Is it fair to say that every targeted demographic is wooed by nudity? If every censorship flag was to be lowered I'm not sure what would happen. I somehow doubt that our world would crumble into redlight districts and bladerunner aesthetics. Censorship in art allows for subject matter. It allows for a push for openness. But what does complete openness mean? If we can say everything won't the audiences lose interest? I'm sure if all censorship were dropped we would see some artists rebel against that somehow, they would impose self-censorships or artistic censorships. It would force us and our artists to reevaluate our moral fibers. Maybe some things should be censored they would say, elsewise we'll stop caring about boundaries.

Maybe censorship is just that, a branching issue out of the debate of public vs. private. Or maybe it is just validation of the government's control. "We wouldn't want our children to look at these things, why should you?" If government was to get rid of censorship controls than responsibility would be placed on parents and individuals. Would we want that responsibility? Easier if the government monitors our televisions than us, they do a better job.

As I see it Art is already entirely free to operate. Any more reductions of censorship and we won't know what to say any more. In the photos you show I see more use of the beautiful ladies hiding their assets than showing them. If we were to see everything what would there be left to think about except our raging erections?

One of the few things I took out of a required high school art class was that art is as much about the empty space around the subject than the actual subject. What is not there is just as important as what's there. Censorship is a reminder of the white space we can still paint over. But what happens when every fiber of the fabric is covered?

I like when you say: "One of the few things I took out of a required high school art class was that art is as much about the empty space around the subject than the actual subject."

You're right when you ask: "Is it fair to say that every targeted demographic is wooed by nudity?" No, there are gore pictures, pain, violence, pedophilia (all of which might include nudity). Some other ones. All appear in certain forms in mainstream media when they want to sell big, but with a pretext, somewhat like the images I brought above.

It's tough because I really don't believe in censorship. No, I think almost everything should be possible to be shown, and it currently is online. But without these kinds of censorship we would be inundated with images which could change us. Personally, if every image would be of a nude woman, I can handle that, but it would change society in certain ways.

Hi John and Robin,

Interesting discussion. Just to say as a side note that Peta indeed likes asses for etymological reasons as pète  means ass in French. As for censorship being useful to art, I think it is. Censorship sets limits, and art is about pushing the limits and playing around them and create a change, thus showing that not playing by the rules can be as interesting and enriching to art, or alternatively a way of creating a new artistic world based on other sets of rules. Now considering censorship in the nude area, we’ve come a long way from the prohibition that for centuries was characteristic of our civilization, and we are still far from considering nudity as natural like some ancient tribes. Maybe censorship is our last hold to our old civilization full of prohibitions, and as for Robin’s expectation : “Any more reductions of censorship and we won't know what to say any more...If we were to see everything what would there be left to think about except our raging erections?”  I’m not sure that nudity would be such an issue in a society who never knew prohibitions. To be nude is after all natural, and humans are the only kind of being who feel awkward about it.