Pierre Girieud. There is no immoral art, it is understood ...
But does the art that aims to reproduce the gestures of pleasure find its raison d'être in our time?
Would the Roman patricians have tolerated in their bedroom the paintings that decorated the lupanars of Suburre? The representation of a sexual act commands voluptuousness and not the desire to create.
Among the works of the painters of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, there are many biblical scenes that could have allowed voluptuous interpretations. I do not think any of these artists thought of reproducing the brutal act in the temptations of earthly paradise.
The art that represents the maddened beast, dying of voluptuousness, etc ..., is not the most moving, although it has been said. It is moving in certain times and places.
If immorality can not exist in art; if a true masterpiece is always noble, even when it translates brutal outbursts, this masterpiece must remain hidden in the cartons of the artist, as he hides in his heart the lustful feelings to those at home. which he must enlarge or justify the desire.