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)

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)