How Nudity in Photographs (or paintings) Can Be Conceived as Art?

[edmelvins]

First of all, I'd like to apologize if there's a thread for this topic before, but I have googled and searched this forum and found none. So here goes.

From the Roman Catholic Church fig-leaf campaign to rules and regulations from the government (of certain countries), nudity in artworks has raised many questions and controversies. People question artists if their artwork is really art.

I admit that I have enjoyed the artwork of several artists (or photographers) and if I were to be asked whether it's art or not, I would certainly say it is. One of my favorite photographer in this aspect is http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardolive/

But how can we really know if it's art or not? What arguments are there to support or reject it? Is it wrong to enjoy this kind of art?

 

[antiquark]

"What is art..."

Good luck answering that question! 🙂

 

[bwcolor]

This is really a non-topic. My four year old paints works of art that I prefer to some of the items that I have seen which are referred to as art. Let's call it art and see if someone will pay me for it? It is a totally subjective classification.

 

[edmelvins]

"What is art..."

Good luck answering that question! 🙂

Maybe for now we can use the technical definition for it? 😀

 

[tanel]

Why would I care what the catholic churc think?
If they only see body parts in pictures/paintings then that speaks for themselves.

Art is undoubtedly in the eyes of the viewer. For me, it's composition, light, pose and meaning behind things that the photographer/painter shows us.

 

[edmelvins]

This is really a non-topic. My four year old paints works of art that I prefer to some of the items that I have seen which are referred to as art. Let's call it art and see if someone will pay me for it? It is a totally subjective classification.

Of course it's subjective. I don't know if you can be truly objective about this. But I wanted to see if you could argue for your opinions and see which side actually makes more sense (subjective?).

You can say anything about all things and tell people it's okay because it's subjective but you gotta have good reasons for it right? 😀

 

[retro]

Art is the guy who used to sing with Paul Simon.

 

[antiquark]

You can say anything about all things and tell people it's okay because it's subjective but you gotta have good reasons for it right? 😀

Not really... that's where the art of BS enters the conversation!

 

[zumbido]

If the models are skinny, it's erotica. If they're Rubenesque, it's art. This, of course, is entirely dependent on the culture of the time and place. Ruben's Rubenesques were erotica there and then. 😉

 

[Brian Legge]

But how can we really know if it's art or not? What arguments are there to support or reject it? Is it wrong to enjoy this kind of art?

Poorly defined question without considering the subject. Everyone personally has different standards in their heads. Different communities have different standards. Until you define who you are asking about, there isn't an answer. If you are talking about your personal views, well, that is entirely up to you. If you are talking about your community, you'd need to talk with others and find out what their views are.

The question 'is it wrong' is implicitly moral. Same sort of deal. You need to define the standard you are using to judge if it is 'wrong'. Taking the question anywhere else would be counter productive as not everyone has the same moral base. Even within single religions or communities there are likely major divides.

The art itself is just a 'thing'. The attributes we choose to use to describe it are just as much about us as about the work itself.

 

[edmelvins]

Historically, is it true that nude art was used to arouse sexual desire?

 

[zumbido]

Historically, is it true that nude art was used to arouse sexual desire?

Sometimes. Maybe often. Maybe usually. Hard to tell the proportion, since we can only say "yes" in instances where there is some documentary evidence, though one can always suppose from circumstance.

 

[edmelvins]

Poorly defined question without considering the subject. Everyone personally has different standards in their heads. Different communities have different standards. Until you define who you are asking about, there isn't an answer. If you are talking about your personal views, well, that is entirely up to you. If you are talking about your community, you'd need to talk with others and find out what their views are.

The question 'is it wrong' is implicitly moral. Same sort of deal. You need to define the standard you are using to judge if it is 'wrong'. Taking the question anywhere else would be counter productive as not everyone has the same moral base. Even within single religions or communities there are likely major divides.

I understand this and I was going to use the Bible as a standard but I thought not everyone here is a Christian and it's wrong to only include Christians so I decided to give insufficient questions so that the answers can vary and be answered by everyone from different cultures and religions.

 

[dave lackey]

First of all, I'd like to apologize if there's a thread for this topic before, but I have googled and searched this forum and found none. So here goes.

From the Roman Catholic Church fig-leaf campaign to rules and regulations from the government (of certain countries), nudity in artworks has raised many questions and controversies. People question artists if their artwork is really art.

I admit that I have enjoyed the artwork of several artists (or photographers) and if I were to be asked whether it's art or not, I would certainly say it is. One of my favorite photographer in this aspect is http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardolive/

But how can we really know if it's art or not? What arguments are there to support or reject it? Is it wrong to enjoy this kind of art?

IMO, firstly, (is that a word?), I think one must question if and why nudity is a problem for them.

 

[edmelvins]

IMO, firstly, (is that a word?), I think one must question if and why nudity is a problem for them.

If stared at long enough, you'd say "my spidey senses are tingling." 😀

The only problem for me is when it arouses sexual desire when it's supposed to be appreciated for its beauty (another topic).

 

[sper]

There really isn't a way, and shouldn't be a way to define art. Just go with your gut. Nobody can tell YOU what art is. They can tell you it's bad art, but they can't tell you it's not.

You know it when you see it. I love Radiohead, but there are a lot of Kiss fans out there who'd dissagree with me.

 

[antiquark]

The only problem for me is when it arouses sexual desire when it's supposed to be appreciated for its beauty (another topic).

Please see "Rule #34" for a counterargument. 🙂

 

[tlitody]

Ask yourself two simple questions.
Why would an artist want a woman or man to take their clothes off before painting them? They could paint them with their clothes on.
Secondly why would a woman or a man want to take their clothes off and pose in front of a probable complete stranger to be painted in the nude. They could volunteer to be painted with their clothes on. Could it be vanity? Is it some intellectual exercise.

There is something going on here which has nothing to do with art which doesn't mean its not art but it does mean the motivation is most probably nothing to do with art. Animal instincts are always present even if the participants deny it. It's about getting their jollys by at least one of the participants and probably both.

Don't worry though, it's all done in the best possible taste (so they tell us).

 

[dave lackey]

Ask yourself two simple questions.
Why would an artist want a woman or man to take their clothes off before painting them? They could paint them with their clothes on.
Secondly why would a woman or a man want to take their clothes off and pose in front of a probable complete stranger to be painted in the nude. They could volunteer to be painted with their clothes on. Could it be vanity? Is it some intellectual exercise.

There is something going on here which has nothing to do with art which doesn't mean its not art but it does mean the motivation is most probably nothing to do with art. Animal instincts are always present even if the participants deny it. It's about getting their jollys by at least one of the participants and probably both.

Don't worry though, it's all done in the best possible taste (so they tell us).

Heh, heh, but only with a rangefinder that fits in with the thread "I Want to Buy a Rangefinder"....😉

 

[antiquark]

Secondly why would a woman or a man want to take their clothes off and pose in front of a probable complete stranger to be painted in the nude..

Maybe it's a good way to make money. :angel: