I want you to think deeply about if all porn is inherently artistic or if porn depictions have a separate circuimstance.
I made a comment earlier about how dressing a Naiad Statue up as a hooker changes the context of the artwork significantly.
You're being fucking weird, mate
LMAO
Getting mad that some other guy's porn set miniature can't be left on public display is weird, mate.
This isn't porn, it's a hand-crafted miniature. Which, yes, is art.
Yes, I read it. That doesn't make it not art.
Michelangelo's David is a depiction of a nude man.
Furthermore, Piss Christ, the controversial photo of a crucifix suspended inside urine is also art.
You are not the arbiter of what is art.
Listen, I view a lot of pornographic artwork pretty regularly. They are absolutely art, and very good art I would add. I wouldn't put them up on display at the state fair, personally, nor would I be angry if the person who did so had their works taken down by workers of the state.
Again, you are not the arbiter of what is art.
And you are saying some things about yourself that are quite hard to believe, like how your personal inbox was filling up with complaints over this.
Nobody but you is discussing what is or is not art.
You above:
I want you to think deeply about if all porn is inherently artistic or if porn depictions have a separate circuimstance.
Me:
This isn’t porn, it’s a hand-crafted miniature. Which, yes, is art.
Then you pasted an image underlining how it is a depiction of a porn set, which surely implied that you were saying it isn't art.
They're allowed to be as upset as they like. People get upset about all sorts of silly things. That doesn't mean they need to be catered to.
And what do you mean your inbox?
So you acknowledge their feelings but you wish them harm, got it.
What are you even talking about?
People are offended by statues of Martin Luther King, Jr. Should we take them down because those people are upset?
Tolerance for all except the intolerant. Porn sets aren't a protected class but keep ypur hopes up for the year 2412
Dude, you're literally embodying a Simpsons episode which already came true.
I want you to think deeply about if all porn is inherently artistic or if porn depictions have a separate circuimstance.
I made a comment earlier about how dressing a Naiad Statue up as a hooker changes the context of the artwork significantly.
You're being fucking weird, mate
LMAO
Getting mad that some other guy's porn set miniature can't be left on public display is weird, mate.
This isn't porn, it's a hand-crafted miniature. Which, yes, is art.
Yes, I read it. That doesn't make it not art.
Michelangelo's David is a depiction of a nude man.
Furthermore, Piss Christ, the controversial photo of a crucifix suspended inside urine is also art.
You are not the arbiter of what is art.
Listen, I view a lot of pornographic artwork pretty regularly. They are absolutely art, and very good art I would add. I wouldn't put them up on display at the state fair, personally, nor would I be angry if the person who did so had their works taken down by workers of the state.
Again, you are not the arbiter of what is art.
And you are saying some things about yourself that are quite hard to believe, like how your personal inbox was filling up with complaints over this.
Nobody but you is discussing what is or is not art.
You above:
Me:
Then you pasted an image underlining how it is a depiction of a porn set, which surely implied that you were saying it isn't art.
So is it art or not?