London Underground has banned a poster for a Royal Academy exhibition in March which features a painting of Venus by the 16th Century German master Lucas Cranach the Elder.
It has banned ads in the past – violent computer games get short shrift, “Gay Times” magazine was once barred for a raunchy cover and an ad for the Rampant Rabbit vibrator, featuring a most un-Botticelli like Venus, never got past the ticket barriers.
Cranach’s Venus admittedly wears nothing but her necklace but — hey, this is art.
Transport for London says it has to take into account the full range of travellers and make sure it does not give offence.
Where would you draw the line?
Trackback
7 comments so far
If I want to see a painting of Venus I’ll go to an art gallery. If I want to see pictures of other naked ladies I’ll buy a porn magazine or find them on the internet. And if I buy a ticket to travel on London Underground I want to travel in peace instead of having some twisted little man’s idea of “progressive advertising” shoved in my face.
- Posted by Mike TWhat a lot of fuss over nothing. I have often seen posters on the underground for underwear and that’s far more erotic than this.
What next? a ban on animals not wearing nappies?
- Posted by tonyClearly if it is offensive to the 1000’s who might see it in the underground then it shouldn’t appear in this article where million’s might see it. Or you you could think that TfL just is worried about minorities who are offended by female nudity in any context. Wouldn’t want to offend them, would we.
- Posted by Dave BeckThe Detroit Institute of Arts has all the paintings mentioned in the article. They look quite cheap truly speaking… especially with so much unwanted pornography in movies and magazines the beauty of a naked body does not hold much appeal. However that is my personal opinion
- Posted by lakshmiI’d much rather look at masterful paintings than be bombarded by the usual bad excuse for advertising.
Can we ban boring and badly designed advertising as well?
I’m sure i’m not the only person in London who doesn’t want to read an endless stream of bank loan-insurance-vitamin supplement-improve-your-life adverts every time I get on the tube.
- Posted by JamesWhy should classical art be so offensive?
Appears to me it has more to do with the PC brigade pampering to the colour or religious sensibilities of minorities again?
- Posted by jillWhat a load of old nonsense! As has been pointed out already, there are plenty of poor attempts of eroticism in the ads on the tube, whether it is anorexic teens pimping the latest in sunglasses, perfume, or mobile phones or busty babes in bikinis.
Compared to these rather transparent attempts to lure horny types to part with their cash, the unpretentious representation of the Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility (and a 500 year old one at that) seems rather tame.
- Posted by Kris