PDA

View Full Version : Noob On Nudes


NOOB!
05-08-2005, 10:57 AM
hey fellow artists.

i just wanted to drop my opinion on nudity and art,and how it effects us.

i'm looking it from two sides.

i understand that people find nudity offensive,which i find pretty strange.

HUMANS offended by the HUMAN body...huh?

however,heres what i don't like about it

*sensless nudes*

i've seen allota paintings,actually quite a few for the new master and servant challenge,and on various art sites,and there are the most nude entries i've ever seen in a challenge and gallery heh,i have no real *problem* with it,but i just seems un neccasry in sum cases.

on another view,sum like to see the beauty of the human body,thats their reason for it,although in the digital age,it seems they but a nipple in there for thrills and nothing else,ofcourse i would never know for sure,but theres always that click,u can feel if its for a purpose or not.

what are u guy opinion on nudity in art? any interesting points to make?

ashakarc
05-08-2005, 11:51 AM
I guess you're right. It spices up the painting with minimum effort. As a classic trick to let the work becomes [provocative] since public bathrooms are not public anymore. Besides, painting clothing takes alot more time in many cases.

warning: do not take the above very seriously! it's 3:50am in Vancouver and I just woke up and can't sleep..zzzz

ringzero
05-08-2005, 11:52 AM
All nudes should have boobs. I agree

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 12:04 PM
hmm do u feel its right to *spice up* paintings in that way though?

and by that i mean

*my pics crap,i'm gunna add a boob* type of situation?

i don't think thats good at all.

Art2
05-08-2005, 12:08 PM
hey fellow artists.

Hey NOOB!, you just called us artists... :D teehee...

Nudity in art... I don't mind at all. And heck I'm from the Netherlands, I'm not at all easily offended by nudity.

But what I think is a bit of a shame is that it's used to sell... videogames for instance.
I see lots of great executed (concept) art of females, armed to the teeth, fighting hordes of enemys... wearing nothing more than a steel thong 'n bra's. First thing that pops in my mind is: "erm, that's not practical".
Nudity in art to me should make sense. Not just for the sake of it.

I too agree that all nudes should have boobs... does this include men too btw? :eek:

-Vormav-
05-08-2005, 12:10 PM
hmm do u feel its right to *spice up* paintings in that way though?

and by that i mean

*my pics crap,i'm gunna add a boob* type of situation?

I don't think it really matters. If the pic is crap, adding some nudity to it isn't going to suddenly keep it from continuing to look like crap. In such cases, I wouldn't say that nudity necessarily hurts the image, but it's definitely focusing on the wrong thing.

LadyMedusa
05-08-2005, 12:12 PM
Well, It depends really. If the naked subjekt is naked for a reason or if it almost has to be naked or lightly dressed because of race (Fairies, winged Angels, winged Devils or other winged races, were garment would disturb the wings) or the spesific tribe.
I've never made any nude art myself, exept one that doesnt really count since I dressed them up before submitting it to Deviantart, because I was affraid of noobish comments.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 12:13 PM
If the pic is crap, adding some nudity to it isn't going to suddenly keep it from continuing to look like crap.

yep,but thats exactly what i seem to be seeing around.crap art with boobs.

and i notice in the finished art galleries,if the pic says (nudity) next to it ,it immediatly gets tons of views.

i guess its mostly males that do this aswell.

jbo
05-08-2005, 12:14 PM
i think when learning and perfecting anatomy, it's only natural to draw a lot of naked people. if you look at a lot of master paintings there's a tons of "senseless" nutidy.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 12:21 PM
i think when learning and perfecting anatomy, it's only natural to draw a lot of naked people. if you look at a lot of master paintings there's a tons of "senseless" nutidy.

no no,ur putting my *senseless nudity* comment in the wrong context,yes obviously life drawing,ur gunna need to study nudes in order to see the anatomy of the body.

what i meant by *senseless* is ,for example,adding a nude person in a scene without meaning,

what is the meaning of the nude? was it so we can see all the beauty of the human body,or was it so u could get more comments?

ashakarc
05-08-2005, 12:21 PM
Oh, it's not a question of right or wrong. It is a matter of choice for the creator of the work of art to use it, and it is a discretion for the viewer to find it tasteful or not. There is no absolute values here. This is not a question of morality, may be it was in the 19th century when Manet exhibited 'Le Dejeuner sur L'Herbe'.

Nudity and sexuality are two different things. Equally, both could be extremely tasteful and positive. Do not try to bracket the way of art!

Why do I see this thread is going to drift into sex, commercialism and art type of discussion in no time?

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 12:27 PM
ashakarc the fact that u've now meantioned sexaulity with nudity has made my point,u've automatically linked it with sex,and that tells me,is that what nudity represents,desire for sex?...

is it just beauty...

or is it to turn a bunch of old sex hungry men.

u tell me!! hehe.again i have no problem with nudity as such,just not into the un neccasry stuff.

jbo
05-08-2005, 12:33 PM
what i meant by *senseless* is ,for example,adding a nude person in a scene without meaning,


yeah, that's what i figured you meant. i don't think i got you wrong at all. there's plenty of paintings by masters which have nudity in them for no other reason than the artist wanted to paint a naked person. if that's not senseless, what is? I don't think there's anything wrong with that though, and i don't think the people here are doing it to get more attention (though i do think people are adding "nudity" to thread titles to get attention when there's not any nudity in the piece, but that's another issue), i think it's just what they like to draw/paint/whatever. I don't think you need to have a justification, to have nudity in your artwork.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 12:36 PM
well put jbo.....

ashakarc
05-08-2005, 12:40 PM
NOOB!: This is a no brainer, when nudity is linked to sex but you just didn't really get my point.

Traditional values are back and kicking all around the world. It is undoing a century of work of experimental innovations by many great artists, philosophers, scientists, politicians, etc.. I guess it is part of a cyclical evolution of human societies. 20 years ago, I would never have forseen a question is raised on the morality of nudity in paintings, I thought we passed that. However, you have a valid concern that it is been exploited to sell.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 12:42 PM
just looking for opinions,didn't mean there HAD to be a moral.

but i understand ur point.

ashakarc
05-08-2005, 12:52 PM
There is a very interesting read for the subject of sexuality in a painting with minimum nudity. As far as i remember, it was titled: The Psycho-analysis of Leonardo Da Vinci, by Sigmund Freud. He took several paintings, primarily the Mona Lisa, and psychoanalysed the artist, concluding at the end that Leonardo is a homosexual person. It looks bizzare, but worth reading.

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 01:32 PM
I have to agree with ashakarc here, largely a no brainer, sex is being used as an extra incentive a lot, and rightly so because it works.

I think the issue left is a moral one, when can you do it? What are the consequences? For instance, society first gets attracted to it becuase they simply want it, consequently bombarding themselves with portions or everything of it, and after that maybe even nullifying it's importance, throwing it around as if it's a handshake. Bad from an evolutionary pov, sociological pov and emotiional pov. I don't agree with decadence at all. But it happens nonetheless.

But I do not oppose the use of nudity or sex in art, since I personally feel I have the ability to relativate things(well to some extent at least). I enjoy the beauty of it like anyone else, but matters that can strike that much ground in another person should be dealt with in a tactful considerate way.

TheCleaner
05-08-2005, 01:43 PM
Hey Noob
Well, we could look at this on a personal level, your M&S entry (http://www.cgnetworks.com/challenge/masterandservant/view_entries.php?challenger=5837).. theres nudity you've put in that, and you as the artist could tell us its intent.. i interpret it as deprevation and primitivity.. the characters senseless to the need of clothing.. but thats just my interpretation.. maybe you could elaborat on your use of nudity and relatively 'prominent boobs' in your image

my take on it, im facinated by anatomy and the human body more than any machine... learning and getting right anatomy is said to be the hardest task an artist can undertake, so maybe artists gone have used this as a status gainer, like, show of your skill doing the hardest thing going.. the human body.. and good exectution puts you higher in the ranks of artistic skill.... just a thought

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 01:53 PM
heheheh...Is that soo NOOB? Let's go make some hits on the nudity warning and study the phenomenon.:)



edit: I'm betting it's still an elaborate ploy to shock, because I find you commenting that you might as well be trying to score. What's the purpose to this thread then? I see a lot of contradiction here.

MCronin
05-08-2005, 02:09 PM
NOOB!: This is a no brainer, when nudity is linked to sex but you just didn't really get my point.

Traditional values are back and kicking all around the world. It is undoing a century of work of experimental innovations by many great artists, philosophers, scientists, politicians, etc.. I guess it is part of a cyclical evolution of human societies. 20 years ago, I would never have forseen a question is raised on the morality of nudity in paintings, I thought we passed that. However, you have a valid concern that it is been exploited to sell.

Is that what you really believe? The resurgence in traditional values is due to an aging society coming to grips with it's mortality and the realization that the world does not revlove around them. No one's work is being undone, it's progress. It's a higher state of conciousness. FYI, 20 years ago Jello Biafra was on trial for a Gieger painting he included on an album cover, and the PMRC launched it's attack on musicians, and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was formed to defend independent comic artists, writers, publishers and retailers who were being bombarded with obscenity charges.

I'm not offended by nudity, however, much of the nudity you find in people's work here is nothing more than a sensational product of the artist's arrested development.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 02:10 PM
Hey Noob
Well, we could look at this on a personal level, your M&S entry (http://www.cgnetworks.com/challenge/masterandservant/view_entries.php?challenger=5837).. theres nudity you've put in that, and you as the artist could tell us its intent.. i interpret it as deprevation and primitivity.. the characters senseless to the need of clothing.. but thats just my interpretation.. maybe you could elaborat on your use of nudity and relatively 'prominent boobs' in your image



there are no full nudes in mine,their parts are all covered in some way.

jmBoekestein: contradiction,where?

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 02:15 PM
Well, for instance you put sticky tape on their nipples, if that's implying you're not using sex as an element to the painting, then she has some huge boobs NOOB. In this thread you seem to be saying that you yourself would also disagree, either sarcastically shrugging it off or underlying it's validity when it comes to senseless nudity. Just curious as to the motivation of the women in your piece. Which has nice colouring btw, and I find the shadow on her underlines what I'm saying, if you get my point. Just seem a little dualistic to me.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 02:23 PM
huge boobs? look regular size to me,theres no sex involved.and obviously the image itself has it story *nipples removed ,this is part of the masters decreasing reproduction* but u'll have to read up my thread to understand it.

but yeh,in short i don't really like nudity *by that i mean in MY stuff* so i will try my best to cover things up or shadow things out as u mentioned,but the women are slaves/servants in my pic and not worthy of clothing,thats what i wanted to emphasise,thats why they aren't wearing much,nothing more than that.

and i don't think i contradict myself in any way,correct me if i'm wrong.

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 02:30 PM
Makes perfect sense that way... But it wasn't obvious to me that they weren't worthy of clothes though. I think that would be more apparent if you gave them very poor looking clothes, there would be the contrast between value in the same element. But that's my opinion.

Good luck with it. Interesting piece nonetheless.:)

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 02:36 PM
well thanks on that note.

and if u didn't know already,i'm into surreal art,so the reason i didn't give poor looking clothes is because the art of surrealism usaully takes things to the extreme.not just ur regular.

and also jm,after the *who can call themselves an artist* thread,i want u to know i still have the same respect for u as i had from the start,theres no beef between us..oh look a slang word for ya,heh.

so keep up the good work.

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 03:23 PM
hats off to that, thx.:)

TheCleaner
05-08-2005, 03:32 PM
Hey Noob
Well, we could look at this on a personal level, your M&S entry (http://www.cgnetworks.com/challenge/masterandservant/view_entries.php?challenger=5837).. theres nudity you've put in that, and you as the artist could tell us its intent.. i interpret it as deprevation

*nipples removed ,this is part of the masters decreasing reproduction*

i think i understood your intent in your image, but its always worth hearing about nudity in your own images, if we'r having a discussion about it, so thanks for elaborating... btw, i subscribed to your m & S quite some time ago, i like how its coming on, hope you finish it as you intend to

as for nude in my art, its mostly been for pure technical study of the human body.. I recently bough 'Anatomy for the Artist' Sarah Simblet.. amazing book.. so basically, all nudity in my art has definite purpose, that is, improving my skills

Gord-MacDonald
05-08-2005, 03:33 PM
Nudity is one thing, vapid, gratuitous sexual cliches are another.

Gord

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 03:46 PM
Ah I'd like to add to that on my own work to contrast:)

I definitely am using nudity to hint at sexuality in my thingy >>here (http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=2151424&postcount=47)<< motivation behind it though is to depict several things that are completely bound to love as in "adult" love. Sex plays a part and that's just undeniable. But is it "blinding" is what I'd like to know?

cha0t1c1
05-08-2005, 04:01 PM
I find the female nudity in the masters' art is just strikingly beautiful; however, I do agree that use of nudity can be just for elevation of audience numbers.

I, as a rule I set to myself, cloth my women with drapery, yet keep the Sensual parts exposed(neck, thighs, shoulders).

However, with male figures I just do whatever.

But my favorite drawings are when women have drapery on them, like Boreas (I just love the depiction of beauty in it).

btw: A woman's face has all the provocative marks, no need for breats(although they don't hurt :twisted: ).

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 05:05 PM
i think i understood your intent in your image, but its always worth hearing about nudity in your own images, if we'r having a discussion about it, so thanks for elaborating... btw, i subscribed to your m & S quite some time ago, i like how its coming on, hope you finish it as you intend to

as for nude in my art, its mostly been for pure technical study of the human body.. I recently bough 'Anatomy for the Artist' Sarah Simblet.. amazing book.. so basically, all nudity in my art has definite purpose, that is, improving my skills

thanks for the thread subscription,i'm still working on it.

i'll probably do a search for *anatomy for the artist* if its as good as u say.

TheCleaner
05-08-2005, 05:31 PM
Its 25 at waterstone/RRP, but i got it from play.com 18.99 delivered, well worth it in my opinion

http://www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=sr&page=title&r=BOOK&title=198314

its actually hard back by the way

Gord-MacDonald
05-09-2005, 04:03 AM
Ah I'd like to add to that on my own work to contrast:)

I definitely am using nudity to hint at sexuality in my thingy >>here (http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=2151424&postcount=47)<< motivation behind it though is to depict several things that are completely bound to love as in "adult" love. Sex plays a part and that's just undeniable. But is it "blinding" is what I'd like to know?


Depiction of sexuality isn't a problem (many great art works are erotic ) - but I do get very tired of bad (not bad as in morally bad - just bad) imagery which use sexuality as a cheap prop to grab attention. It seems like such a waste of time.

Gord

Lunatique
05-09-2005, 05:47 AM
When I was younger, I did more gratuitous stuff, but as I got older, I stopped because, well, to put it simply, it's cheap and degrading not only to the subject you depict, but to your own integrity as a person. What you choose to depict in your artwork directly reflects your taste as a human being. Are you cheap and shallow, or are you profound and intelligent?

If I ever depict nudity, there must be a reason beyond gratuitous flaunting. I've used nudity to express vulnerability, and I've used it to express intimacy of a loved one. And I have plans to use it to express honesty and truth in a future piece. IMO, that's is how you should use nudity--with meaning and feeling. If you want to depict honest sexuality, then do it with conviction. Even that is better than smug gratuity.

Don't get me wrong, I like classy pinups as much as any healthy male. But, classy is the keyword there. Cheap stuff is just vulgar and only appeals to the most primal and base instinct we have as humans. Sometimes, that's all you want out of something, but moderation is another key there. If someone has an obsession with the vulgar and cheap stuff, then what can you draw as a conclusion about that person's taste?

MrGrinch
05-09-2005, 06:06 AM
Ah, finally someone begins to touch apon the difference between "nude" and "naked". A nude is designed to be put on display, to pander to the tastes of the viewer and be their fantasy. To show a naked person is to express who they are beyond all pretex and disguise, to expose their inner self.
When someone is naked in an image there is a purpose behind it, when they are nude the purpose is wholy for the enjoyment of the viewer.

jmBoekestein
05-09-2005, 03:37 PM
Next up...gratuitous violence in modern day films....she-bang....pdaram-bhuhm...

nineinchneil
05-09-2005, 10:04 PM
the appeal of nudity is, as most people here agree, discerned by the viewer. i personally agree with noob, in that nudity in pictures should be used with some sort of artistic intent, rather than as just an easy way out. getting people turned on by nudity can also be artistically valid, but the piece itself should convey some justification for it.
i think the main problem is when people pigeonhole themselves into using sex appeal constantly.
i remember a couple years ago, i used stahlberg's public image as an example for a similar topic (i also remember him misunderstanding what i meant, and getting pissed at me). when people think 'stahlberg', they think scantily clad amazon women, when infact he has an incredible amount of variety under his belt. but you have to admit that a significant part of stahlberg's popularity is due to his use of sex appeal, and i admit that after a while i sort of tire of it.
but it's the same thing with people who do nothing but model cars, or people who only animate bipedal characters.
everyone should try and challenge themselves in creating something sexy, just don't let it consume you. if i get good at something, i tend to stay away from it for a bit and try something else. it's the only way to grow.

TheCleaner
05-10-2005, 09:08 PM
how funny that we should have such a debate on something which is seemingly one of the most natural things.. human nudity.. in western society, its restricted, therefore is lusted for.. so the naked form is exploited.. and thats why pornography sells... the forbidden fruit.. biggest taboo in society could be compared with [slight overreaction?] breathing

NOOB!
05-10-2005, 09:27 PM
i already said at the begginining that i find it odd how humans are offended by the human body.

when u put it like that,u think *why are humans so f**kin stupid* don't ya.

oh no!!!,i can see a vagina,if it wasn't for one of em i wudn't have been born...but i'm still offended.

:rolleyes: ...

jmBoekestein
05-10-2005, 09:45 PM
The thing is also that this society's rather proud of it's capacity to ratioanalise and then control everything. Well what about those urges then. We seem to fear those, because all too often they seem very nice and a neat thing to be respecting or having. And suddenly it the next world war in a bottle and overpowers people, up to the point of murder. This can't be good no, but getting used to it won't help.

There ARE artifacts from older days which depict people with clubs and a hard on and no clothes. Fact of life that people usually do not have enough control to master these emotions on a whim just because they are used to seeing the form as is.

Squibbit
05-10-2005, 09:46 PM
well, if all who walked nude were beautiful women i'd be like "yea" , but
most people are more easy to my eyes clothed, plain fact

Fahrija
05-10-2005, 10:55 PM
When I was younger, I did more gratuitous stuff, but as I got older, I stopped because, well, to put it simply, it's cheap and degrading not only to the subject you depict, but to your own integrity as a person. What you choose to depict in your artwork directly reflects your taste as a human being. Are you cheap and shallow, or are you profound and intelligent?

If I ever depict nudity, there must be a reason beyond gratuitous flaunting. I've used nudity to express vulnerability, and I've used it to express intimacy of a loved one. And I have plans to use it to express honesty and truth in a future piece. IMO, that's is how you should use nudity--with meaning and feeling. If you want to depict honest sexuality, then do it with conviction. Even that is better than smug gratuity.

Don't get me wrong, I like classy pinups as much as any healthy male. But, classy is the keyword there. Cheap stuff is just vulgar and only appeals to the most primal and base instinct we have as humans. Sometimes, that's all you want out of something, but moderation is another key there. If someone has an obsession with the vulgar and cheap stuff, then what can you draw as a conclusion about that person's taste?


well said! :thumbsup:




Fahrija

MKStudios
05-11-2005, 10:42 AM
how funny that we should have such a debate on something which is seemingly one of the most natural things.. human nudity.. in western society, its restricted, therefore is lusted for.. so the naked form is exploited.. and thats why pornography sells... the forbidden fruit.. biggest taboo in society could be compared with [slight overreaction?] breathing

I completely agree with that. Living in what's called the "Bible Belt" it is very evident in views here.

I haven't done any nude stuff at all except for only a couple of things because I thought it fit the piece. The figures in my M&S entry are because I envisioned them being enslaved like in the Matrix power plant from birth to death. You came in that way, you go out that way....

I would like to point out that I don't have a problem with gratutious/explit subjects in art either. I'm just more interested in creating different subject mater in my own work than that. I don't judge artists who choose to do explicit work, and if they are doing it because they like it or think it will get them more money or more web hits or whatever that's fine too. Once the stigma of the taboo that nudity holds over society fades, this will become a non-issue.

Here's a link that's got some pretty cool views on this very subject.
http://www.domai.com/

Lunatique
05-11-2005, 11:20 AM
I want to point out something that I think is very important to this discussion.

Nudity and intent are two different things.

For example, let's say we have two different paintings done by two different people, both with nude women in them:

The first one is a naked girl sitting on her bed, looking out the window, just as the sun comes up from over the horizon, casting a wash of warm colors over the entire scene. In her hand, is a picture frame of herself with a man, whoes face we can't see.

The second one is a naked girl straddling a chair, smiling and licking her lips, while holding a popsicle in the shape of a phallus, with some of the melted popsicle dripping down her chin.

You see what I mean? One uses nudity to depict something intimate, while the other uses nudity to depict suggestive sex.

I'm not saying blatant display of sexual themes is not ok, because even in the arena of erotic art, there are artists who do it so well that it's a joy to look at their works (Milo Manara comes to mind). But, there are some bad artists with bad taste who work in that pinup/adult art arena who does work that looks cheap, dirty, tasteless, and vulgar. Badly drawn and painted "artworks" showing ill-proportioned naked girls spreading legs and fondling themselves or playing with "toys." I don't even know if we should call some of these people artists. Funny thing is, the same pose and same girl could be painted by someone like Sorayama, or Milo Manara, or Serpieri, and because of their superior artistic skills, the piece would look far less vulgar.

So essentially, it's about taste, talent, and skill. I bet you that any nude Enayla paints will never look vulgar or repulsive, and it's simply because she has taste, talent, and skill. I will also bet you that if one day she decides to paint some pinup/erotic art, even depicting blatant sexual acts, she'll be able to do it with enough taste so that it looks beautiful instead of cheap.

Here's a joke for photographers: A badly lit nude photo is pornography, and an artistically lit one is art. :thumbsup:

cha0t1c1
05-11-2005, 04:18 PM
human nudity shouldn't be taken lightly...you might think I'm saying that because I'm arabic and whatever, but the reason art allows nudity so people won't have to be nude all the time.

also, nudity relates to intimacy or vulnerability like lunatique said. If beautiful womn walk naked all the time in reality we wouldn't find intimacy or art inticing or exciting.

saying that "you came out of a vagina" doesn't make it right to see every single one u want... The human body's beauty can provoke many feelings, many of them are related to violance and desire:

example: if people walked around publicaly nude, then the will have sex publicaly, carry annonymus sexual relations and become animals...

Are we animals? no, far from it...We are creative in many ways... an animal might be in a way... just a way...

so Noob! don't say (wtf'ng deal with nudity being a big deal?) because it is...

nineinchneil
05-11-2005, 05:40 PM
human nudity shouldn't be taken lightly...you might think I'm saying that because I'm arabic and whatever, but the reason art allows nudity so people won't have to be nude all the time.

also, nudity relates to intimacy or vulnerability like lunatique said. If beautiful womn walk naked all the time in reality we wouldn't find intimacy or art inticing or exciting.

saying that "you came out of a vagina" doesn't make it right to see every single one u want... The human body's beauty can provoke many feelings, many of them are related to violance and desire:

example: if people walked around publicaly nude, then the will have sex publicaly, carry annonymus sexual relations and become animals...

Are we animals? no, far from it...We are creative in many ways... an animal might be in a way... just a way...

so Noob! don't say (wtf'ng deal with nudity being a big deal?) because it is...

i disagree with nearly everything you say. the purpose for nudity in art isn't to satiate people's desires for nudity, just because they aren't nude all the time. that's ridiculous. that's exactly the mentality that some people go with, when creating graphic nudity without any reason other than to join the bandwagon of thousands of 'pornographic' artists.

and i don't believe that nudity in art would lose it's flavor if everyone paraded around naked in real life. i see buildings everywhere i go; that doesn't mean that cityscape paintings have no artistic merit.

if you truly believe that nudity would lead to people losing all inhibitions and having mindless sex publically, what does that say about humanity? if human decency is so fragile that it hangs on the presence of cloth on your body, then i'd be surprised that we haven't degenerated into a bunch of neanderthals humping every tree or pole we see.

lunatique made a good point about nudity referring to intimacy or vulnerabilty, but that's not all it can represent. those are themes that are very common with FEMALE nudity. nudity could also imply a resistance against a larger culture (anti-fur activists), nomadic tribes, etc. nudity has a lot of meanings; it's just that people tend to implement it in an erotic context, because the sexual desire is a fairly universal feeling.

cha0t1c1
05-11-2005, 06:35 PM
I did not mean my commentary in such a trong perverted sense...

I meant to say that nudity in art reveals the true beauty of the human figure we long to see without the perverted thought..pure innocent nudity not dirt malisious nakedness...

I apologize if I sounded strong...

btw human decency is fragile if it wasn't we would be naked and roaming without care...

jmBoekestein
05-11-2005, 06:45 PM
btw human decency is fragile if it wasn't we would be naked and roaming without care...

LOL..."I wonder what that means?":curious:...are we having a miscommunication?

cha0t1c1
05-11-2005, 06:49 PM
sorry, I wrote in a hurry( :argh: that sounded jibberish) lol...

what I meant to say is if human decency wasn't fragile we would be roaming around naked and ignoring the fact that we're nude...

why aren't we nude all the time?

Squibbit
05-11-2005, 06:54 PM
I think one third of all the people should walk around naked all the time,
unless they were really poor, in which case their mothers would be
proclaimed topological

cha0t1c1
05-11-2005, 06:56 PM
tears just shot out of my eyes on that comment squibbit....freaking lmao

NOOB!
05-11-2005, 07:00 PM
human nudity shouldn't be taken lightly...you might think I'm saying that because I'm arabic and whatever, but the reason art allows nudity so people won't have to be nude all the time.

also, nudity relates to intimacy or vulnerability like lunatique said. If beautiful womn walk naked all the time in reality we wouldn't find intimacy or art inticing or exciting.

saying that "you came out of a vagina" doesn't make it right to see every single one u want... The human body's beauty can provoke many feelings, many of them are related to violance and desire:

example: if people walked around publicaly nude, then the will have sex publicaly, carry annonymus sexual relations and become animals...

Are we animals? no, far from it...We are creative in many ways... an animal might be in a way... just a way...

so Noob! don't say (wtf'ng deal with nudity being a big deal?) because it is...

heh,the only reason people originally wore clothes it to keep em warm.no we are not animals,animals are born with fur to keep em warm.....if humans where born with fur,yes we wud be animals,hence,humans wud be non exisitant.

i dunno if u quite get my point,but if i go back into time,kill the guy that sed we must where clothes,came back.........we wud be having sex publicy,be nude ,BUT we wudn't have a problem with it,cos it wud have been that way since...forever.just like animals,u won't catch a tiger saying *ROOOOOOOOOOOARRR OMFG,THEY ARE HAVING SEX IN PUBLIC*cos its just their way.

OBVIOUSLY its too late to change that for humans,which is kinda what ur saying,we can't.Which is the point I'M trying to make,its wierd how us humans are so restricted in sumthin thats friggin natural.

that debate can't go any further ,cos its not possible,too late to change that,almost as impossible as trying to find out why we exist in the first place.

and it ain't the topic i put fourth (sp?),keep it art people!!

latah!

ashakarc
05-11-2005, 07:53 PM
The notion of public and private space which presumes certain behavioural patterns for human societies are not the same with lower species. The hierarchy of privacy is a lot more sophisticated. dah! Nudity is not appreciated ;from an art stand point of view; simply because everyone else is clothed in public. It is neither deplored because it is an offense to the public. Human societies regulated their systems in a symbiotic manner with their environments. Clothing is seen as a protective layer in the first place. Protective in terms of body temperature control, identity within and outside the group, and the sense of individuality. The cultural inhibitions were developed later as a result of the evolution of human psyche. Nudist beaches are great places to witness this.

stipick_S
08-20-2005, 04:47 PM
I am a way late on this thread, but i highly reccomend anyone else who reads this thread to pick up a copy of Berger's "ways of seeing".

this book will clear evrything up.


you see, it is all about subject matter. A woman can have all of her clothes on and still the painting could be considered porn. Fragonard's "The Swing" is a great example of this. Yes the woman in fully clothed, every inch of her, but the subject matter was still jerk off material for the origianl owner. That painting (even though it is considered a classic) was indeed softcore porn for the distinguishig gentleman. Playboy for the 18 century. There are cetain charecteristics that allow us to distinguish between being nude and being naked, Berger's book describes to us what these are in great detail. It is not the nudity, but the subject matter of the painting which would determine whther a painting resides in the world of classy (if there is such a thing) porn.



p.s. hey noob, the tigers penis is covered with barbs which help keep it in place. This makes things very painfull for the female tiger. just as a side note, would you like to see that?

NOOB!
08-23-2005, 10:13 AM
no thanks.lol

heh i long forgot about this debate,didn't i make this when this forum was first opening?...phew

roberte
08-23-2005, 12:22 PM
If you notice that, in my heading, "Art" was in quotation marks it was done intentionally.

Much of what I see in CG and 3d work is not Art but, instead, an endless procession of scantily clothed clones ( nearly universally women), all of whom have enormous breasts and perfect features- most of which could have been created from the same basic poser model.

They have more in common with boringly repetitious stereotypes of an adolescent males five finger fantasies than with attempts to express, creatively, something that enlightens and excites it's audience to go beyond the common and the mundane.

Granted, that the human figure is one of the most challenging areas of artistic challenge, unfortunately, not only that premise but it's interpretation and the opportunity to move beyond the pointless and the common are , for the most wasted by their creators. Instead they only provide more clutter on the pages of most cg galleries.

At one time, this type of material was known as "Kitsch".

Granted that many of the contributers to these galleries are, in fact, teen aged boys, I would hope that they would seek out the best examples of figurative art throughout history and attempt to understand and learn from those elements of commonality that have served to make them universal, inspirational, and necessary to artists throughout the ages.

Perhaps CG talk could provide a "stroke" section, where at least the type of material that I, and others complain about, can be presented for those who find this type of material appealing.

Robert

victim335
08-23-2005, 01:02 PM
Men like beautiful nude girls. You can do nothing about this. It's natural. Thats why nudity is an integral part of COMMERCIAL art. It's our duty to improve our inner world, to seek a better way, but sometimes it just doesn't work if you want to achieve something more then inner satisfaction. I tried to create a classic illustrational/comic image for an M&S contest, very few people even visited the page. After that I made a great sin as an artist - made a half nude sketch using a porn pic as a reference, next morning visitors count was 5 times more then previous day... Sad but true. I partially agree with Lunatique (by the way I adore your style of work and the way you talk about art and life in general, also wonderful photography section on your site inspired me alot). I have no special art skills and enough authority to judge though, just MHO. I see nothing bad about nudity when it doesn't border with perversy
(sorry for my english)

CGTalk Moderation
08-23-2005, 01:02 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.