Noob On Nudes

#41

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.

#42

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

#43

well said! :thumbsup:

Fahrija

#44

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/

#45

I want to point out something that I think is very important to this discussion.

[b]Nudity and intent are two different things.

[/b]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:

#46

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…

#47

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.

#48

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…

#49

LOL…“I wonder what that means?”:curious:…are we having a miscommunication?

#50

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?

#51

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

#52

tears just shot out of my eyes on that comment squibbit…freaking lmao

#53

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 PUBLICcos 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!

#54

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.

#55

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?

#56

no thanks.lol

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

#57

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

#58

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)

#59

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.