explicit nudes in art

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

explicit nudes in art

Post by HUNTEDvsINVIS »

how do most of you feel about nudity in art? I don't have a problem with it if it is mild, tasteful and "playful", but extremely explicit art irritates me. My art teacher seems to be intent on showing us these more explicit "statements" by artists in class. Today we had juxtaposed close-ups of the male and female reproductive organs, named "The Origin of War" by "Orlan". I have two problems with these artworks. Firstly, I didn't appreciate it much because I felt the work was just relying on the "shock factor" and because it was boring otherwise. I think these types of works rob art of its creativity and in fact falsely pose as art. According to my art philosophy textbook such a work will probably fall under "bad art" and not "no art". Yet, I feel disturbed that examples of bad art should then be exhibited in art classes, and not better works. I think this was my problem today, I was more freaked out by the lack of originality and style than about the nudity. I am also absessed with the idea of population control. I even plan on devoting tons of my own artworks solely to the idea of population control. No, you can not make laws to restrict births, and you shouldn't, but I feel one should try to make people focus on these matters with some interesting and relative works (I plan on sculptures in my case ). I feel people shouldn't be bombarded with nude images the whole time, not in public, because it will brainwash people into thinking about sex etc. the whole time, and then they will ultimately end up spawning more and more kids all over the place, delighting in their natural functions. Am I paranoid? Am I being irrational? Odd? Lame? Hypocritical? I guess I just have a different idea of what art should be, but at the moment it feels like I attend "professional perverts' art classes". I just feel that nude art must be either very mild or if very explicit, then highly original, so that one's mind will be more obsessed with the other aspects of the works. If I want porn I'll happily buy it somewhere, but this mixture of art and explicit, boring nudes revolts me. It's like my lecturers are a happy bunch of pervs who smear off these images on ghasping young students under the banner of "art". Maybe I'm just not sexually liberated enough?

Times like these that I wish I had studied chemistry or maths or something. : )
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Post by Shahrazad »

I agree. Porn should be legal, but passing it on as good art is going too far imo.
.
Tharan
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Tharan »

Am I paranoid? Am I being irrational? Odd? Lame? Hypocritical?
Prude.

You should go to class naked one day. Call it art.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

I'm not sure what the difference is between explicit and non-explicit nudes, but in general one has to consider the intention behind it in particular piece of art.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

That, Dan, would be the difference between explicit and non-explicit.

In any form of art, one must ask what it is trying to say, and the value is in the meaning.

In regards to the original question, it is both about the meaning and the placement. I don't care how benign the message, there are some places that even "tasteful" nude art does not belong - like at an elementary school, or a ward for penile cancer, or breast cancer.
.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Post by HUNTEDvsINVIS »

I will let this thing go, i will grin and bear it, just to save my academic career from further controversy. However, I know my lecturer is a feminist lesbian, and I have fantasies about making a porn movie of myself, holding up banners of "yay for male dominance" and "lesbians might be biological errors" whilst in the act, whilst there is a lone lesbian in chains sitting on a chair and watching. Then I could post her this video, with a big fat title of "THIS IS ONLY ART AND I ONLY HATE LESBIANS FOR FUN". No, I won't make this revenge video, maybe when I have graduated...

Perfect Revenge, and it's just art. If people disrespect religious and moral codes, I can do that, too. I can make anti-lesbian art if I want to.
ExpectantlyIronic
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Post by ExpectantlyIronic »

To be honest, the suggestion that a little bit of nudity in public will turn folks thoughts to sex, and that this will in turn make them seek it out - being unenlightened slaves to their own desires or whatever - makes me wonder if perhaps we don't need more public nudity. What does it say about a person if he/she can't see an unclothed body without then thinking about sex? Can someone be said to have any mastery over their desires if the mere thought of sex is a real threat to their goal of avoiding it (for whatever odd reason someone might want to do so)? Perhaps a study should be done to find out how much more sex art students are having when they are shown nudity in class then when they aren't. Then again, I think we can pretty much guess what the results would be.


HUNTED,

I think the simple fact of the matter is that you don't like the art pieces in question. That's fair enough, but to decry such things as a public nuisance seems a bit extreme. I'm not overly fond of impressionist paintings of nature scenes, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that a blurry picture of some water lilies will drive folks to damage their vision and take nature walks (not that I dislike nature walks, but y'know).
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Ex,

Although you have some degree of a point (a non-burkha-clad but conservativly dressed female (by western standards) is only an automatic turn-on for eastern muslims. Even then, an eastern muslim who travels to the west is able to keep from behaving lewdly.

On the other hand, there are biological drives related to food and sex that are not present in water lillies. If one is trying to lose or even maintain weight, one does not hang posters of beautiful confectionaries around their house (except maybe an anorexic, who may derive pleasure from exerting their will over food).

Art is usually designed to draw one's mind to something. Nudity is usually depicted to draw one's mind to sexuality. As for the behavior of the unenlightened masses, if even Leah's picture of her face as her avatar was able to draw out some really animalistic behavior in male posters of this wisdom-promoting forum, public nudity would likely similarly draw out animalistic behaviors in the public.
.
ExpectantlyIronic
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Post by ExpectantlyIronic »

Elizabeth,
On the other hand, there are biological drives related to food and sex that are not present in water lillies.
I agree. My water lilies comment was something of a joke.
If one is trying to lose or even maintain weight, one does not hang posters of beautiful confectionaries around their house
It's probably impolite to turn on the food channel when you're with a friend who is trying to lose weight, but it doesn't follow that one shouldn't ever turn on that channel in the presence of people.
Art is usually designed to draw one's mind to something. Nudity is usually depicted to draw one's mind to sexuality.
Perhaps. I've always thought that nudity was depicted in art for the purpose of showing the beauty in the human body.
public nudity would likely similarly draw out animalistic behaviors in the public.
I really don't see this. In general, it seems that your typical self-flagellating abstinent Christian is more likely to see sex in everything then your typical sexually liberal secular type. If I was afraid of seeing the color green, I'd be more likely to notice the color of green where it appears then someone who is indifferent to the color. In any case, I'm not really threatened by the thought of people having more sex, so I'm not likely to advocate measures to prevent such things.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Carl G »

A 20 foot bronze set of male genitals set in a public park would be wrong, i.e. counterproductive to society at this time. The same in a private courtyard in a remote location would be a matter of personal taste.

Sex sells. One has only to open any number of popular mainstream magazines aimed at young people (Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, et al) to be bombarded by sexual messages in the form of photographic advertising art.

The semi-nude and suggestive are more potent than the outright explicit. Hence nudist camps and National Geographic spreads of natives generally do not generate sensual excitement.
Good Citizen Carl
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:It's probably impolite to turn on the food channel when you're with a friend who is trying to lose weight, but it doesn't follow that one shouldn't ever turn on that channel in the presence of people.
It has been hypothesized that the weight gain correlations to quantity of television watch was related to the number of commercials for food. Others have noted that the weights of the inhabitants of various parts of America have a positive correlation with the number of fast food establishments avilable. Although in that case, one could reasonably question which was the cause and which was the effect, advertising research has shown that each sighting increases the hold on a person's subconcious.

I would say that it is just as wrong to turn on the food channel in front of just anyone as it would be to turn on the Playboy channel.
.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

I was watching something in December where they took these professional advertisement makers and drove them in a limo to design an advertisement. They then put an envelope on the table with predictions as to what it would look like. they left the room, and what the advertisers came up with was extremely similar to what was in the envelope. It was things they passed along the way that went unnoticed - almost every detail of it got used. What is around us has a profound impact on our thoughts... more so than we realize.
-Katy
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:
public nudity would likely similarly draw out animalistic behaviors in the public.
I really don't see this. In general, it seems that your typical self-flagellating abstinent Christian is more likely to see sex in everything then your typical sexually liberal secular type.
In another thread
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Perhaps there is a difference in that if people are getting enough sex and they do not have some over-sexual abherrition, or they actually do not want sex, it is not a problem. What I gather is that it becomes a problem when sexuality is unnaturally repressed. This has been theorized by psychologists to probably the core of the problem in the Catholic Church with priests who are so frequently caught masterbating in public parks or taking advantage of young boys. Even Kevin has said that wisdom leads to a relief of worldly desires, and that it is counter-productive to repress and deny one's personal truth of where they really are.
So yes, I agree with you on that exact point, but where it is to be displayed is another matter. Categorization is beneficial to society to some extent as well so that people have clear places to go for what they are looking for at the time. Even super-Wal-Marts have an automotive section separate form the food section rather than putting quarts of motor oil next to quarts of milk. Also, people should be aware of the customs of a particular area. For example, one should not expect to find pornographic pictures on GF any more than they should expect to find a hamburger in India.
.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:I will let this thing go, i will grin and bear it, just to save my academic career from further controversy. However, I know my lecturer is a feminist lesbian, and I have fantasies about making a porn movie of myself, holding up banners of "yay for male dominance" and "lesbians might be biological errors" whilst in the act, whilst there is a lone lesbian in chains sitting on a chair and watching. Then I could post her this video, with a big fat title of "THIS IS ONLY ART AND I ONLY HATE LESBIANS FOR FUN". No, I won't make this revenge video, maybe when I have graduated...

Perfect Revenge, and it's just art. If people disrespect religious and moral codes, I can do that, too. I can make anti-lesbian art if I want to.
I apologize for not responding to this sooner, but I had to think about how to best respond to this. I have decided that I will make a post on a separate thread about revenge (I'm still working on how to phrase that one), but for now, I will just ask why you are expressing hatred of lesbians. Is it just a way to emotionally attack your teacher in retalliation of the emotional pain you felt about the nudity that you are required to study in her class?
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:In regards to the original question, it is both about the meaning and the placement. I don't care how benign the message, there are some places that even "tasteful" nude art does not belong - like at an elementary school, or a ward for penile cancer, or breast cancer.
Just out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for not wanting such art in elementary schools?
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Even with what might be considered tasteful nude art, the first thing that came to mind was that studies have shown that little boys who see an adult male penis are very likely to develop a life-long inferiority complex about the size of their own penis. To a child, even a standard size penis is going to look huge because their perspective is different, and the memory that remains will be of the childhood perception rather than the reality.

As for actual pornographic material (penis exposure aside), children who even accidentally see adults performing intercourse, it is an act of violence. They will react emotionally as if they had seen a brutal beating. I suspect that pornographic pictures would similarly evoke a reaction as if they saw pictures of violence. I have not seen studies on this though, and doubt such studies currently exist.
.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Even with what might be considered tasteful nude art, the first thing that came to mind was that studies have shown that little boys who see an adult male penis are very likely to develop a life-long inferiority complex about the size of their own penis. To a child, even a standard size penis is going to look huge because their perspective is different, and the memory that remains will be of the childhood perception rather than the reality.
So, Dad's should never let their sons see them naked? Elementary kids should never be allowed anywhere near an art gallery or statues? I'm just thinking out loud here....
As for actual pornographic material (penis exposure aside),
It might just be me, but I've never included penile pics in my own notion of tasteful nude art. Probably because I'm a guy.
children who even accidentally see adults performing intercourse, it is an act of violence.
That can often be the perception children get yes, but I'm not sure that is relevant to the point at hand.
They will react emotionally as if they had seen a brutal beating. I suspect that pornographic pictures would similarly evoke a reaction as if they saw pictures of violence. I have not seen studies on this though, and doubt such studies currently exist.
Ok, I don't disagree with that, but you've taken the point a step beyond where we were I reckon. We weren't talking about pornography.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Even with what might be considered tasteful nude art, the first thing that came to mind was that studies have shown that little boys who see an adult male penis are very likely to develop a life-long inferiority complex about the size of their own penis. To a child, even a standard size penis is going to look huge because their perspective is different, and the memory that remains will be of the childhood perception rather than the reality.
So, Dad's should never let their sons see them naked? Elementary kids should never be allowed anywhere near an art gallery or statues? I'm just thinking out loud here....
That's the interpretation I get. And if you're wondering how to teach a son how to pee in the toilet, ask how so many single mothers manage to teach that without a penis to demonstrate with.
As for actual pornographic material (penis exposure aside),
It might just be me, but I've never included penile pics in my own notion of tasteful nude art. Probably because I'm a guy.
I'm going on the theoretical notion that there is such thing as tasteful nude art (kind of along the lines of Matt's argument about unicorns and God). If there is any such thing as tasteful art of nude females, there would equally be tasteful nude art of males.

The closest things I can think of are for medical or anthropological purposes, but the medical pictures at least could arguably not be considered "art."
you've taken the point a step beyond where we were I reckon. We weren't talking about pornography.
I wasn't sure, but I just wanted to make sure the bases were covered.
.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Post by HUNTEDvsINVIS »

Hi! Oh, no, don't worry, lesbians are great, lots of my friends are lesbians, and I am fine with that. I guess it was just a way of trying to hurt the lecturer's feelings. Now I know I seem cruel and evil in desiring to return the favor, but I think the women deserves a taste of her own medicine. The least she can do is warn us before showing any explicit works. What next? Showing us educational videos of people getting raped or going to the loo? Where to draw the line?

I actually had a discussion with a friend yesterday about "what art is". This friend told me that art can be just about anything, like, say, your kettle and your toast and your shoes etc. I am not a moron, of course, and I am familiar with the destruction of the borders of what art is. I don't deny that a pair of shoes or an egg-shell can carry a profound message once in a while, but this friend took things too far- if everything is art then everyone is not only artists but professional artists in my friend's eyes. I will not elaborate on the touchy subject of this person's I.Q. But, my point is or course that professional artists are cases of extreme originality who entertain us with more that toast or shoes. People grew bored with ordinary artifacts probably early in the stone age.

Anyway, I would never personally make anti-lesbian art, I am one of the more controversial characters of society so I sympathise with their differences. You can be Cindy Crawford or a hunchback, and I will treat each one the same. However, I have no time for criminals or paedophiles.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:This friend told me that art can be just about anything
There was a thread not long ago where I mentioned that in a college class, a guest speaker went on dreadfully long about how faeces are the only pieces of artwork that are entirly created by the artist. You can guess what I thought his lecture was full of, but what really amazed me was that I was the only one in class who disagreed about faeces being art.

The guy I was posting with did not believe me, but a few days later he posted again and mentioned that a friend of his was taught the same thing in an art class. You asked "What's next?" You have been forewarned...
.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Post by HUNTEDvsINVIS »

Well, if the majority of people can even accept such rubbish, then they deserve such rubbish ( and the stench that goes with it ). Good luck to them.

Yes, I should definitely have studied chemistry instead...However, the current situation requires that I must play the fool. I will treat the whole business as one big and happy comedy.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Carl G »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Dan: So, Dad's should never let their sons see them naked? Elementary kids should never be allowed anywhere near an art gallery or statues? I'm just thinking out loud here....

Elizabeth: That's the interpretation I get. And if you're wondering how to teach a son how to pee in the toilet, ask how so many single mothers manage to teach that without a penis to demonstrate with.
With a carrot?

I think a total moratorium on nude images for kids is foolish. It is unnecessary, a Puritan ethic cultural choice which surely increases natural curiousities into the kind of purient interest with which Madison Avenue later makes commercial hay.

On one hand you have adolescents allowed to wear makeup, jewelry, tight pants and colored hair to school, and on the other a case is being made for withholding images of classical statuary such as Michaelangelo's David, and Venus and Cassandra.
Good Citizen Carl
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

I expect you were being silly about teaching sons to pee with a carrot. You just verbally instruct them.

I don't think the same people are advocating that Michaelangelo's David not be taught to second graders (what would they learn from it at that age anyway?) and advocating that teenage girls should wear tight pants, at least not on this forum.

And actually some public high schools are requiring uniforms to cut down on gang activities and because some studies showed that students in uniform performed better than students wearing street clothes. Even the schools not requiring uniforms have dress codes that keep down the distracting clothing, but they do allow things that are herdly in society such as make-up and jewelry. As for the colored hair, I think that's a matter of picking one's battles. The best way to confront those things anyway is by prompting the individual to think these things through on their own.
.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory »

I think uniforms in school are a great idea. It seems more honest to make people look like sheep when they are being trained as such.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Matt Gregory wrote:I think uniforms in school are a great idea. It seems more honest to make people look like sheep when they are being trained as such.
There's actually fairly good arguments both ways for school uniforms. In a world where parents were saner and had actual time and inclination for parenting, we wouldn't need them. But we don't live in such a world.

But your point is taken. I guess it's a bit of a toss of the coin as to whether society is better off with badly educated individuals or well educated sheep.
Locked