[Talk] What makes artistic nudity acceptable?

[polymorphism]

Most forms of art especially in the western world and in the classics show nude human figures. What makes art like this acceptable while nudity in general in public is not looked upon fondly?

 

[Adore]

Ohhhh boy there is a lot that goes into this.

The artist's level of technical skill, understanding of human anatomy, as well as intended symbolism and purpose play a role.

Also, not all nude figures are inherently sexual in nature. Take figures done for academic study for instance. Lots of them aren't sexualized. They're just necessary practice so the artist can improve.

 

[Anastasia.R]

dang, Adore beat me to a short and sweet response (but also we were talking about this, ily). But I pretty much agree with him, there's a lot that goes into this

In Art history, I'd say those amazing rendered pieces like The Birth of Venus by Cabanel was probably acceptable because: the nude figure isn't really looking at you, although it's more sexually appealing, it's a painting of someone from mythology, int his case Venus. Same thing for The Birth of Venus by Bouguereau but it's less sexual looking. Adore made a good point that technical skills made a difference. A chunk of amazing artwork you've probably seen that looks 'realistic' or highly rendered probably followed standards of masters before them like tons of artists that were featured in the Paris Salon.
Even looking up the definition of 'academic art' talks about how it follows the French Académie des Beaux-Arts which practiced from Neoclassicism and Romanticism art. So, technical skill and purpose of the piece (is it for studying or something else) play a big part if it's seen as academic and 'accetable' or not. (Olympia by Manet was featured in Paris Salon, but it's not considered academic by the way it's painted and also the fact it's a painting of a prostitute. So it got a ton of criticism that it was too vulgar)

But yeah as Adore said, not every nude figure is sexual in nature. I think that's where people who don't understand that might feel that nudity needs to stay away from the public more, making it seem automatically every nude figure is inappropriate.​

 

[Nina]

A good point to bring up that was already mentioned, is purpose. A good saying was the judge ruling on pornography vs normal nudity "I know it when I see it".

Most people can tell if something is titillating or not. If it's meant to excite or not.
Sometimes it can be kind of grey if you've never looked at art before, but you start to get a sense of what is considered artistic nudity. (which gets interesting when the theme of the art is sexuality, but maybe that's another topic)

I also think some of it, even today being accepted, just comes from the tradition of artist's studying anatomy with nude figure drawing. You start to become less "omg they're naaaakkkeeeeddd" and just used to it, so in the future, just a naked body is not "sexual" by it's inherent nature.

I had more to say but I forgots.

 

[Adore]

Art is also one of the few forms of media where nudity even has a purpose other than sexuality. If you see nudity on TV or in movies, it's almost always meant to be sexual.

 

[RegalSin]

1. It is creativity. This is an old question.

2. The anti-nudity is about

A. Religion in the west since the fall of Rome and doing anything opposite of Rome started this anti-nudity movement. The same with the integration of the nuns ( Islam ) and so forth. Basically nudity symbolizes things for people. When missionaries visited India (bastards ). They bashed any nude statues of the fertility figures. Not because they saw them as deities but because of the religious practice from these missionaries.

B. Civilized society. In China for instance a group of people started to walk around nude because they did not have the correct clothing and it became a trend for a while. This is not acceptable behavior in China as they have an civilized complex as complained by the elderly people. .................................................................................................................................................

So it really depends on the culture. For the internet that is your own business. For Mature/adult material we have magazines and books. ..............

........... Now lets talk about me. I am a dude like any straight dude, and I have this thing for art. When your dealing with art the amount of "Visual experience" you need to acquire to build your ability to do many things.

I will admit when I was a kid I thought that stuff was garbage ( like you OP ). However my experience with art has flooded my definitions with all kinds of knowledge.

In general you should enjoy the human body and stop being a cry-baby about it. Think of it as doctor thinks. You could continue to be shy about things or just accept them.

Otherwise to the artist of intent it does not really matter at all and you the viewer should stop thinking is variables. Think okay this image is etc, but you can't come to terms with it.

Trust me in terms of art ( or any media/medium ) I have tons of understanding and after awhile everything starts to look the same over and over again.

 

[Nina]

I will admit when I was a kid I thought that stuff was garbage ( like you OP ). However my experience with art has flooded my definitions with all kinds of knowledge.

In general you should enjoy the human body and stop being a cry-baby about it. Think of it as doctor thinks. You could continue to be shy about things or just accept them.

The original poster did not insinuate a problem with artistic nudity. The question is just an opener for a conversation.

Do not insult him.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Artistic nudity is acceptable if it's not intended for sex appeal, but regardless, there will still be sexually active people who will gaze upon nude art to give themselves pleasure.

What I do want to know is how come iconic art such as Cabanel's Birth of Venus and Michelangelo's David are uncensored in TV-PG documentary programs, where full frontal nudity is not allowed unless it's TV-MA, but when parody versions of them are shown in pop culture programs, they're censored? Doesn't that insult the original works?

 

[polymorphism]

I will admit when I was a kid I thought that stuff was garbage ( like you OP ). However my experience with art has flooded my definitions with all kinds of knowledge.

In general you should enjoy the human body and stop being a cry-baby about it. Think of it as doctor thinks. You could continue to be shy about things or just accept them.

Whoa no need to be rude, sir. I was simply posing a philosophical question about the nature of nudity in art. I myself am a big fan of artistic nudity whether it be the classics such as David or something more recent like some photographers on flickr. When I was talking about it not being acceptable in public life that was more of an insinuated satirical comment about double standards of society.

It's funny you should mention looking at the human body like a doctor also because I have taken courses on anatomy and physiology and have witnessed (naturally they were) nude cadavers. I think you took what I said the wrong way matey.

 

[YellowTemperance]

I think we've all come to the same conclusion here, but I'll say my part in this. There is a distinct difference between artistic nudity and sexual nudity, and we all realize this. Artistic nudity is done for the express purpose of studying the human anatomy, the form and splendor of the figure's curves and structure. If you look at artistic pieces like Michelangelo's David or, as mentioned before, the Birth of Venus, it's clear to see the artist was sourcing the body's flexibility and sculpted capabilities rather than imparting any sexual connotations from the work.

Contrast this with the hundreds of hundreds of digital schlock photos cheaply posted on Deviantart in their artistic nudity section, which clearly show off female and male human anatomy in a manner than invites sexuality and arousal. The sculptures mentioned prior are nudity as artistic value. These photos are clearly far from that.

As mentioned, it's clear some people find any nudity an arousing thing. But I argue for the vast majority of us, we can appreciate the human figure despite any sexual connotations we may glean from a cursory look, and appreciate better the flexibility, malleability, and ever-evolving, ever-changing form and splendor of the human figure.

...I apologize if this doesn't make any sense. I'm not really the kind of person who takes a closer look at art like this, I admit.

 

[RegalSin]

I am just getting through the bread and butter of the topic. Not start an old conversation about an really old topic. The War since 2001 is real, the anti-privacy ( especially against males ) is real. This whole human body missionary bash statues to cry-babies looking at other nations idea of censorship over the internet ( which is not real life ) is not real.

If parents was really responsible they would just say ( no internet at home and only during school hours. ). Instead people just stay lazy and cry to the government.

I grew up in a world before 56K was even known about and before every one had tracking device phones. It was ten times more normal and we interacted all the time compared to now.

 

[Nina]

I am just getting through the bread and butter of the topic. Not start an old conversation about an really old topic. The War since 2001 is real, the anti-privacy ( especially against males ) is real. This whole human body missionary bash statues to cry-babies looking at other nations idea of censorship over the internet ( which is not real life ) is not real.

If parents was really responsible they would just say ( no internet at home and only during school hours. ). Instead people just stay lazy and cry to the government.

I grew up in a world before 56K was even known about and before every one had tracking device phones. It was ten times more normal and we interacted all the time compared to now.

I think you're getting off-topic. A reminder that we art in the Art & Design section and are discussing what this phenomenon means to us as artists and how it affects our work. If you want to talk about the social stigma against body image at large, I suggest you start a thread in The Round Table.

 

[RegalSin]

Listen to me. Nothing affects your work as an artist. The problem with art nowadays is that we are competing with people who are Photoshopping images from and into oil-paintings. Then we eventually have these morons called speed painters yet when was the last time you saw a speed-painter ( oil painting ) actually make anything out of there work that yeilded more then $100,000 of such??? We have people with barely any drawing capability making a living as artists.

The nudity is an option. I found this art club with this girl who started making expensive paintings around the time she was married. She has a regular art job and the truth is with these special programs is the only thing keeping her afloat.

Point what I am saying is that being able to see nude images will not really affect people asides for the choice they make in life. Nudity on the internet is not a new thing. There have been nude images over the internet since day one. Just find the first couple of pictures that was on the internet. It is a real eye opener.

Like anything just accept that it is there ( like the XXX section in a video store. Then either choose to go inside that section or not. Not cry to the goverment to censor everything because of lack of self control.

 

[Nina]

Listen to me. Nothing affects your work as an artist. The problem with art nowadays is that we are competing with people who are Photoshopping images from and into oil-paintings. Then we eventually have these morons called speed painters yet when was the last time you saw a speed-painter ( oil painting ) actually make anything out of there work that yeilded more then $100,000 of such??? We have people with barely any drawing capability making a living as artists.

The nudity is an option. I found this art club with this girl who started making expensive paintings around the time she was married. She has a regular art job and the truth is with these special programs is the only thing keeping her afloat.

Point what I am saying is that being able to see nude images will not really affect people asides for the choice they make in life. Nudity on the internet is not a new thing. There have been nude images over the internet since day one. Just find the first couple of pictures that was on the internet. It is a real eye opener.

Like anything just accept that it is there ( like the XXX section in a video store. Then either choose to go inside that section or not. Not cry to the goverment to censor everything because of lack of self control.

This is a place for discussion about art, not a place to judge the artistic merits of certain media or skill and certainly not a place for aggression. You may continue in this discussion, but you need to stay on topic and respond to what others are actually saying.

 

[Melody]

Nudity in and of itself isn't usually sexual. The problem is that society sexualizes certain bodies unnecessarily, specifically those that are young and healthy and feminine in nature.

In most cases nudity in art is not intended to be erotic or titillating. Even when the subject matter is sexuality or something like it, usually it's still not intended to be erotic initially. Academia recognises the need for people to study the body so that they can accurately portray them in art as well, so there's a lot of technical reasons why many classical works of art featuring nude figures are Not considered lewd.

Even when the intention is to be erotic or titillating, nudity in and of itself isn't sexual unless it's portrayed to be in the piece. If someone writes a fictional story in which everyone happens to be naked all the time, and prefers to dress themselves in say, bodily markings such as geometric lines and shapes instead of clothes, this isn't inherently sexual unless and until the plot and context of the story makes it so. The same kind of applies to art, except in a visual way, so nude humans are not inherently sexual unless someone is also drawing and including the visual indications of sexual interaction. I won't go into detail about what those are; but as previous posters have said, you know it when you see it.