
The strange case of the Venus in a box - prismatic
http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-venus-in-box.html
======
jerf
You can not understand this sort of thing if you model humans as idealized
Vulcans. You have to understand that sex and nudity and such are all tied up
not just with our forebrain, but with our irrational hindbrains, and we don't
get to choose what "programs" those are running. I'm not saying I have a
really easy answer, just that being mystified by these sorts of things is an
indication that you're running on the wrong model of human minds. These issues
are real, and the nudity is merely a player on a complicated game board of
deep human currents of sex, power, hierarchy, and public morality, its need to
be enforced, and it's need to be _seen_ being enforced (important not to model
those as the same thing!), playing out in a complicated iterated group social
game.

Further, it's worth pointing out that the people painting the nudity were not
Vulcans neutrally painting "just what reality is" either. The painters set out
to push certain buttons with those paintings, and the fact that people react
is a measure of the fact they succeed. It should hardly be a mystery that
people have further responses to the fact certain buttons are being pushed;
indeed, it would be a mystery if they did just consider it no different than a
painting of a bowl of fruit.

~~~
Juliate
We're talking about pieces of art that have been around for centuries - and
about people of power who are in the same positions as those that
commissionned this pieces before them.

Who has the most thoughtful, the "right" "model of human minds" between those
who commissionned these works, those who produced them and those who veiled
them today?

~~~
LeifCarrotson
People in that same position of power also killed rather a lot of middle
easterners in the Crusades. I don't think we should use all their choices as a
model for modern ones.

~~~
Juliate
And? because people of power today do not?

Besides, the same type of nude art works, were produced long before (even in
prehistoric times), east, south, north, and west of the Mediterranean sea.

------
interfixus
By all means, let us ignore the herd of elephants stomping through the room.

This is all about the strange and disastrous new European fear of offending
Those Who Must Not Be Offended. In this case a visiting Iranian head of state,
but we see this stuff played out all over Europe every day, from this level
and all the way down to minor, personal encounters.

But please, let us pretend we don't.

~~~
Kristine1975
_> This is all about the strange and disastrous new European fear of offending
Those Who Must Not Be Offended_

No it's not: The article describes several examples of such censorship, none
of which had to do with Muslims (which I guess you're alluding to).

~~~
GauntletWizard
It's just as much the puritanical Christians and the feelings of Progressives
that are demanding these coverups. It is not muslims, it is the blowback
against freedom of speech by a number of groups who feel that they have a
right not to be offended, and that their dogmatism is the one true way.

It's not a surprise, these things are cyclical, and global culture went
through nearly 50 years of expanding tolerance - The drug use of the 60s and
70s, glorification of teenage rebellion in 80s and 90s, and the tech
disruption of the aughts. We're seeing a resurgence of spirituality, in much
the same way we've seen it before[1]. Not all of it is explicitly religious,
some of it is just indistinguishable in it's goals.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_revival)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I don't think it has anything to do with spirituality or even with religion.

There seems to be a certain alpha male - or at least alpha authoritarian -
model of power which is rooted in a pretence of stern, serious, and
disciplined public morality combined with private self-indulgence.

When you have naked boobies on display in public buildings, that model of
pretended integrity starts to break down. Boobies and naked bodies -
especially female bodies - are fundamentally antithetical to the immensely
serious business of public alpha moral posturing. They're strictly for private
off-the-record consumption only.

Non-authoritarians don't care about keeping up appearances in this way. But
authoritarians and narcissists most certainly do.

------
sgt101
There was a rather good cartoon in Private Eye this month (unforately not
online as far as I can google) where Adam and Eve (from the last judgement
mentioned in the OP) are captioned saying "It's worse that we thought - we're
being slammed on Twitter"

------
my_first_acct
A vaguely simlar case in the US, a few years ago:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Justice#Spirit_of_Ju...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Justice#Spirit_of_Justice_and_the_Attorneys_General)

------
mturmon
Thanks for this. A really perceptive brief meditation on something we'd often
just chuckle at and move on.

------
amelius
What I wonder about most is why they didn't just use a piece of cloth instead.

~~~
jpollock
They're probably trying to minimize contact with the art - the same way that
they don't allow flash photography of paintings.

~~~
amelius
Ok good point. But you could suspend it from the ceiling. Placing a box would,
I suppose, create a much higher risk of damage.

