Alrighty. So today i would like to bring up an issue that was mentioned in class and i wanted to say something so badly and i raised my and and waved it around, but to no avail. So i believe the discussion was something of how until very recently, famous artwork consisted of a lot of naked people, or as the term used, pornography. And when artwork portrays that nowadays, it is deemed offensive, and there is a different meaning assigned to some works as time progresses and values change. BUT i would like to point out that there is a GIGANTIC difference between portraying people naked, and pornography. These classic paintings with nakedness shown, portray the human body as a work of art and is by no means offensive, but requiring much skill to accurately show and portray at its finest. However, a painting of pornography is something that can be vulgar, showing a pornographic act and offensive with no value to the society. So, anyway, big difference. It is also like the point brought up in class about being able to show violence as long as your aim is to show the heroic in battle. This is much like the subject of nakedness in classic paintings, because the only way to show someone without clothes in a work of art, bare, for a very long time, was if the artist was depicting some biblical or mythological scene. Other than that it was not allowed by the higher powers.

So my question for now is, is it possible to classify the human body as a vulgarity in art in a non pornographic sense?