Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It seems to be debated greatly among everyone here, so I must ask: is nudity considered "real" art to you?

Hell yah!

Of course NOT! Male artist only seek to exploit the Female body!

yey another such thread!

art that contains nudity, is of course exactly that - art

but just nudity as an art form er no

Art is what you makes it, the feelings it creates in you, the questions it raises in your mind, and the thoughts that go through your head after you view it.

Nudity is a very important part in stirring feelings, some of the greatest artists drew the human body, it is the greatest piece of art in our world.

On this subject there is no black or white answers, it depends for different people.

Also "real" art does not exist, something you consider art may be something someone considers trash.

But I don't think that censoring something because you don't like the message or what it represents is the right way to go.

You don't like it, feel free to not view it

so female artists do the same to the female body or the male body

What about
Male nudity by females
male nudity by males
Female nudity by females

What he said!

Art=Art this is what's in the ART Forum


Porn=Porn is NOT in the art forum.it pop's up in KMC once in a while when someone feel's like makin a fool out of themselfnono
Shame on them!

Nudity in and of itself is not an art form. However, the human body is a beautiful thing, and it so happens that it can be best drawn/painted/sculpted with nothing covering it up, the way God created it. So yes, art that has nudity in it is still art.

THANK YOUUUUUUUU!!!

whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

As i said before, people should have read the deffinition!

exactly

An unclothed human figure, especially an artistic representation.

THey dont exploit it the female body is art.

As is the male body, and any nude body or form.

i said that before

Its art alright!! Of course it is!

A person who wantes to see a perverted immages in art, will see them no matter what...

I agree with what the majority say
Art critics can tell the difference between nude art and pornography
and what do you call michealangelo's David one of the world most famous nude of a guy done by a guy

ofc nudity is art, atleast most of it, but you all know my definition on art

djee, most have the same view as me here, nothing much I can add

My opinion is this, If an artist uses nudity to better themselves at the study of the human form, why would it be considered pornography? The way I see it, you can better clothe your figures if you truely understand whats underneath them, how the clothing bends and where it bulges and takes shape. All come together to create a very nice realism of form. I wouldnt consider it porn unless the subject is drawn directly interacting with thier ''stuff'' such as touching it with thier hand... or its drawn in full-salute (guys you get the idea). and for the ladies, if they're fondling themselves, then I might consider it sexual. If the work doesnt fall under any of the above, then it should be viewed as art IMO

Id just like to point out the results of the poll so far!!

I have to second this

Who voted No?

Nudity is considered art as long as it is tasteful, like Satsujin pointed out. It isn't considered pornagraphic unless it is done in bad taste.

I just found now reading some stupid posts that I am or was a pervert (I am not sure just still trying to understand ) And I found that I just want to exploit the female body. So I am afraid that my opinion does not mather

Its kinda obvious
Xena fan has been complaining about it from the start thats why this whole topic started

Cough cough snicker snicker..

The way the poll is constructed is obvious everyone will say NO! Besides nudity doesn't mean art all the time. If you wondering about my vote! NO I havent even voted in this poll yet!

so i guessed wrong
so sue me

Of COURSE it's art... Duh!

Or she's just a-lying!

Doesnt sound like she voted at all, even though that 'no' vote came awfully quick. Just an observation...

that was my OPINION back then! stop flamming!

Hey you stole my idea!!

j/k that's EXACTLY what I think of it--I read this article by some comic book artist about this very same thing--if you can't draw the naked human body, you can't draw it properly with clothes on. This is, I would imagine, where nude art came from in the first place. I recently spent some time forcing myself to draw just people in various poses--yes, people wearing no clothes. I didn't draw their "parts", just the outline of the body, the muscles, etc. I must say that it helped me a lot with my art.

Nudity is part of art, not everyone see perversion when they look at the nudity in art.

do you really need nudity in order to have art? Pick up a dictionary and show me where does it say NUDITY is essential? Art is the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, for example, in painting, music, or writing.

Show me the definition of art and where it says it involves nudity. I will be waiting......

Where the hell did you get the idea we thought art had to have nudity in it? All we said is that paintings/drawings/sculptures with nudity in them are art, not that art has to have nudity in it.

I cant belive this is still going

Thats what i thought! you cant find it in the dictionary can you? I have made my point! it doesnt say anything in dictonary about nudity in art.

Okay guys Im still waiting for a definition.......

*sigh* I don't have to look in the God f***ing dictionary to know that art doesn't have to have nudity in it in order to be art, and you are severely disillusioned about me (and everyone else here, for that matter) if you think I thought "nudity" and "art" are synonomous.

However, I sincerely wish you would just drop this whole thing. It's a ridiculous argument, and sometimes you have to just agree to disagree in cases like this.

Still waiting.....

And no, I'm not going to post a definition of the word "art". I already know what art is, and I know, AS I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY, it is not required that something contain nudity for it to be art. And, once again, I will ask you this: Where in God's name did you get the idea I thought "art=nudity"?

Darth Revan I suggest you calm down. Im not here to irratate you! all im asking is for you to point in the definition of Art where is "nudity" written. That is all! control yourself okay?

Do I really need to tell you again??

I never said that art had to have nudity in it, and I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by telling me I said something I didn't.

*sigh*

I will come back another day. You obviously dont want to have a reasonalbe discussion. pity!

Answer me this, since you clearly aren't getting my point. Why do you need to know the definition of the word "art" if we both know, and agree, on what it is?

The only place where our opinions start to differ is when it comes to nudity in art. We both agree, as you correctly pointed out, that art is basically a medium for conveying ideas, thoughts, emotions, and opinions, through paintings, drawings, sculpture, music, or a number of other things. So why then, do you need to know it? And if you are trying to prove something here, which, by the way, you are failing at, why don't you just post the definition yourself? It's easy, you don't even have to leave the computer. Go to "dictionary.com", type the word in, and it will come up with a definition.

Nudity, even sexual acts* show feelings and thoughts by the artist, created to provoke thoughts in the viewer, from memory and knowledge - not to arouse them sexually. There are songs about sex and there are books that contain sexual scenes (different to pornographic novels).

(*Not allowed in this forum, because of age restrictions, but still considered art...)

Any type of media/art can show basically anything, there is no strict definition or rule for it, that is why its art... it has the freedom of expression..

Again, Im giving this thread another chance. If it goes out of hand, or if any flamming or bashing happens of any sort, I will close the thread.

Im sure we can all have a debate with out being rude to each other, can we not?

I just opened my dictionary and looked up the word 'fruit'
Apples are not mentioned in the definition, I guess they're not fruits

Michaelangelos David is naked

lots of old paintings have nudity in them.


just because the medium has changed from sculpture+painting to film etc doesnt mean art cant contain nudity.

funny...funny...but true detective

oh my god... So true...


FISH: 1. Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills, and a streamlined body

Poor little Nemo isn't in that definition so I guess he's not a fish no2

Oh poor Nemo cry

Seriously now, art, per definition, is "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium".

Soo, human body IS beauty, isn't it? Either through the religious POV, (where God created Adam and Eve to be naked at first, blah blah blah) or through common sense: People are attracted to members of the opposite sex (or the same, whichever you prefer) emotionally AND sexually. Therefore nudity is beauty (most of the times )

Conclusion:
Nudity = Beauty
Art = Beauty

By simple mathematical logic,
Nudity = Art ... (under certain circumstances of course).

Art is NOT nudity, however. 'Tis not going backwards

Bravo!

Im really impressed with that!! Well researched indeed!

Dory won't be able to find him

A fruit is a phisycal object. Art is what is call an idea. some ideas can become rather perverted. So therefore an artist could use art to influence his perversions on the piece. Nudity is art? who made that rule? for me art is to created beauty for everyone to enjoy. Does an artist really need to have nudity to have art? I dont think so!

Obviously art without nudity exist's its every were, so why complain that SOME note the word SOME art has nudity. its clearly not offending anyone else, and not every one here is googleing over naked pics dipicting sex((probably becuase there are not any))

so really there is no reason to fight. this forum is full of art. if you dont like nudity in art, then just dont look at it. and if you dont like argueing with people. dont do it

who is fighting? Im NOT! all Im doing is given my decent opinion. Thats all!

well, do you still feel like "debating"?

This is all about perversion in art
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit6-10-02.asp
WARNING: that link contains some pictures that are a bit nudy.
DO NOT click on it Xenafan!

I shall reiterate main points i picked out from the text for you, so you don't have to view it :


It is usual for most normal people to linger to some extent over the intermediate aim of looking that has a sexual tinge to it; indeed, this offers them a possibility of directing some proportion of their libido on to higher artistic aims. On the other hand, this pleasure in looking becomes a perversion (a) if it is restricted exclusively to the genitals, or (b) if it is connected with the overriding of disgust (as in the case of voyeurs or people who look at excretory functions), or (c) if, instead of being preparatory to the normal sexual aim, it supplants it.
Sigmund Freud, "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," 1905


Perversion was implicit in modern art from the beginning, and remains a vital factor in it today. In fact, one can regard modern art as by and large the history of the representation of perversion. What makes it innovative -- "modern" -- is its perverseness, both in attitude and form. Curiosity about perversion, supposedly the most novel, adventurous sexuality, motivates many modern artists. Certainly some of the most famous, innovative works deal with perversion, more or less openly. They also tend to be structurally perverse, at least by traditional standards. And perverse in method, if automatism is any indication.

Beginning with Manet's Olympia, 1863 (for many the seminal modern picture) and jumping to Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907 (another "breakthough", and then to the dolls that Hans Bellmer made in the 1930s...


It's good to see women artists getting into the exhibitionistic act -- it leaves men off the feminist hook. But the fact of the matter is that the most celebrated voyeuristic work of the 20th century was made by a man.


The emotionally unsettling point of Manet's Olympia is that she's available to turn whatever perverse trick her male customer is willing to pay for -- all the "sensational" perverse tricks, as the big bouquet of different flowers he sent her suggests. She's an instrument of pleasure -- any kind of pleasure -- and her famous stare is less confrontational than matter of fact (one only has to compare her blank face with Mona Lisa's subtle smile to get the point), like her body, passively available for any and every kind sexual activity. That's one aspect of her perversity. The other has to do with her profound indifference, an indication of her emotional banality, not to say emptiness. One can't imagine what her inner life might be, or even if she has any. She's turned off completely. She's not even trying to attune to her customer. She's there only to satisfy his sexual needs, whatever they may be.


For with that difference obliterated, art becomes a perversion masquerading as a philosophical puzzle -- not to say ironical gamble against the odds of non-art -- which is why a good deal of contemporary art is of no interest to anyone except its narcissistic practitioners and aficionados, both persistently perverse and thus retardataire. Everyone else goes to the movies, where looking is openly voyeuristic and fetishizing, to satisfy their perverse impulses.


DONALD KUSPIT, professor of art history and philosophy at SUNY Stony Brook and A.D. White professor at large at Cornell University.

that probably one of the best post's ive ever seen

Hey it's all pasted baby

Well said burlyman!



Oh no! crybaby



Using the exact same logic as you did...

"Some ideas can be perverted. So therefore an artist could use art to influence his perversions on the piece. Landscapes are art? Who made that rule? For me art is to create beauty for everyone to enjoy (BTW I just proved nudity IS beauty... if you disagree on that, you must have never been sexually attracted to anyone ). Does an artist really need to have landscapes to have art? I don't think so"

Also, I assure you many physical objects can be used in a perverted way

Also, I strongly believe that, perversion is NOT "inside" the painting but inside the viewer's mind If somebody looks at a naked woman and all he can do is fantasize, then is that the painting's fault, or the man's? According to you, Xenafan (BTW Xena was a highly enjoyable show... off topic ) nudity should not be exploited in any way.
So, there must be NO nudity in movies, advertisements, magazines, etc. Isn't that censorship? If art (and movies, ads etc) are supposed to represent REALITY, by leaving out nudity it's like implying it's not part of our lives... But it is, and a BIG part as well

Lastly, have you ever heard of this story with the woman and the artist? There was this (male) artist who had drawn a painting that represented a half-naked woman looking herself in the mirror. A general was standing behind her. So, a middle-aged lady was looking at the painting, approaches the artist and says: "This creation is a perversion. This woman is getting undressed for her lover, the general!"
So the artist replies: "Lady, YOU have a perverted mind... This general is her husband and the woman is not getting undressed... She's getting dressed"

I wil reconsider my comments. You seem to be very well learn. your post is not bad. Still, i wish art didnt involve nudity so much. BTW- thanks! Im glad you liked Xena

Awww thankies
Maybe you refer to some certain artist

And yeah that show was cool, same as Hercules

i like your attitude Evy O. You seem to be a very well educated woman. Yes, there are some male artist paintings I dont like but that is just my opinion on them. Thank you! You are a very intelligent woman.

I also love Hercules, for me he is a good looking guy.

I agree with Evy, well done

Nudity is a big part of our lives, I mean after all, we are all born in the nude.
Our bodies are the greatest form of art out there. The complexity of them and all the functions will never be replicated, why be ashamed of them.

Nudity is a large part of our culture today, magazine ads, movies, and television shows all incorporate it into their programs like evy said because sex sells. I mean really, have you seen some of the jean commercials out there? However sex and nudity in art are completely different in my opinion.

Nudity in art is completely different from pornography as stated before, it's the person viewing the piece that changes it, like evy's story, everyone takes things differently, so someone may become aroused by a painting of a naked woman, while someone else may be touched by the beauty and pureness of it.

Have you ever seen the sculpture of Venus De Milo or the other Greek sculptures located in one of world's most famous museums, the Louvre. Are these acceptable, some are not fully nude, however people viewing them may still be aroused. Should we destroy centuries of history because these sculptures are nude?

If you examine art from the early periods alot of it is to do with nudity and the human body, it's who we are as people. Aphrodite, the goddess of love is almost always half naked in paintings of her. So are many other gods portrayed in early art and sculptures.

I love viewing art, and I think that if the day ever comes where art is to be censored to the extreme, where not even a bit of flesh is to be seen, that would probably be the worst thing to happen. As long as it's done tastefully, as seen in some of the greatest works in the art world, it's completely acceptable.

Picture of Venus De Milo for those with no clue: http://www.louvre.fr/louvrea.htm

Aphrodite sculpture: http://www.louvre.fr/louvrea.htm

Be warned they do show some nudity.

And may I ask you, no argument intended but what valid reasons do you have to conclude nudity is not art? question

Sorry for the long post guys

Wow! Impressive post Irene!

notworthy

Thank you, and because of some research that came from it, I have become interested in Greek sculptures

how come that second to last post of Silver reminds me of the Simpsons-episode where Marge protests against Itchy & Scratchy and is pro-David ?

Well I am against harsh violence and all, but I am very firm in my stand against censorship, unless like crimes against humanity, rape, or other such acts are depicted and it's very graphic and grotesque just for the point of making money To me that is wrong, but not nudity

Well said Silver, and I do agree, and I hope we've reached to an agreement with Xenafan as well



Yaaayyy!
Even though these sculptures should belong here, in Greece, cause they were stolen some centuries ago

Well I must say, the ones in the Louvre of the Greek gods are very impressive

Indeed they are But I've never been there

Neither have I sadly, but I browsed their website and looked closely at Greek sculptures when I read that they have Venus De Milo, not to mention the ones of Apollo are very well done too
And Aphrodite

Well, Milos is a Greek island And that was one of the 7 world miracles (dunno if that term is correct, I'm just translating it from Greek )
What site did you visit?

The one for the Louvre I posted up top

Do you mean one of the wonders of the world
Such as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and the Pyramid of Giza?

A bit off topic but the 7 wonders of the world:
- the Great Pyramid of Giza
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/pyramid.gif

- The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/gardens.gif

- The Statue of Zeus at Olympia
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/zeus.gif

- The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/artemis.gif

- The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/mausoleum.gif

- The Colossus of Rhodes
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/colossus.gif

- The Lighthouse of Alexandria
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/Gallery/pharos.gif

well to be a ***** those are the 7 wonders of the Ancient world (still the true 7 wonder of the wolrd, but they also have some new "wonders of the world"

Dont see wha'ts so impressive about the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus

but maybe that's because I have no idea about size and build and such since I only saw those pics

Yeah that's what I meant but I didn't know how that is called in english, lol

Well, Fire, these ARE wonders, considering WHEN they were made.

I find them very magnificent, especially the humongous temples

Im certainly in agreement with your commenst Evy O. I respect you, and due to my respect for you I will drop the subject. I always admire women who are very educated and very intellegient.
if I said something that offended you Evy O, please accept my apologies. You and Storm and also The Omega are 3 women that i hold very high respect for here in the forums.

Of course. Nudity is supposed to be pure beauty, with nothing covering over ur true being

Awww thanks a lot No, you haven't said anything that offended me.
Glad we reached to an agreement and everyone's happy
And you may call me Evy That "O" shouldn't be there

thank you for that Evy
you can call me Dora.
if you like to talk about Xena you are invited to visit my new thread in the tv forum. I consulted with Raz and Tex and both say it was okay. Please visit my thread and we can talk about Xena.

Yeah of course thanks
I was watching Xena for quite a long time