Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nudity and Nakedness in Art

Rate this topic


anonrobt

Recommended Posts

One of the things I am always coming into conflict with others is the issue of having naked figures in my works... not mere nudity, where some flesh is shown yet sex organs are hid, but the full unabashed naked figure, showing her nakedness as needed in whatever posing is required for the theme/title of the rendering...

for instance,

"First the Sand..."

or the as yet unfinished

"Rite of Spring" [clicking the image enlarges it]

Is there any Objective validity to omitting what is as much a part of being human as the lusciousness of the mouth, or any other part of the body - is sexuality, not mere sensuality, a non-essential aspect to being human, or should it be as gloriously shown as much as the mindfulness of the figure's activities?

This is wondered about because other artists have indicated that nakedness supposedly diverts what is of importance in the showing, something which I question for the reason stated, that I consider it an integrated aspect of being human and thus has as much validity in being there as any other part of the body...

Edited by anonrobt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, I can think of no reasonable objection to nudity in art.

Isn't it merely a matter of context? What the artist is conveying (explicitly or implicitly) will be a great weighting on the question of which parts of the human form to depict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should make a refinement here and wonder - what is the purpose of nakedness in the arts, and why, if it is an essential aspect of depicting figures, is it not more utilized instead of the clothed? and the corresponding of if it is not an essential, why not?

This is what I wrote a few years ago in my blog on the matter -

Perhaps the most troubling aspect, when dealing with figures in a work, is whether or not to clothe them... most artists do not, as said, think in terms of the fact that whatever is included within a work is, by the fact that it is included, of fundamental importance... by the same token, what is NOT included is also making a statement of fundamental importance - the fact that it is not considered of major importance... clothing, even for an artist, is generally regarded as a norm... yet the fact that a naturalness - nudity - is being covered, is making a statement regarding one's relationship with the universe...as Rand pointed out, 'Art is not the means of literal transcription... this is the difference between a work of Art and a news story or a photograph.'... as such, what is shown in a work of Art pertains to one's fundamental view of a person's relationship to reality - which is why so many artists use the nude in their works, to establish the sense of universality, that what is shown pertains to all time... to a rational person, there is no problem - what is pro-human is to the good; what glorifies and/or accentuates human qualities is to the good [and a person's sexuality is very certainly a human quality] [and the first step towards showing that is portraying the naked figure]... the difficulty, then, lies in confronting the culture, which is, in many respects, in am anti-human viewing of one's self - thanks to the religions within it... because this has been the dominant - indeed, for most, the ONLY known code - there is difficulty in being able to mount a cognitive defense against it for most artists... even more confounding is being able to express sexuality of humans in a work - indeed, one would have less problems showing a bull mounting a cow than to humans lovemaking - and oddly enough, easier to show lovemaking than to showing explicit sexual arousal... in common parlance, this is called pornography - in fact, it is a religious attack on the sexual nature of human beings, and it is in knowing the nature and proper purpose of Art, and the rational ethics behind that purpose, that there can be a defense against this anti-human ranting...

I can only say this how I personal considered the matter - and still do if not in more firmer a stance, tho at times wonder if am rationalizing my love of the naked figure more than objectively justifying it in my renderings... I say this because am very noticing how religion plays its anti-human view on the cultural scene [having, for instance, been for a time a member of a nudist resort], and finding myself more prone to want to rant against this as a moral issue, throwing it back at them, even as I know it only, despite its perhaps correct stance, infuriates others and does not resolve the issue in a diplomatic manner... if it were only a popularity matter and nothing to inhibit my being able to show my works, the less-than-diplomatics would not bother me - but alas there are consequences...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading The Romantic Manifesto, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around naturalism, etc., but I think that's what your drawings are. When you put everything in full view, it takes away from the romantic nature of it, for me. I mean, why not show a hairy mole on the subject's back? Does that make sense, or am I missing something? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to look at the individual pieces of a painting related to the whole. Rand's example was of a beautiful woman in an evening gown on a city street, basically looking like she was going to a ball, and is the epitome of femininity. Then as a contrast to this visual concrete of the ultimate feminine woman, the artist has given her a coldsore. The coldsore would then be a spiteful representation of reality, saying that even though this beautiful woman is here she is still susceptible to the common coldsore, and is basically a representation of the artists hatred of the good for being good.

Nudity is totally fine, it just depends on how it's portrayed. Take the second picture linked: naked girl kneelng in the woods, can see her labia and bare breasts etc. Face raised to the sky in a joyous pose. I don't think I can say what type of art it is, but if you take that same girl, change the background to a dimly lit room, throw on some fishnets maybe some bruises and you have a prostitute waiting for a facial.

So yeah, nudity itself isnt bad, but you have to look at the context, ie. form, colour, what type of medium is used, and a bunch of other things to make an accurate judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading The Romantic Manifesto, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around naturalism, etc., but I think that's what your drawings are. When you put everything in full view, it takes away from the romantic nature of it, for me. I mean, why not show a hairy mole on the subject's back? Does that make sense, or am I missing something? :)

I don't know about the drawings, but I disagree with the rest: breasts, vaginae ( I hope that's the plural) and penises (same as with vaginae) are fun, and they definitely have nothing in common with a hairy mole on someone's back. (At least not automatically. They could certainly be a symbol for the same thing as a hairy mole in someone's art. But that person would not be a very fun oriented fella')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading The Romantic Manifesto, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around naturalism, etc., but I think that's what your drawings are. When you put everything in full view, it takes away from the romantic nature of it, for me. I mean, why not show a hairy mole on the subject's back? Does that make sense, or am I missing something? :)

If you consider the naked human form - specifically the parts usually covered up - to be ugly and deserving to be covered, it makes perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nudity depends a lot on presentation for me. If the figures are posed/shaded/whatever in such a fashion as to call attention to the sexual areas (look! Pubes!) it bugs me, but if it's just present because you're doing studies of the human body, it doesn't. I personally *prefer* that artists *avoid* it when possible, not because I think it's inappropriate but because the presence of nudity in most works (aside from sculpture, where clothing often interferes with the artwork) forces me to consider whether the artist is making some kind of statement about sex or just portraying the human figure. When I'm trying to interpret the artist's intentions, I'm not evaluating the artwork properly and hence it bugs me.

For instance, Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen didn't really bother me, although it DID annoy me that SOMETIMES they had him wearing this thong thing. I understood the suit when he had to make a public appearance, but I think I would have preferred it if they'd just shown him as being nude the rest of the time. Likewise the computer game Titan Quest takes place in part in a fantasy version of ancient Greece with a lot of dramatic nude statues standing around--but the male ones have no genitals, which just looks freakin' weird to me. I also really disliked the no-genitals-nudity aesthetic choice in Berserk. I'm used to movies/games/whatever going out of their way to avoid showing the genitals area, and while this is kind of cowardly (albeit maybe prudent) on the artist's part it makes a lot more sense to me as an aesthetic choice than SHOWING the area but NOT FINISHING THE DRAWING.

I don't really like either of these sample drawings. Did you draw them from life? It doesn't look like it because the posing is a bit awkward and the foreshortening looks wrong. Leaving the women's bodies essentially unshaded except for nipples/pubic hair is a poor esthetic choice in my mind as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading The Romantic Manifesto, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around naturalism, etc., but I think that's what your drawings are. When you put everything in full view, it takes away from the romantic nature of it, for me. I mean, why not show a hairy mole on the subject's back? Does that make sense, or am I missing something? :confused:

Well, it depends. Does the evaluation of the nudity in that piece differ from this piece?

022.jpg

Or this? (this has always been a favorite of mine):

Tizian_102.jpg

Change the medium. What is your evaluation of the Statue of David? Is it different from the two paintings above?

Michelangelos_David.jpg

If it is, then the next question would be....why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading The Romantic Manifesto, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around naturalism, etc., but I think that's what your drawings are. When you put everything in full view, it takes away from the romantic nature of it, for me. I mean, why not show a hairy mole on the subject's back? Does that make sense, or am I missing something? :confused:

Nudity in art is the celebration of the human form, unfettered. It is the epitome of the expression of the body as an ideal, as man elevated. It is the remnants of our Puritan heritage that informed sexual norms in America that sees the nude human form as shameful. Context, as Chris S. pointed out, is key, and is the defining element between art and pronography. ;)

In my opinion, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will have to clarify. I certainly have no problems with nudity, the human body or even the intricate details of the vagina. Okay?

The two drawings the OP linked to did not present a pleasant view of woman, IMO. In the first, my eye went straight to the not-very-good details of the woman's vagina rather than seeing a beautiful nude woman on a beach. In the second, I thought her breasts looked too far apart and disproportionate to her body, much less the shortened arms, and the croch area is just a few lines in shadow and look odd.

If the intent of the drawings is to have my eye go directly to the woman's crotch (or breasts) and think, "eww, that doesn't look right" then the drawings are at least effective. If the intent of the drawings was to show the beauty of a woman's nakedness on a beach or in a forest, then I think the drawings miss their mark.

I agree with Chris that pin up art is fantastic. I also like the nude photography that Playboy does. They show quite a bit, yet somehow it never looks nasty, distasteful or awkward. The same cannot be said for Hustler or Shaved Schniz. ;) I realize that's photography, but I feel the same about nudity in painted/drawn/sculpted art. I think there is a lot to be said for leaving something to the imagination, while still showing a beautiful nude form.

It's sort of like a suspense or thriller type movie...the shower scene in Hitchcock's Psycho is more effective and meaningful to me (with the implied stabbing...screams, shadows, a few drops of blood mixing with the water in the drain) than some of these new, slasher movies that show every little gory detail of a knife slicing into flesh. The gory details take me out of the moment, out of the emotion they are trying to portray. Instead I end up chuckling and thinking, "well that's just overdone." Psycho makes me think twice when I hear something strange while in the shower. :confused:

EDIT: Prosperity, I like all three of your examples, although they're not my favorites; however, if David were bent over and the view was of his testicles hanging down from behind, would you still like it? That's the difference that I'm getting at.

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will have to clarify. I certainly have no problems with nudity, the human body or even the intricate details of the vagina. Okay?

Nor do I.

The two drawings the OP linked to did not present a pleasant view of woman, IMO. In the first, my eye went straight to the not-very-good details of the woman's vagina rather than seeing a beautiful nude woman on a beach. In the second, I thought her breasts looked too far apart and disproportionate to her body, much less the shortened arms, and the croch area is just a few lines in shadow and look odd.

You mean the first poster? Yeah, I didn't like either one of those at all. Very off putting.

Prosperity, otoh, posted superb pictures. I especially like the first one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly, I wasn't implying that you were prudish about the nude human form, but American society in general. I didn't care for the OP's drawings either. The latter ones are more like it.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly, I wasn't implying that you were prudish about the nude human form, but American society in general. I didn't care for the OP's drawings either. The latter ones are more like it.

Am assuming you did not care for "First the Sand...", and the reason was what -

it showed the sand castle maker from the rear?

it showed as such her pubes?

you would had rather she was sitting on the sand, rather than in the process of gathering more sand for more castle-making? or facing front, her back to the skyscraper in the distance?

Consider, for the moment, what is being shown in this rendering... instead of the usual male child making crude sand castles, here is a grown person, a young woman no less, doing this, and moreover is in a process of action - doing more castle-making... as the theme/title hints, this is a beginning, and the fact she is facing to the distant building is indicative of the future-oriented... in all of this, where is there to be a disliking, philosophically speaking - whether from a metaphysical, ethical, or aesthetic standpoint... in other words, here is a universe defined by the four walls around it - what, in this universe, is irrational? and if nothing is, why the disliking?

As for "Rite of Spring", it is is an unfinished work -

the forest trees will reach to the right end,

the ground will be more snowy formed,

the left rear ridge, with distant city skyline beyond, will be more definite,

the sprout will be in color,

as will the figure [thus taking care of the supposed lack of shading]

and the ground between them -

along with the lights of the distance buildings...

with 'seeing' these in mind, is there still a dislikeing of the idea of 'Mother Nature' giving Spring as an orgasmic action? if so, why? Allegories seem acceptable - Newberry, for instance, makes much use of them...

is it, perhaps, that the sexual nature of bringing forth Spring is an uncomfortable idea? too flaunting in the face of puritanical notions?

would it have looked more 'aesthetic' if the figure were turned?

if so, which direction - and why that one as another?

Remember, everything within the universe of a rendering is there because the artist considers it of fundamental importance in the context of what the theming is being shown... in looking at these works, did anyone bother seeking out just what the theme was, and how the showing exemplified the theming?

For that matter - the same with the other works shown ?

and along with this, why those other works are more liked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why an artist, that supposedly appreciates nudity for its beauty, would show a woman bent over in an unflattering manner building a sand castle. What is your intent?

A woman would not bend over like that to build a sand castle (more likely, she would be squatting/bent at the knees and all you would see from that angle is her behind), so it's as though you intentionally have her in an awkward pose just to show her pubes.

If your purpose is to have the viewer look immediately to the crotch area and think, "that's odd", then your drawing is effectively conveying your message. If your message is, look at the beauty of a naked woman on the beach, I think your message is lost.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am assuming you did not care for "First the Sand...", and the reason was what -

it showed the sand castle maker from the rear?

it showed as such her pubes?

you would had rather she was sitting on the sand, rather than in the process of gathering more sand for more castle-making? or facing front, her back to the skyscraper in the distance?

Consider, for the moment, what is being shown in this rendering... instead of the usual male child making crude sand castles, here is a grown person, a young woman no less, doing this, and moreover is in a process of action - doing more castle-making... as the theme/title hints, this is a beginning, and the fact she is facing to the distant building is indicative of the future-oriented... in all of this, where is there to be a disliking, philosophically speaking - whether from a metaphysical, ethical, or aesthetic standpoint... in other words, here is a universe defined by the four walls around it - what, in this universe, is irrational? and if nothing is, why the disliking?

Interesting question. In many ways individual tastes are involved here, but, regarding the first, the position looks uncomfortable to me and it seems to be focused on the genitals and not on the beauty of the woman. There is a sense in which seems more on the animal level in that regard and this distracts from the back ground, which, I agree, is nice. To put it in concrete terms, it is more like Penthouse than Playboy.

The second picture I think is harsh on the eyes. The woman isn't attractive. I mean, look at a woman like Angelina Jolie by way of comparison. I personally enjoy looking at Angelina's face. There is pleasure I derive from it. You can ask yourself the question "What is the source of that pleasure? How do I duplicate it in my renderings?" These are the sorts of questions an artist must think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question. In many ways individual tastes are involved here, but, regarding the first, the position looks uncomfortable to me and it seems to be focused on the genitals and not on the beauty of the woman. There is a sense in which seems more on the animal level in that regard and this distracts from the back ground, which, I agree, is nice. To put it in concrete terms, it is more like Penthouse than Playboy.

The second picture I think is harsh on the eyes. The woman isn't attractive. I mean, look at a woman like Angelina Jolie by way of comparison. I personally enjoy looking at Angelina's face. There is pleasure I derive from it. You can ask yourself the question "What is the source of that pleasure? How do I duplicate it in my renderings?" These are the sorts of questions an artist must think about.

If, for the moment, it was a clothed figure making the sand castles, would there still be the notion of 'uncomfortable' or 'unflattering' ? if so, what is this 'unflattering' - what makes it thus? if not, what is this saying of you the viewer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, for the moment, it was a clothed figure making the sand castles, would there still be the notion of 'uncomfortable' or 'unflattering' ? if so, what is this 'unflattering' - what makes it thus? if not, what is this saying of you the viewer?

Please. It says nothing about him the viewer other than the fact that he's aware that we wear clothing for several reasons and hence portraying people without clothing *conveys a definite meaning*. You can't evaluate an artwork shorn of the context of its creation, and the context here is a society where people wear clothing and do not display their pubic region to all and sundry. Thus, when you *intentionally* pose a woman to expose her in this manner, you are communicating something whether you like it or not. Complaining about the fact that people do perceive this is like complaining that people view you as a bum when you show up for a job interview wearing nothing but a torn t-shirt and stained boxer shorts.

Being an artist means knowing what your choices communicate and why--not that this is necessarily easy, but it has to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, for the moment, it was a clothed figure making the sand castles, would there still be the notion of 'uncomfortable' or 'unflattering' ? if so, what is this 'unflattering' - what makes it thus? if not, what is this saying of you the viewer?

If she were clothed the focus wouldn't be on the genitalia, which seems some what animalistic. Having said that, if it were a photograph of a sexy woman doing it I wouldn't mind it, although I don't think it would be beautiful. So, maybe it's the way it's rendered. Drawing people is very difficult. I know, because I’ve done it many times. It's takes quite a bit of effort to get the proportions right and to make things fit together perfectly.

Please. It says nothing about him the viewer other than the fact that he's aware that we wear clothing for several reasons and hence portraying people without clothing *conveys a definite meaning*. You can't evaluate an artwork shorn of the context of its creation, and the context here is a society where people wear clothing and do not display their pubic region to all and sundry. Thus, when you *intentionally* pose a woman to expose her in this manner, you are communicating something whether you like it or not. Complaining about the fact that people do perceive this is like complaining that people view you as a bum when you show up for a job interview wearing nothing but a torn t-shirt and stained boxer shorts.

That is well said, Megan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, for the moment, it was a clothed figure making the sand castles, would there still be the notion of 'uncomfortable' or 'unflattering' ? if so, what is this 'unflattering' - what makes it thus? if not, what is this saying of you the viewer?

Yes. Ever made a sand castle? You certainly don't make it bent over at the waist like you're stretching your quads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will have to clarify. I certainly have no problems with nudity, the human body or even the intricate details of the vagina. Okay?

The two drawings the OP linked to did not present a pleasant view of woman, IMO. In the first, my eye went straight to the not-very-good details of the woman's vagina rather than seeing a beautiful nude woman on a beach. In the second, I thought her breasts looked too far apart and disproportionate to her body, much less the shortened arms, and the croch area is just a few lines in shadow and look odd.

If the intent of the drawings is to have my eye go directly to the woman's crotch (or breasts) and think, "eww, that doesn't look right" then the drawings are at least effective. If the intent of the drawings was to show the beauty of a woman's nakedness on a beach or in a forest, then I think the drawings miss their mark.

I agree with Chris that pin up art is fantastic. I also like the nude photography that Playboy does. They show quite a bit, yet somehow it never looks nasty, distasteful or awkward. The same cannot be said for Hustler or Shaved Schniz. :P I realize that's photography, but I feel the same about nudity in painted/drawn/sculpted art. I think there is a lot to be said for leaving something to the imagination, while still showing a beautiful nude form.

It's sort of like a suspense or thriller type movie...the shower scene in Hitchcock's Psycho is more effective and meaningful to me (with the implied stabbing...screams, shadows, a few drops of blood mixing with the water in the drain) than some of these new, slasher movies that show every little gory detail of a knife slicing into flesh. The gory details take me out of the moment, out of the emotion they are trying to portray. Instead I end up chuckling and thinking, "well that's just overdone." Psycho makes me think twice when I hear something strange while in the shower. :)

EDIT: Prosperity, I like all three of your examples, although they're not my favorites; however, if David were bent over and the view was of his testicles hanging down from behind, would you still like it? That's the difference that I'm getting at.

Ahhhh I see...

...yeah. I mean, so is it the portrayal of the women or the artist's skill level? What you mentioned sounds like the skill level of the artist (i.e. breasts too far apart)

The paintings don't do it for me either, I am just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please. It says nothing about him the viewer other than the fact that he's aware that we wear clothing for several reasons and hence portraying people without clothing *conveys a definite meaning*. You can't evaluate an artwork shorn of the context of its creation, and the context here is a society where people wear clothing and do not display their pubic region to all and sundry. Thus, when you *intentionally* pose a woman to expose her in this manner, you are communicating something whether you like it or not. Complaining about the fact that people do perceive this is like complaining that people view you as a bum when you show up for a job interview wearing nothing but a torn t-shirt and stained boxer shorts.

Being an artist means knowing what your choices communicate and why--not that this is necessarily easy, but it has to be done.

It is interesting seeing how much social metaphysics is involved in aesthetics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...