rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/10/86)
Just for fun, I went through one of my old "art history" books, and compared them to some of the current restrictions. It seems that many of the great paintings of history would be "X" rated if they were photographs, films, or live action. One could argue that the nudes featured, full frontal in some cases, was not intended to be arousing. This is not the case. Poetry and liturature of the same periods indicates that these pictures were sexually arousing, even to the point of appealing to the prurient interests of the viewer. There seem to be two historical forms of censorship. There is religious censorship, in which writing about such things as "sex with spirits" (probably masturbation fantisies) is repressed, often with such severe measures as the spanish inquisition. Performing acts prohibited by the "kosher code" of the bible was similarly persecuted as witchcraft, satanism, and heresy. Political censorship seems to revolve around "live performance", and simulations of live performance, such as photographs and film. At one time, the "Can-Can" was banned in France. In the U.S., burlesque was the earliest constitutionally accepted forms of censorship. Photographs, film, and other forms of technology have frequently been subject to tighter restriction than either the printed word, or the oil painting. Even the spoken word, in the form of radio broadcasts, is not as severely restricted as the "life-like" action of television. What is it about newer technologies that makes erotic depictions so terrible? Often, erotica has been a major factor in the early survival and further development of these new technologies. Animated film, such as the moviola, and projector owe their economic backing to the "arcade peep show" of the turn of the century. Erotic paintings can be viewed in any museum, by children and adults. Films and photographs, depicting the same scenes, can only be viewed in the back corners of a few drugstores and newsstands, and is usually restricted to adults.