how does censorship affect art?

as it does with everything else. it cripples it.

>>2525875
do you think that it can also help it?

>>2525877
No.

>>2525877
How would censorship ever help art?

>>2525889
Restrictions force you to be creative.

>>2525889
Humans always try to pass the limits, if you tell a little kid not to do someting he would do it

>>2525877
Yes, the forbidden is more attractive.

>>2525874
Censorship can be creative. You can have a gory image with something just *happening* to block the way of the heavy gore, leaving it up to the imagination.
Black bars are shit. Black bars covering tits and dicks and stuff is just shit. It's not creative. Everyone knows what a boob looks like, it just obstructs the drawing.

File: Michelangelo,_Giudizio_Universale_02.jpg (1MB, 1200x1442px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1442px

>>2525874
it had a dramatic affect on the Sistine Chapel- not the ceiling, but the wall featuring the Last Judgement.

The pope's successor had another artist cover the dicks on all of the nudes in the scene, including Jesus.

File: 1444327846281.png (526KB, 976x1416px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 976x1416px

It makes things even more lewd.

File: Appetizer_01.jpg (401KB, 1200x1667px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1200x1667px

>>2525899
Because of censorship we have tentacle porn, this is true
But I'd also argue without censorship we'd have uncensored tentacle porn.
Hit and miss really.

>>2526118
>The pope's successor had another artist cover the dicks on all of the nudes in the scene, including Jesus.
Wrong. The loincloth on Christ is original, not a later addition.

>>2525874
affects in a mysterious way

>>2526118
>>2526827
It's also debatable whether this was an instance of "censorship" in the strict sense.

The Church had no problem with the work as such (it was never regarded as obscene), the only problem was that after the Council of Trent it was deemed "indecorous" as sacred art specifically (due to a possibly overzealous interpretation of the rather vague canons hastily adopted in the last sessions of the council), which was a problem since it is not only located in a major chapel, but forms its very altarpiece.

There were sound reasons for wanting to improve the quality of religious art in the mid 16th century. Standards of decorum in religious art had seriously deteriorated in the generation after Michelangelo and Raphael, and the principal concern at Trent had been with stopping the trend. This particular work, which was not the central focus of the reform, just happened to get caught up in the process of carrying it out.

Rightly or wrongly, the modifications were deemed necessary to render the piece appropriate to the setting, but if the painting had been anywhere other than inside a church, it would have gone unmolested. Indeed, Michelangelo's famous ceiling frescoes in the same chapel were not altered (despite similarly copious nudity), only the altarpiece.

Interestingly, the beardless Christ (looking more like Apollo, according to one critique), rather than the nudity, generated the most controversy at the time Michelangelo painted it, but this was never altered.

>>2526827
Oops. I learned something new today. Either way, lots of genitalia in the painting were later obscured by Daniele da Volterra.
also of note:
>During the course of the (modern) restoration about half of the censorship of the "Fig-Leaf Campaign" was removed.