No Nudes is Good Nudes?

If a blog is posted and nobody reads it, does it count? I suppose if posted via wireless the message travels out of Earth's atmosphere into space. There, I suppose it travels throughout the universe, reaching farther and farther into space, where finally it is collected by some giant radio telescope. There, I suppose even further, some race of people excitedly announce that they have received messages from far beyond their own universe. Then, a green-skinned, hairless being in a lab coat says, "Zalmanju waakuu mahpasi fuurtuu, lurtuu, grnsnazzle." This roughly translates to, "Nah, just another blog. No porn for once, though."

How much broadcast porn is being viewed by other-wordly beings? If they look like us, do they think it's art and not porn? You know, I visit the Detroit Institute of Art from time to time,www.dia.org, makes me feel "metropolitan", plus I like the pictures. (You must refrain, of course, while at the from even mouthing the word "picture" and voice only words such as "works", "masterpiece", "illuminating", "transformational" and stuff like that, less "they" think you're a boob).

So on any trip to the DIA, you end up in the sculptures area, where you stand in the middle of a bunch of naked people. This of course is art, unless you try to display it anywhere else but an art institute. Anywhere else and people would say, "What's with all the naked people?"

I look at these "works" (some even transformational works) and I think, "If the people then could see us now. These works were all probably rich guy's porn stash and a thousand years or so later, they're works of art". Seriously, there was no Playboy Rome or Penthouse Athens in those days, and we know perverts like Nero and Caligula were around. Roman orgies are the stuff of legend.

So, as I walk through the displays of naked women, naked men, naked cherubs, multiple naked people, etc., I'm thinking, "porn". You can tell me all you want about the artist's desire to capture the wonderful form of the human body, and I'll answer with, "What, they couldn't put a loincloth on this guy? You really gotta show it all? You can't modestly drape a sash or design clever use of hands, props, etc. to cover a bit of this lady?"

After many years of traveling through the DIA and other art collections, it finally hit me this past year. Most all this stuff was created for Hugh Hefner's early relatives. Let's face it; with no internet, cable or pay-per-view, where else would a pervert get a naked fix? I know many of you just think I'm Larry the Cable Guy's relative or something based on this, but next time you go, think of it. Most of these statues were not displayed publicly at the time of their creation. They were commissioned by someone for a private residence or estate, or happened to be the buxom girlfriend of the artist. "C'mon, baby, it's art, it's not like it's dirty or anything and only you and I will see it". Then the guy sells it to some Roman perv who shows it off like it's Paris Hilton's sex tape or something. Really!

Anyway, I hope I haven't ruined art for you. And I hope that any of my Christian friends don't excommunicate me because of this. But you gotta admit, the more you think about this stuff, the harder it is to think "art" and the easier it is to think "porn". Of course this has nothing to do with my collection of Roman Nudes dating back to the Sophia Loren era.

Here's to good-natured laughs, an attempt at some fun, and may even a new truth to consider. God did, after all, create humor, I suppose. And I will find out one day if He considered this in good humor, or good taste. See you next time.

EJ