Do you consider nudity in art to be "real" 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!!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
😂 Id just like to point out the results of the poll so far!!

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 😛

😑 😄 😛

Originally posted by burlyman
Who voted No? 😕

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! 😛

Originally posted by BakaXero
so i guessed wrong
so sue me

Originally posted by Xena fan
Of course NOT! Male artist only seek to exploit the Female body!

that was my OPINION back then! stop flamming!

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
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

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.