Nude art - your opinions

[CalledByChrist]

Thank you all for the responses, some very detailed posts raising several points.

One common point is that the art could cause lust. This is something that I have questioned for some time now, more and more with other topics coming into the same question. And simply put, it is this: Why do you have to think anything?

For example, if a person walked down the street, fully clothed, modestly (whatever that is in your imagination) and another person lusted after them, who is in the wrong? 1000 other people could also look at the same person and not lust after them.

Remember that there are people in the world that think anything less than the burqa is immodest and inciting lust.

Now what if someone lusted after a person at the local swimming pool, is the unsuspecting person anymore guilty? I think in this scenario you could imagine a busy pool, where 99% of people are not lusted after, yet wear similar clothing.

The common denominator in all of these cases is the mind of the person who lusts, not who or what they look at.

I say what because there has been cases in the past where people lust after inanimate objects. Objects that were never created with this intention ever in mind, yet it happened. One case was a woman who was sexually attracted to a rollercoaster. Now, you could never accuse the engineering team of inciting lust, yet it happened. This same pattern could be applied to anything any artists creates.

Intention is extremely important, don't misunderstand what I'm saying, it is possible to incite, it is possible to purposely mislead. However, there are more cases where the real problem was in the mind of the viewer rather than anywhere else.

Its important to remember that nudity is how man was created, is how all animals live, without problem. It is only when man became aware of how to misunderstand and think wrongly was that ever a problem.

 

[CalledByChrist]

.
Eve was first to taste the forbidden fruit; and when she did, nothing
happened. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that her original sense of
decency was replaced with an alternate version and she set to work
cobbling together a rudimentary apron to cover her pelvic area.

Eve was fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his
tasting the fruit so it was impossible for him to pass the effects of the
original sin to her by means of heredity.
_

This is not correct and a misunderstanding of what happened. There is no delay or difference in thinking between Adam or Eve.


Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

> Eve interested in fruit.
> Both Eve and Adam eat.
> Both now know evil.
> Both now cover themselves.

 

[Elizabeth35]

I am, however, a firm believer in medical representation, which can be very tricky. I grew up during the scare of the AIDS epidemic, and was part of a college program that taught about "safe" sexual behaviors that cut down risk for STD's and unplanned pregnancy. This was a public program and not Christian-based, and while abstinence was always taught as the "safest" option, the program had to be realistic that most of the students listening were not practicing abstinence. We had to memorize a 2-hour program and demonstrate various things like how a diaphragm and condom worked on medical models.

We had various pamphlets, literature, models, and products depicting drawings and representations of bare human sexual organs for the purpose of teaching.

Did any of the medical representation look like this?

 

[seoulsearch]

Did any of the medical representation look like this?

View attachment 277611

Lol!

That's definitely a very... interesting illustration. I wonder if there was some giraffe or elephant DNA in that lady's family -- resulting in her having such a loooonnnnggg arm!

The things we used looked more like the anatomical drawings/posters you'd find in your doctor's office (unless your doctor uses posters like the one you posted, which some might do.)

I looked up some pictures of a model of the female genitalia that we used -- it was a clear plastic replica of the female abdomen with internal solid-colored, biologically-accurate organs such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix, uterus, etc.

I'd post a picture but I'm not sure if CC would see it as appropriate.

One thing we had to demonstrate was the use of the diaphragm and the female condom (often a woman's only hope of some protection against STD's if her partner refused male ones,) which was very new on the market at the time. Not many people had even seen one or knew they existed, let alone had any idea how to use it.

Because these require internal applications, we had to show how to both insert and remove these devices on the model, which is why it had to be 3-D, clear enough for people to see what was inside, and actively functional enough to achieve a realistic demonstration.

 

[Lynx]

Thank you all for the responses, some very detailed posts raising several points.

One common point is that the art could cause lust. This is something that I have questioned for some time now, more and more with other topics coming into the same question. And simply put, it is this: Why do you have to think anything?

For example, if a person walked down the street, fully clothed, modestly (whatever that is in your imagination) and another person lusted after them, who is in the wrong? 1000 other people could also look at the same person and not lust after them.

Remember that there are people in the world that think anything less than the burqa is immodest and inciting lust.

Now what if someone lusted after a person at the local swimming pool, is the unsuspecting person anymore guilty? I think in this scenario you could imagine a busy pool, where 99% of people are not lusted after, yet wear similar clothing.

The common denominator in all of these cases is the mind of the person who lusts, not who or what they look at.

I say what because there has been cases in the past where people lust after inanimate objects. Objects that were never created with this intention ever in mind, yet it happened. One case was a woman who was sexually attracted to a rollercoaster. Now, you could never accuse the engineering team of inciting lust, yet it happened. This same pattern could be applied to anything any artists creates.

Intention is extremely important, don't misunderstand what I'm saying, it is possible to incite, it is possible to purposely mislead. However, there are more cases where the real problem was in the mind of the viewer rather than anywhere else.

Its important to remember that nudity is how man was created, is how all animals live, without problem. It is only when man became aware of how to misunderstand and think wrongly was that ever a problem.

The points you just made are often made by trolls. We have seen them many times using these points.

Mind you, I'm not accusing you of being a troll. I'm just saying you are using a lot of points that are suspect in source.

 

[seoulsearch]

What are your opinions on nudity within art? Is nude art acceptable or not? Where is the line drawn? As an artist facing ambivalence regarding selling my drawings, I look for some opinions.

Thank you all for the responses, some very detailed posts raising several points. One common point is that the art could cause lust. This is something that I have questioned for some time now, more and more with other topics coming into the same question. And simply put, it is this: Why do you have to think anything?

For example, if a person walked down the street, fully clothed, modestly (whatever that is in your imagination) and another person lusted after them, who is in the wrong? 1000 other people could also look at the same person and not lust after them.

Remember that there are people in the world that think anything less than the burqa is immodest and inciting lust.

Now what if someone lusted after a person at the local swimming pool, is the unsuspecting person anymore guilty? I think in this scenario you could imagine a busy pool, where 99% of people are not lusted after, yet wear similar clothing.

The common denominator in all of these cases is the mind of the person who lusts, not who or what they look at.

I say what because there has been cases in the past where people lust after inanimate objects. Objects that were never created with this intention ever in mind, yet it happened. One case was a woman who was sexually attracted to a rollercoaster. Now, you could never accuse the engineering team of inciting lust, yet it happened. This same pattern could be applied to anything any artists creates.

Intention is extremely important, don't misunderstand what I'm saying, it is possible to incite, it is possible to purposely mislead. However, there are more cases where the real problem was in the mind of the viewer rather than anywhere else.

Its important to remember that nudity is how man was created, is how all animals live, without problem. It is only when man became aware of how to misunderstand and think wrongly was that ever a problem.

Please forgive me and feel to correct me if I'm wrong, but your first post says you are being met with "ambivalence" when trying to sell your nude works. So it seems that part of your question is also whether or not the people here would buy a piece of nude art?

I don't know what your conversations have been with your prospective customers -- do you ask them about their own feelings towards nudity in art?

If so, I'm guessing that people are going to feel the way they do about it -- and that most won't their minds -- at least, not easily.

I understand what you are saying about some images not being meant to incite lust, but as I wrote in my posts, it can be many other things. I realized another reason I wouldn't buy nude art is because idealized images of the female form make me dissatisfied with my own body, and for me, that triggers eating-disorder behaviors and thinking (obsession over calories, exercise, etc.)

So my answer to whether I would buy nude art is emphatically no, and for several reasons other than lust.

If you don't have many people interested in buying your nudes, but really want to try to make money selling your drawings, what other kinds of drawings do you do?

What other inspiration can you could take on besides the naked human body?

Maybe God is telling you, through the lack of sales, that He is leading you to pivot towards something else.

 

[Lynx]

This is true. As they say, your customers tell you what kind of business you are in. If you have a cart at the city park selling lollipops and balloons, and the kids all buy lollipops but nobody ever buys a balloon, you are a lollipop salesman. You need to forget about those balloons and expand your line of lollipop flavors.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Gen 3:8-10. . and the man and his wife hid from The Lord God among the
trees of the garden. The Lord God called out to the man and said to him:
Where are you? He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I
was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.

Adam wasn't totally disrobed; only partially. But in his newly-acquired moral
perception; even that degree of undress lacked adequate propriety.

That incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer, normally
comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men, would probably want to put
something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the
dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)

● Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.

Precisely what species of animal God slaughtered in order to make the
Adams their first suit of real clothing is unknown.

Anyway; the exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified; the
Hebrew words just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the
shoulder.

A garment hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's topless days were
over; although that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that she may
have become the Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day and created some
interesting necklines.

Incidentally when Abraham traveled to Egypt in the 12th chapter of Genesis,
the Egyptians saw how very beautiful Sarah was.

How did the Egyptians see she was a looker? Well, the dress code for women
in her day was nothing like the totally unflattering burqas that Islam
imposes upon women in our day.

Depicted in a wall painting in the tomb of an Egyptian nobleman named
Khnum-hotpe, at Beni-Hasen on the Nile river, dating from about 1900 BC,
is a Semitic troupe passing customs to enter Egypt. The women are wearing
form-fitting, highly colored, sleeveless wrap-around dresses whose hems
stop at mid calf. Their décolletage swoops from the left shoulder to just
under the opposite armpit, leaving that side's shoulder completely bare.

Their hair-- fastened by a thin white ribbon around the forehead and covered
with neither a shawl, nor a scarf, nor a hijab --falls loosely over bosoms and
shoulders, and there are stylish little curls just in front of the ears. Adorning
their feet are dark brown, half-length boots. In attire like that, a woman
filled out in all the right places would stand out and be very easy to notice.
_

 

[hornetguy]

If an artist plans to do regular work depicting the human body, and if the way to do that is from the inside out, I can definitely understand why nude models would be necessary.

I mean, if you're going to be making things like this:

View attachment 277596

Then yes, it's obvious one would need to know the anatomy of the body very closely.

My favorite era of art is The Italian High Renaissance, and Michelangelo is by far my favorite artist of all time (though closely followed by M.C. Escher.) I posted this picture of a copy of Michelangelo's infamous sculpture of David (a modest version!) because there might be younger members here who aren't familiar with him or his work.

I enjoy his paintings as well, but was fascinated when my art history professor said that Michelangelo always saw himself as a sculptor rather than a painter. Of course, he is probably known best for the Sistine Chapel:

View attachment 277597

But my personal favorite of his works is The Pieta (Mary holding the body of Jesus after it's taken down from the cross):

View attachment 277598
View attachment 277599

The sorrowful look on Mary's face, holding the body of her deceased Son, gets me every time.

My art history professor told us to look closely at the figure of Mary.

While Michelangelo was undoubtedly a champion of depicting the male figure, the professor pointed out that Mary's form is a bit blocky and awkward, and is basically a male figure that has been slightly adjusted to look female by "adding a few things" in the front. The robes hides Michelangelo's lack of knowledge of the female form.

Now I'm sure there were probably nude models throughout history, but my professor said that Michelangelo acquired his skill by going to the morgue and studying the bodies in detail. However, at the time, it was illegal to gaze upon the female bodies, and so it was said that since he didn't have access to them, he could not replicate females nearly as accurately as he could with males, and really had to guess at what their bodies looked like.

(I know information changes/gets added to all the time, so if anyone else knows differently, please feel free to correct me in your posts.)

This was utterly fascinating to me.

In college, I was once asked to sit as a model for an art class by a teacher who wanted her students to learn to draw different ethnicities. I was so impressed by one man's early black-and-white depiction of me that I would have gladly bought it, but the class wasn't over yet. He later added color, which I felt ruined the drawing (but of course, I didn't say anything) and I was no longer interested in it.

It's funny because I love color, and usually prefer it, but this black-and-white picture captured a haunted look on my face that brought out the things many people don't see in me, and I loved that. I also marveled at the way he had carefully drawn the beading on my sweater. Unfortunately, when color was added to the drawing, it took away the depth of my gaze (to me at least,) and looked like just any other drawing.

Obviously, I was fully clothed during these sessions.

But now you have me wondering how much time the people in the class had to spend learning how to draw nude figures before they were able to try to draw me.

Yes.... I've seen all of those in person, and the detail in his statue of David is just breathtaking. Even the veins in his arm are detailed. We just sat and looked at it for about 20 minutes or so... The Pieta was behind glass, so it sort of diminished it a bit, but it's also amazingly detailed..

Where's the picture of you? Did I miss it?

 

[seoulsearch]

Yes.... I've seen all of those in person, and the detail in his statue of David is just breathtaking. Even the veins in his arm are detailed. We just sat and looked at it for about 20 minutes or so... The Pieta was behind glass, so it sort of diminished it a bit, but it's also amazingly detailed... Where's the picture of you? Did I miss it?

The art class I sat for was many years ago when I was in college. I think there were about 6 people who drew me?

But I didn't get to keep any of their work, so I don't have a copy to show. ❤️

I was just referring to that particular event.

 

[hornetguy]

The art class I sat for was many years ago when I was in college. I think there were about 6 people who drew me?

But I didn't get to keep any of their work, so I don't have a copy to show. ❤️

I was just referring to that particular event.

Too bad... I would have liked to have seen it. I find that the most interesting, realistic pictures are those that are "spontaneous" , or when the subject is unaware they are being photographed.... that is difficult to capture in a drawing, I imagine....

 

[enril]

I love the pensive look in your "imaginary woman's" eyes.

It fits you spectacularly.

I LOVE color, and not just color, but bright colors -- they help lift my depression. BUT, I have found that certain black and white images REALLY bring out things like contemplation, sorrow, and raw emotion (depending on what the artist wants to communicate,) a lot more than color, which I love.

In other words... YES!!! Please, go right on experimenting! ❤️

picture this.

a charred, dark, burned out landscape, with small firs still flickering across the land. a dark red, almost bloodred sun in a thickly smokey sky, burned out trees litter the land, but, in the lower left edge, a tiny but incredbly bright spark of green growth.

I title the picture"life"

 

[Magenta]

When all was said and done, God didn't tell them to celebrate their nudity. He didn't draw, paint, or sculpt pictures of them as He had made them to hang them around the garden as art. Rather, God Himself made fig leaf clothes for them to COVER their nudity, because sin distorted what was once public and beautiful. (I know I'm being a little sarcastic here, but I promise it's for a reason.)

I am unsure where the sarcasm is aimed. The clothing Adam and Eve had made with fig leaves God replaced with fur from an animal, possibly a ram. There are some very long posts in this thread and I skimmed some of them. I just want to say that it is ENTIRELY unnecessary to view the human form nude in order to depict what is seen with the human eye when the figure is clad in clothing. Saying it is somehow necessary is like saying I can't draw a building unless I can deconstruct it to see the steel girders that are hidden by the exterior.

 

[seoulsearch]

I am unsure where the sarcasm is aimed. The clothing Adam and Eve had made with fig leaves God replaced with fur from an animal, possibly a ram. There are some very long posts in this thread and I skimmed some of them. I just want to say that it is ENTIRELY unnecessary to view the human form nude in order to depict what is seen with the human eye when the figure is clad in clothing. Saying it is somehow necessary is like saying I can't draw a building unless I can deconstruct it to see the steel girders that are hidden by the exterior.

Hi Magenta!

I apologize that I must not have conveyed my thoughts very well.

I've often heard the argument that we nude art is perfectly acceptable because "God made the body, and it's a beautiful work of art," etc., but for my own standpoint I come from the thought that yes, God made our bodies, but after sin, He had us cover them up -- and I believe that was for a reason (therefore, I can't see how I would be glorifying the Lord with portrayals of nude bodies in my home.)

This is why I was being sarcastic, because my logic is often seen as prudish or too conservative, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify this!

It's interesting to learn what affects different people though. Many years ago, we had a well-respected member with an avatar of a little girl, probably around 6, sitting in a field of flowers. She was wearing a dress that covered down to her knees, and there was a hint of her knees in the grass.

A male member at the time, whose listed profile age was somewhere in his 70's if I remember right, took this other member to task for having a "lewd" picture as her profile avatar.

We asked him what on earth was sexual about that picture and what had he been looking at that would possibly make him think a child in a sundress would be provocative.

He never answered (and to my knowledge, he's no longer on the site.)

I'm not trying to be judgmental, but I do find it frightening to discover what some people find arousing.


THANK YOU for clarifying that nude lessons are not absolutely necessary to depict clothed people.

I was truly wondering about this, but not being an art student or artist, had no way of knowing.

 

[Magenta]

Hi Magenta!

I apologize that I must not have conveyed my thoughts very well.

I've often heard the argument that we nude art is perfectly acceptable because "God made the body, and it's a beautiful work of art," etc., but for my own standpoint I come from the thought that yes, God made our bodies, but after sin, He had us cover them up -- and I believe that was for a reason (therefore, I can't see how I would be glorifying the Lord with portrayals of nude bodies in my home.)

This is why I was being sarcastic, because my logic is often seen as prudish or too conservative, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify this!

It's interesting to learn what affects different people though. Many years ago, we had a well-respected member with an avatar of a little girl, probably around 6, sitting in a field of flowers. She was wearing a dress that covered down to her knees, and there was a hint of her knees in the grass.

A male member at the time, whose listed profile age was somewhere in his 70's if I remember right, took this other member to task for having a "lewd" picture as her profile avatar.

We asked him what on earth was sexual about that picture and what had he been looking at that would possibly make him think a child in a sundress would be provocative.

He never answered (and to my knowledge, he's no longer on the site.)

I'm not trying to be judgmental, but I do find it frightening to discover what some people find arousing.


THANK YOU for clarifying that nude lessons are not absolutely necessary to depict clothed people.

I was truly wondering about this, but not being an art student or artist, had no way of knowing.

Oh, no worries at all, Seoul! I was a little confused about what you said because of the fig leaves' comment, and I should have said skins instead of fur, though the skin could have still had the fur attached haha. Cave man style, ugga ugga! But I did not really register any sarcasm, either, so heh, yeah... anyways, I did go to college studying art and of course in our drawing class we had the requisite nude model, and I still remember my profs' comments on my rendering because he was quite impressed with the continuity and fluidity of my long lines from shoulder through elbow to wrist, but then my hands and fingers were a mess heehee. Of course this was almost a speed drawing class, we were not given time to linger over such details... each pose only lasted so long and then shifted and we were to keep up. And at that age, as we were mostly late teens in first year college, it was somewhat titillating to have a nude model, so there was buzz around that, and yes, the artists of yesteryear are known to have studied cadavers, particularly during the Renaissance. They engaged in the study of human anatomy through cadaver dissection because they believed that understanding the underlying structure of muscles, bones, and tendons was essential for achieving the realism they were aiming for, but if they were not doing nudes or near nudes in the first place this still would have been unnecessary. Da Vinci and Michelangelo are perhaps the most well known for this cadaver inspection, though Peter Paul Rubens also comes to mind for his stunning portrayals of the human body, though his art is classified as being from the later Baroque period (a more elaborate, dramatic, and emotional style) and not Renaissance. He did also study the human body in order to better represent it in his work, and likely observed cadavers to understand musculature and form, as some of his work includes anatomical statues with skin removed.

 

[Cameron143]

I can honestly say without discrepancy that no one has ever wanted to draw or paint me with or without clothing.

 

[seoulsearch]

I can honestly say without discrepancy that no one has ever wanted to draw or paint me with or without clothing.

Your sitting fee was just too high! 😁

 

[tourist]

What are your opinions on nudity within art?

Is nude art acceptable or not? Where is the line drawn?

As an artist facing ambivalence regarding selling my drawings, I look for some opinions.

Absolutely acceptable.

As far as the line being drawn that it only limited by your artistic talent and perception.

I'm not much of a purveyor of the fine arts myself but I do appreciate the effort it took my wife to paint a partially nude mermaid that hangs proudly in our bathroom.

It's a work of art.

 

[tourist]

Dang!..

Where is that face palm emoji?

Maybe someone who is artistically inclined will draw one.

 

[tourist]

'Let those who cannot control themself, marry'.

There are times that this is not a pretty picture.