# Nudity as art



## Cnote11

I was curious to get the forum's opinions on this. I was reading about people who work developing film and I ran across this comment:

"Nude photos disgust me - I see the often - and I often choose not to print them. (We are told we do not have to print anything we find offensive or don't feel comfortable printing"

Now, art has a long history of the nude. We see this in paintings and in statues. A lot of people seem to have an issue when photography is the medium. What are your feelings on this and nudity in general in art?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Nudity is the only--and most supreme--Art.


----------



## Polednice

I have no problem with it in principle, though I don't really know much about (or care much for) the visual arts. I suppose I could make a vague guess as to why people would find photographed nudity less tasteful, as it seems that nudity worshipped in art is about the perfection of the human form, and so in a painting or sculpture you'd aim to create an aesthetic ideal. In photography, you necessarily have to work with imperfection and also something more intimate and personal which jars with some people's repression.

I made all that up though, so I'm probably wrong.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Holy Nudity, Polednice changed his avatar too! How far will this meme go?


----------



## Vaneyes

"All together, now. Come back, Vampire Piggy!"

View attachment 4437


----------



## Cnote11

This so wasn't intentional. I just grabbed a random avatar. Also, you can't reference it Dodecaplex. It takes away the magic.

As for Polednice, you could say that for certain eras of visual arts, but it isn't true for the entirety. Also, the idealized figure has been depicted in numerous ways, including those we'd considered flawed by our social standards. I do agree with you that it garners a stronger reaction due to it being felt as reality, as opposed to just some representational form of it. There is a lot of nudity in photography with no art implications in mind, however, which does skew the perception of the concept through that medium.


----------



## aleazk

................

*Ligeti*, naked?, where, where?


----------



## kv466

Nudity as art? It's great!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That's all I paint.:devil:


----------



## PetrB

I think the prude factor on nudity in art or other media is at its highest watermark (in 'Western' countries, anyway) in the Anglo-American cultures, and that prudery is ridiculous. 

I grew up with paintings in the house, real ones; a number of them were nudes, female, in the tradition.... 

Only later did I realize many an otherwise 'sophisticated' adult is actually made 'uncomfortable' by the presence of nudes on the walls. They do not get an ounce of my sympathy for their discomfort any more than the people Hired to develop film have my sympathy for 'images which might make them uncomfortable.'

People hired to develop film should print any negative that is printable, and make as good a print as possible as a matter of course and without complaint -- P.C. silliness to the max that they do not. Where does their discomfort line 'take them?'
"I'm sorry, but I was uncomfortable with the photo of your naked children in the bathtub / backyard playing in the sprinkler, etc. so did not print those? 

Puhleeze and Pish - Tosh.

It is known the human figure, face, hands, ears, feet, all of it, is one of the most fully challenging tasks a representational painter or sculptor can have.

Interesting observation: in cultures which are prudish about the nude, gratuitous or sensationalized use of the nude in art or in a film -- I include sex scenes, can garner a tremendous reaction. In cultures where nudity and sex are more a readily accepted part of life, any such gratuitous use of the subject is seen as just that - gratuitous. 

So yeah, I like nudes, etc. as long as they are not gratuitous and 'reactionary toward' the aforementioned prudery.


----------



## violadude

My opinion is that the arts should be a place for anything and everything to happen, no restrictions.


----------



## Kopachris

Seems we're all in agreement, then.

Also, I refuse to change my avatar to fit some misbegotten trend.


----------



## aleazk

Kopachris said:


> Seems we're all in agreement, then.
> 
> Also, I refuse to change my avatar to fit some misbegotten trend.


So, you don't like *Ligeti*


----------



## Crudblud

I like the female body, so it's pretty cool stuff.


----------



## Cnote11

What about the counterpart to female nudity in art, Crudblud?


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> What about the counterpart to female nudity in art, Crudblud?


Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Crudblud

Hey, it's all breasts and ******* to me!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think the prude factor on nudity in art or other media is at its highest watermark (in 'Western' countries, anyway) in the Anglo-American cultures, and that prudery is ridiculous.

This is true. There is a real remnant of Puritan mentality when it comes to the nude and sexuality in the arts in the Anglo-American world. It has been noted that one could show a breast being blown up in an American film without raising an eyebrow, but beware showing a breast being caressed or kissed. And heaven forbid a *****... or full frontal nudity of any sort. Of course this mentality is hypocritical in the extreme. As PetrB has suggested, sexuality has been marketed shamelessly. Everyone knows the old PR adage, "Sex Sells". Pornography is a huge industry which has grown legit over the years with major film studios investing in the market (albeit under the names of subsidiary companies). Sex... sexuality...eroticism... is one of the central experiences of human existence and as such has been one of the central themes of art from the earliest known examples:










The so-called "Venus of Willendorf" is one of the oldest known sculpted or carved representations of the human form (created c. 25,000 BCE). The figure clearly exaggerates and fetishizes the sexual aspects of the woman (breasts and hips) while her face is almost completely non-existent. Artistic representations of human sexuality date back to at least 40,000 BCE by which time, according to archaeologists, sex ceased being a purely biological function linked to reproduction. Professor Javier Angulo points out that early humans produced highly realistic drawings of sexual activity on the walls of a few caves from Siberia to the Iberian Peninsula. In France and Portugal, images of copulation, hugs, kisses, oral sex, a supposed instance of bestialism and even ************ have been found.

The art school experience of today still commonly involves the in-depth study of human anatomy and physiology, and a good deal of effort expended in drawing from the nude. The nude, however, regardless of sexual intent or lack thereof, is now one of the most difficult subject matters to market. Much of this may be due to prudery, and Puritanical (however hypocritical it may be) thinking of the part of the "Philistines" among the audience. Unfortunately, Modernism itself contained strong elements of Puritanism, Prudery, and Misogyny. Modernist theorists, beginning with Kant and continuing through the critical writings of Austrian architect, Adolf Loos, Italian Futurist artist/writer, Filippo Marinetti, among others called for a moratorium... if not an outright ban upon the artistic representation of the female nude. The nude, after all, as Sir Kenneth Clark famously noted, "is an image of such power for the simple reason that it is "Us" and reminds us of all that we enjoy doing with ourselves... and first and foremost is our sexual urge or erotic drive." Clark went so far as to argue that the sexual drive... the desire to grasp and be physically united with another human being... is so central to our human experience that any representation of the nude that failed to raise some vestige of the erotic sensibility was ultimately "bad art and false morals." It was this very fact that Kant and other Modernists feared: the nude had the power to circumvent human reason... to overwhelm reason with emotion... and as such it was highly suspect.

Of course this concept was rooted in the older notion that Man=Culture and Reason and Woman=Nature and Emotions. For all the new thinking involved in Modernism, many Modernist theorists and artists remained truly sexist if not misogynistic. Henri Matisse was taken to task by many critics for being too "decorative", decoration being something better left to the weaker mentality of women ever since Adolf Loss proclaimed that "Ornament is Crime." Of course the prime criminal he set his sights upon was the great Austrian painter, Gustav Klimt... a master of ornament:










Matisse, was equally to be criticized for his hedonistic revelry in the sensuality of color and pattern:










The other great colorist of the period, Pierre Bonnard, was even more summarily dismissed...










Picasso's nudes were acceptable because the were anything but sensual... violent... angry... and certainly masculine... not likely to seduce...










As Modernism reached mid-century, the entire question proved moot, as figurative art of any sort became suspect. Well into the 1980s there was a bias against sensuality in art and a belief held by many of the leading critics and artists that an art of sensuality, sexuality... and an art that made extensive use of such "feminine" elements as pattern and color was inherently an art lacking in intellectual rigor.

During my own art school experience, the painter Eric Fischl came to speak in tandem with an opening of his prints at the local museum of contemporary art. Many students and faculty who attended his talk later expressed dismay at the fact that Fischl was so obviously intelligent and well-spoke. In other words, they could not fathom how someone with his intellect could focus upon an art dealing with emotion and sexual psycho-dramas as opposed to rigorous abstraction or conceptual art.










As PetrB seems to fear, much of the use of the nude in art today is openly gratuitous... intended to shock or provoke a bored, ennui-laden audience... and/or "reactionary" in nature. Of course, reactionary art is not without it's merits. Caravaggio's career began as a reaction against the artifice of Mannerism. Manet's _Olympia_ and _Les Dejeuner sur l'herbe_ were certainly reactions toward the feigned prudery of painters of the academies. Satire, as Cervantes and Lawrence Sterne prove, can often be the highest form of art.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Speaking of "prudery" this site has censored the terms for the male appendage and for Onanism.:lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Hahahahahahahaha!

I just looked at Crudblud's post. It seems you can use the word ******* but not p e n i s!!! :lol:


----------



## Cnote11

******* ******

I knew something was up here. I used the term "va g ina" one here before and it was censored, as it is in my above sentence. Apparently making it plural makes it okay.


----------



## Dodecaplex

You make Francis Bacon proud.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Let's see:

Penises *****

***** ****

******** *******


Edit: interesting...


----------



## Cnote11

Why thank you, Dodie. It was only because of inductive reasoning that I was able to come to my conclusion after all.


----------



## Cnote11

Dodecaplex said:


> Let's see:
> 
> Penises *****
> 
> ***** ****
> 
> ******** *******
> 
> Edit: interesting...


This, boys and girls, is the Scientific Method at work.


----------



## Cnote11

Is there a distinction in your minds between nudity IN art as opposed to nudity AS art as my thread title says? I'd be interested in hearing what StLuke has to say on that for sure.


----------



## Mesa

Nudity as art? Have you ever tried soaking your Johnson in in paint thinner after a fervent Pollocking?


----------



## Crudblud

I suppose like most things it depends on the intention or focus of the piece, which is a whole grey area that I don't feel comfortable discussing. I think there is a distinction to be made between nudity as a component and nudity as the focus, but then one man's component is another man's focus, a piece could be composed in such a way that a seemingly insignificant thing is really the focal point, or that a large part of the piece which appears to be the focus is not, and so we return to me being uncomfortable.

Welp, away I go.


----------



## clavichorder

Reminds me of a something I recently heard about the insane painter Maurice Utrillo. He had all sorts of issues, but once he was caught in public brandishing his dick saying "I paint with this!" How's that for nudity and art?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Reminds me of a something I recently heard about the insane painter Maurice Utrillo. He had all sorts of issues, but once he was caught in public brandishing his dick saying "I paint with this!" How's that for nudity and art?

I haven't heard that one, but I do know that Renoir... yes little ol' Renoir... declared on at least one occasion, "I paint with my prick." He also admitted that "If it were not for the female breast, I would never have become an artist." He also went so far as to suggest that he knew when a painting was done when he wanted to reach out and grab her as$"

The best anecdote concerning Renoir has to do with a visit by the Modernist painter, Modigliani. Renoir was an old man by then... an established old master... and he took it upon himself to lend the younger artist some pointers. Modigliani listened until Renoir began to go on about painting a woman's bottom. He went on for some time as to how you must caress and repeatedly caress the bottom of the woman in your painting. Modigliani grew increasingly agitated until he roared, "I'm not an as$ man!!" and stormed out of Renoir's studio.

Of course... looking at some of Modigliani's paintings, he doesn't seem completely adverse to a rear view:



















Interestingly, Picasso picked up upon Renoir's declaration ("I paint with my prick!") and was known to make similar statements. He even produced a series of erotic prints involving characters such as Michelangelo, Pope Julius, Raphael and his lover in which he visually equated painting with lovemaking and paint brushed with penises.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Stlukes, what happened to Antinous?!!


----------



## Cnote11

I was thinking the same thing as StLuke :lol:


----------



## Operadowney

aleazk said:


> So, you don't like *Ligeti*


I like *Ligeti*. Do you like *Ligeti*?


----------



## Kopachris

Is *Ligeti* the new *Mudkips*?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> This is true. There is a real remnant of Puritan mentality when it comes to the nude and sexuality in the arts in the Anglo-American world. It has been noted that one could show a breast being blown up in an American film without raising an eyebrow, but beware showing a breast being caressed or kissed.


Please keep in mind film is generally more of an industry than an art these days. Nudity in film is usually cheap, and hey, so is violence--but commodification of violence is something closer to fantasy than commodification of sex. It's not as simple as "puritan westerners rather see death than love! hypocrites!"

So call me a backwards prude or whatever, but in regards to film, I think it's a sign of a (somewhat) healthy culture that people would rather their daughter go into film and have a fake blood packet explode on her than have her **** hang out every second.


----------



## Badinerie

There is a town in the UK called Scunthorpe. It must be the most censorship software affected place name of all. One forum I saw the words "Ladiesparts" inserted into it so it read 'Sladiespartsthorpe' 

Regarding the topic of the thread, I can enjoy nudity in art as long as it isnt too gynecological in nature. I think a little idealism goes a long way!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Operadowney said:


> I like *Ligeti*. Do you like *Ligeti*?


*Yes I like Ligeti. But not naked.*


----------



## Manxfeeder

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As PetrB seems to fear, much of the use of the nude in art today is openly gratuitous... intended to shock or provoke a bored, ennui-laden audience... and/or "reactionary" in nature.


Good point.

One thing I've wondered about, we've heard about attractive nudes, but Lucien Freud paints the other end of the spectrum. I've seen one in person, and the way he applied the paint was very interesting. But he does make a good case for the need for clothing.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Badinerie said:


> I can enjoy nudity in art as long as it isnt too gynecological in nature. I think a little idealism goes a long way!


I remember when Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party hit the streets in '79. Some may regard it as great art, but still, in my opinion, it's closer to TMI. I wonder how many of the women represented would have approved of a sculpture dedicated to their lady parts.


----------



## science

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Yes I like Ligeti. But not naked.*


Nakedi.

(Sorry.)


----------



## violadude

science said:


> Nakedi.
> 
> (Sorry.)


Don't apologize! I got in my hardy laugh for the morning thanks to you!


----------



## starthrower

I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, but I think guys like this should be photographed only with their shirt on.


----------



## Cnote11

Would have rather had bonus photos than bonus tracks


----------



## science

Someone somewhere must like sweaty hairy guys, and we need to respect their need for eye-candy too.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Someone somewhere must like sweaty hairy guys, and we need to respect their need for eye-candy too.


Ron Jeremy fans, I suppose?


----------



## Moira

Manxfeeder said:


> I remember when Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party hit the streets in '79. Some may regard it as great art, but still, in my opinion, it's closer to TMI. I wonder how many of the women represented would have approved of a sculpture dedicated to their lady parts.


I don't know how all of the women represented felt, but lots of women left out thought it was a wonderful feminist piece. Personally I wish I could SEE it.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Moira said:


> I don't know how all of the women represented felt, but lots of women left out thought it was a wonderful feminist piece. Personally I wish I could SEE it.


I understand it's in the Brooklyn Museum, if you ever end up stateside.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Cnote11 said:


> I was curious to get the forum's opinions on this. I was reading about people who work developing film and I ran across this comment:
> 
> "Nude photos disgust me - I see the often - and I often choose not to print them. (We are told we do not have to print anything we find offensive or don't feel comfortable printing"...


My opinion is that this person is only too pleased to have this job. It gives them the ideal forum in which, not only can they repeatedly express their judgmental righteousness over other people, but they can then punish them without fear of retribution by not printing their snaps.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Please see my naked picture in attachment.

Martin


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

In my opinion, nudity _is_ art.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In my opinion, nudity _is_ art.


Yeah... What about Birgit Nilson and Pavaroti naked? Big art, hein?

Martin


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Yeah... What about Birgit Nilson and Pavaroti naked? Big art, hein?
> 
> Martin


That isn't art. That's advertising.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That isn't art. That's advertising.


May I? LOL LOL LOL


----------

