Hacker News Reader

Comment by j2kun | Hacker News Reader

Having never visited, I did not realize until how high the density of nudity per square meter was.

There are uncovered breasts! Penises! Can't find any vulvas unfortunately. It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right.

Another way to think of it: Miley Cyrus is actually more covered than many of the characters in the Sistine Chapel.

There was in those days significant opposition to the way the work was executed, which led the artist to pull some pranks on some of his most active detractors.

The back wall is full of faces that Michelangelo didn't like. I remember some guy added clothes to the painting later to try to make it less nude.

I believe if its "art" they don't need to censor it.

See: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/will-michelangelos-david...

At the very least, they don't do any close ups.

Bush's attorney general would have it his way:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/valentine.asp

"It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right."

Re: What would fit on American television today.

Pretty specious argument. Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. We also don't find hanging people in public squares appropriate anymore, or a million other things...

There are arguments to be made in favor of allowing more nudity on television. "They used to do it back in the day" is not one of the good ones.

I think OP was commenting on the irony that the reason given for no nudity on tv is a religious reason from the same religion that puts naked people in one of their most sacred places.

Exactly.

> Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today.

That means current church dogma is just temporary ... it has no 'absolute validity' in it, which is even worse than allowing the nude pics. Or current theology is just creative thinking that happened in-between then and now. Why should a religious man submit to recent theology instead of the original Christian theology of 2000 years ago?

Since when does the Catholic Church have a say in U.S. broadcasting standards?

All "offensive" details in The Last Judgement were covered soon after Michelangelo's death (1564). The fresco was restored 1980-1994, without the added loincloths, but a couple of the figures were actually heavily modified and impossible to restore. [0]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com