*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.
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?
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...)
__________________
Last edited by furryman on Mar 19th, 2004 at 09:02 AM
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..
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
__________________
shallow me, then spit me out
for hating you I blame myself
seeing you it kills me now
no, I don't cry on the outside anymore...
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
KMC Community Forums
Mar 19th, 2004 04:47 AM
funny...funny...but true 
)
Well researched indeed! 
