic to America, rather than images that potentially promote nudity and eroticism. Please comment. I won't edit the article unless it's clear where the Conservapedia editors stand on this. --AdmiralNelson 13:49, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Note. The pictures I retrieved in my comment above were all from the mural that is currently posted as part of this article. They are NOT pictures that have nothing to do with this mural. Sorry for any confusion. --AdmiralNelson 13:51, 18 June 2008 (EDT)