Sure. This picture was painted by Dali, inspired by a Scientific American article about the minimum number of pixels needed to recognize an image. He was making an artistic statement that has a direct connection to Fourier analysis (and if you read the context article that image came from you might know this). This is a painting whose context is "fine art" (i.e. you can have tasteful nudity). That is a different context from pornography, whose purpose is sexual.
You clearly do not understand how the context of an image matters in interpreting it.
>This picture was painted by Dali, inspired by a Scientific American article about the minimum number of pixels needed to recognize an image. He was making an artistic statement that has a direct connection to Fourier analysis
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... The Lena image contains a nice mixture of detail, flat regions, shading, and texture that do a good job of testing various image processing algorithms. It is a good test image. It is used by thousands of researchers in the field since image processing was a field.
So, your image isn't "sexualization" because Dali and "fine art" ?
>You clearly do not understand how the context of an image matters in interpreting it.
You cannot articulate a difference between Lena and the Dali that doesn't rely upon subjective opinion.
> So, your image isn't "sexualization" because Dali and "fine art" ?
Yes, there is such a thing as tasteful nudity, and pornography is generally not. This is why our society allows children into art museums but not strip clubs. What is so hard to understand about this? Context is subjective, but there are agreed-upon standards for professionalism. Just because the standard was different fifty years ago does not make it a good idea today. If you can't think of any "traditions" from fifty years ago that professional scientists unanimously agree are wrong today, then you're quite ignorant.
> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Clearly I am the one failing to articulate things.
