mersenneforum.org

[QUOTE=__HRB__;200691]An Attic black-figure cup depicting [B]pederastic courtship[/B], ca. 530 BC–520 BC. Found in Athens. Current location: Department of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, Sully, first floor, room 39, case 10[/QUOTE]

Now that it is proved that one can get kiddie-porn past the censors if it is 2500 years old, here is the subject of something much more controversial: what makes it art?

[QUOTE=wikipedia]"Bird in Space" was the cause of a court battle due to the piece being taxed by U.S. Customs. The argument was in regard to Brancusi stating that the sculpture was 'art' and not taxable materials. Time magazine reported the event thus;
"Rumanian Sculptor Constantin Brancusi had to pay $4,000 to bring his Bird in Flight into the U. S. ... Works of art are duty free. But Sculptor Brancusi's bird had neither head, feet nor feathers. It was four and a half feet of bronze which swooped up from its base like a slender jet of flame. [B]Customs Inspector Kracke said it was not art;[/B] merely "a manufacture of metal . . . held dutiable at 40% ad valorem." The press bantered, jibed. Indignant modernists wrote abstruse, defensive paragraphs. Sculptor Brancusi complained to the Customs Court.
"Last week Sculptor Brancusi won his case. In its decision the Customs Court dogmatically defined art: "It is a work of art by reason of its symmetrical shape, artistic outlines and beauty of finish." Even the most wretched of logicians knows enough not to repeat the same term in both subject and definition ("art" —"artistic outline"). But Sculptor Brancusi had his money refunded."[/QUOTE]

Uff, that was a close one. Artists vs. nincompoops - 1:0; courts vs. logic - sqrt(-1):0.