Nudity and Nakedness in Art

[Thales]

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

That's not the right use of the phrase "social metaphysics", which is the idea that reality is created by the social realm. As Ayn Rand said, "Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

[anonrobt]

That's not the right use of the phrase "social metaphysics", which is the idea that reality is created by the social realm. As Ayn Rand said, "Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

Actually, I was correct in using the phrase - but to rephrase it ---

It is interesting that in the area of aesthetics, there are so many social metaphysicians here...

[Thales]

Actually, I was correct in using the phrase - but to rephrase it ---

It is interesting that in the area of aesthetics, there are so many social metaphysicians here...

I think you'll need to be much more specific, because I haven't noticed this.

[Alfa]

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?

If that's what you're trying to show I think the composition is lacking. Right now the viewers eyes are directly drawn to her vagina. I mean, it's there in a sort of right in your face kind of way. Then you get the sand castle building. The fact that she's facing the building in the distance gets a bit irrelevant when the viewers eyes are not directed there. I barely noticed the building until you pointed it out.

To get the idea across in a better way you could for example have changed the perspective, seeing the woman from the side and having her look at a skyline in the distance. Skyline and sand castles could follow the same perspective lines and the woman could have a more natural and dignifying pose, perhaps with the action lines/arcs of the pose helping direct the viewers eyes to what is being shown in the picture. That's juste one suggestion on how to make it easier to read and get the point across, instead of placing her vagina in the center of attention.

With that said there's certainly nothing wrong with genitalia, but calling attention to private parts is distracting, crued and unecessary. The way you put this drawing togheter seems more like making a point by putting a womans vagina on full display. By doing that any value gets lost on me. If I want to I can find much better sources for looking at vaginas.

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?

I'm not sure I like the whole "mother nature" thing here, aside from that though I get what you are trying to show here. I don't find the sexuality offensive but I don't like how the female form is displayed here. Having a "fuller" woman here is a good choice for the purpose of the drawing as it easier suggests sexuality and fertillity. However, I think the form is bloated and not very attractive at all.

[K-Mac]

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?

Speaking from a woman's perspective, even if I were clothed, I would not lean over like that to build a sand castle.

...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)

I think it's both. As stated previously, it's an unnatural position, but I think an experienced artist would use a model, and in doing so, would see a more natural position to emulate.

I would like to suggest that the artist sketch a model on graph paper. That helps you learn perspective and proportions, especially when drawing the details of the human form. (If you can't find a nude model, a clothed model would still help you with a lot of stuff, like the arms, fingers and even the breasts.)

[tsprat]

[Nudity in art] 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.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Some of my favorite art is the humanist sort coming out of the Renaissance and Baroque periods. For instance, no one, even by modern standards, would question the portrayal of Venus nude in Boticelli's famous painting. Or who would ask why Cupid and Psyche are nude in this sculpture, also a favorite of mine. In both of those works, the figures portrayed are without question of a somewhat sexual nature (Venus being the goddess of love and sex, and Cupid and Psyche is a story of the passion of love). However, the artist did not intentionally depict them as incredibly lecherous, ungraceful, almost inhumane creatures. And to me, that is central to nudity in art. To borrow Objectivist aesthetics, nudity can depict man as a heroic being at his best, his most raw, where we see not his insatiable animal lust (as is the case with pornography) bu rather his purest form, the thing that depicts him as most human. Boticell's Venus conveys the beauty of woman through a female goddess figure. Cupid and Psyche are shown in a passion that, while somewhat illicit according to legend, demonstrates visible passion in the perfection of love. Beauty and love are both very rationally-based concepts, both very human, virtually unique to mankind (discounting things like peacock plummage that are also forms of beauty in their own species).

[Jonathan13]

In discussions about genitalia in art, it seems that those who express objections to how genitals have been depicted are often accused of being uptight Puritans and prudes about sexuality. Or at least it's often implied. I think the problem with such accusations is that sexuality isn't the only concept with which people can associate genitalia. The genital area can also be associated -- consciously or subconsciously -- with urination and defecation, and depending on the artist's style and skill (or lack thereof), viewers may interpret a work of art as the artist shoving someone's smelly regions in their faces. Genitals beautifully drawn by one artist might be quite alluring to most viewers, where the same genitals drawn from the same perspective by a different artist might look ugly to the same viewers, and accordingly imply their waste function rather than their pleasure function. I've even occasionally heard people (who don't have synesthesia) saying something like, "Yuck. I can practically smell the stink in that painting."

J