# "artistic nude" please, stop showing me tits and telling me it's art.



## Mouse (Aug 18, 2009)

ok, this is probably not going to make sense to most of you because it's one of my photo-nerd rants about art related things that bother me but I had to see if anyone agreed.

ok, so I'm looking online at galleries and I keep coming across these peopel doing photography and their pictures are good, great even, but the subject matter is what really irks me.

here's a good example lorelix04's deviantART gallery

ok, these images are really well composed and finished for the most part BUT.. when will people learn that taking pretty pictures of pretty people in sultry poses with vacant stares half naked in the half dark... it's SO FUCKING BORING.

these images mean NOTHING. they convey no feeling. they make no point. they show nothing mentally stimulating.

the "artful nude" needs to die. 

if I want soft-core "artistic" whacking material I'll get a suicide girls account (that's a whoel other bag of bullshit worms right there... but that's a whole 'nother rant)

the female body is great and all, but I'm pretty sure we get the point already. chicks are sexy and they need to always look sexy otherwise there's no use for them. 

come on baby, stare blanky into my uninterested soul and turn me "eh"


----------



## connerR (Aug 18, 2009)

I think that the body is art in itself. I don't think some of those have to convey any particular theme. They just look pleasant.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 18, 2009)

"they just look pleasant"

it's comments like that that make me hate art. and my resitance to those types of half-assed ideas that made my high school art teacher hate my gutts. 

and they DO convey a theme. they are very consitantly the same, all of them. the entire gallery is the same shit over and over and over. AND it's also the same shit that's been already done over and over and over.

and yes, the body is art itself. So stop violating the copyright and try something original


----------



## genghis braun (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't mind seeing "artistic nude" photos of people if something truly artistic and creative has been done to thier body-not just a bunch of tattoos. I saw some work by a photographer who posed tiny toys on people's bodies in really creative and funny ways.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 18, 2009)

yeah, sometimes someone can do something interesting with the same old trick but I still think, as a rule, the artistic nude needs to be put to bed.


----------



## connerR (Aug 18, 2009)

What's wrong with something "just looking pleasant"? Must everything have some sort of profound, higher level message to it? 

I hate "art", too, though, because it seems too predicated on the placard beneath it.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 18, 2009)

things that "just look pleasant" are for doctors offices and your grandma's kitchen.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 18, 2009)

exactly. 

and people like to convince themselves Suicide Girls is so edgy and empowering. it's all bullshit. 

I will grant nofauxxx.com the honor of being exempt from the jack-ass porn fakers, they actually do compelling work for the sake of naughty pictures.


----------



## dirty_rotten_squatter (Aug 18, 2009)

O.K I'll agree with you on the suicide girls thing, being that you HAVE to fit a criteria in order to be one and that in my opinion isn't art, nor is it fair. But the "artstic nude" pictues have various art forms in it.. the model, in most of these cases, are not the artist just a prop. It is the photographer who sets the pose who sets the perfect amount of lighting to convey somtimes an emotion or yes to pretty up the picture. You know, there are guy artistic nudes out there too. For the record I sit to pee, I hate it when it splashes up all over the place when I stand.


----------



## drun_ken (Aug 18, 2009)

my favorite is... Deeper Valley ....i like it better than... Art or Porn - You decide ....deeper valley has some really awsome shots seriously...its not all just like im half naked in front of a broken window over and over again...art or porn is fun cuz ya get both....and i do love my porn....oh yeah i love art to


----------



## Gudj (Aug 18, 2009)

I am under the impression that having a nude person (especially a female bodied person) as subject matter for a photograph had a similar purpose as having a nude model to draw or paint. Human bodies are uniquely challenging to paint, beautiful, and easy to come across. I figure that using nude models for photography is just an extension of that: super interesting lines and features, a near universal appreciation for the form, and easy to acquire. 

That being said, photographers who just use nude female-bodies as subject matter because it's like, tried and true and therefore self-validating, are stupid and not really bringing anything new. Also, even worse are people who use bodies because they think that they will get really cheap appreciation for their 'art' by having a hot girl as a subject. Fuck those people. 

So, I guess that I see how nude-models are useful and overall a good idea for practicing fine art skills, however just using them for subject matter because it's a default, or because it might up your horny adolescent fanbase is fucking stupid.

Oh, and I am a male and art-model.


----------



## connerR (Aug 18, 2009)

Mouse said:


> things that "just look pleasant" are for doctors offices and your grandma's kitchen.



I don't think so. The museums I've been to are lined with paintings or sculptures that just _look good_, even if they're cliche or overdone or lacking complexity. The art that I like appeals to me because it looks good (or pleasant or cool or nice or whatever word fits at the time). But maybe that's just me? Perhaps I'm missing the crux of fine art?

Art is like politics, it's different for everyone. In the case of the OP, I could look at well composed artistic nudes for a while and I doubt I'd get bored. But its something that I like to look at. 

And for the record, my grandmother has old Asian artwork in her kitchen and a Salvador Dali print in another part of the house.


----------



## Gypsybones (Aug 18, 2009)

ok I agree with you on "looking at it from an artists perspective" nude art being over done . As a photo guy myself; I tend to steer away from something I other wise love, for the sake of avoiding repetition.

Now the female body has been painted, drawn, photographed, carved, ect ect ect... more than any other one subject in any medium of art in history. Why?
because humans make art, a large majority of them men, (even though both sexes do women) and the most pleasing shape/ line to the human eye is the s curve or just curvs . 
for example with one strait line you can make 3 basic shapes with it, strait, bent/ hard line with sharp angels, or a curve. 
the curve or s lets the eye follow smoothly and easily with the line, making it seam soft 
and beautiful, natural. (because strait lines do not appear in nature there for the most pleasing is the most like nature its self) 

so in conclusion; humans make art with human subjects, famous art world historically dominated by men, women opiate of mans eye / female body beautiful and curvy, s curve most ascetically pleasing to eye. 

so its no surprise female models/ curvy s shape, get payed more than men blocky square tougher rather than softer.


----------



## Gypsybones (Aug 18, 2009)

oh and since no one has said anything; that first girl on the DA link, had one fantastic ass. 





just putting it out there since so many of yall were thinking that.  
Tequila Sunrise. by =lorelix04 on deviantART I mean really?! WOW


----------



## Mouse (Aug 19, 2009)

ha.. see... it's a total distraction as well. ^^

----------------------------------------------------------

let me phrase my idea a lil differently... even the most politcal and meaningful art can become pointless as well. I'm sure when the person who penned the uncle same "I want you" posters created a massive impact on peoples psyche, but now does it even make you bat an eyelash? No, because you've seen it 80000000000000 times and it's dead.

Same goes for the artistic nude. 

I agree with what Gudj said about using the body as a form of study to learn to draw, paint, and as a bases for future creations.. but keeping with the human form as an all consuming subject matter needs to STOP. practice your figure drawing, doodle some boobies and get it outta your system, and MOVE ON. Cars have nice curvy lines as well, but is it ok to only draw and photograph cars for the rest of your days and call that art? nah.

if someone wants to take a sexy portrait for someone, that's cool. everyone wants to have a nice picture taken of them. but to market that as an actual piece of art, puhlease. it's a portrait of a model. That's it.


----------



## dirty_rotten_squatter (Aug 19, 2009)

Well, that can be said with all pictures..its just a picture of a sunset, flower, fruit bowl, landscape. I think in order to see it as an art, you have to appreciate it as an artist and not "pleasure" There are people out there that can actually look at a nude art photo and not get distracted or aroused, and view it for what it really is, despite what anyone thinks.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 19, 2009)

connerR said:


> I don't think so. The museums I've been to are lined with paintings or sculptures that just _look good_, even if they're cliche or overdone or lacking complexity.



i can't really agree with taht statment. nude sculputers from ancient greece were made to represent the gods and goddesses, nudes were used in paintings to show different aspects of life, fertility, death, ect. not just as an excuse to make a naked statue or paint a dirt picture, the human form can be used to have prfound meaning and can be made complex and daring and a gallery currartor, if they are worth their weight in shit, knows this. granted, soem galleries are set out only to make money, but I wont include these. I'm refering to legit art institutions like the MOMA or BMA.


----------



## Gypsybones (Aug 19, 2009)

well really all art has almost been done to death, thats why we get so much crazy shit out of modern abstractors. now you've seen lots of paint splatter pieces *lame but, there was only ever one first paint splattor. like Thomas Hart Benton said "abstract art (painting) is for people that never learned how to drawl." 

do you agree with that? or is it something more that your objecting to? I personaly dont do it cause I have more interesting subject matter to tackle, but, it is still art.
some may see smut but others see more. 

like the difference between playboy and hustler; they are both smut but one is smut will a little class. (or strip clubs and burlesque.) ether way, semantics.


----------



## wartomods (Aug 19, 2009)

I kinda like it, ahahah


----------



## finn (Aug 20, 2009)

Maybe it is all actually neo-dadaism, just with boobs instead of hardware parts! Sorry, used to be an art nerd.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 20, 2009)

^^ hahahah good one. (art nerd too)at least dadaism was a movement where anything goes. the stuff I'm refering to all looks the same, redundant junk art. 

yes, all art has been done t death, but I'm not talking about all art. I'm ranting about one thing that annoys me 

and I'm not refering to the nude as by definition smut... I'm saying half-asses candy coated smut being passed off as art get's on my nerves.


----------



## Gypsybones (Aug 20, 2009)

hey tomato tomato potato Irish same thing :deadhorse:


----------



## jabbyscabby (Aug 21, 2009)

I totally agree with you!!! It's boring. .... We have seen this before....
Plus we constantly see half naked chicks with perfect bodys all the time!!! I Want to see some real women!!! I want to see some reason and soul in the art.


----------



## IBRRHOBO (Aug 21, 2009)

i like ur point-of-view heavens_fall. not very often i make a comment like that. as to the ass i'd give it a c+, but i was in the navy. with that said, i am curious what the 'art' community should do and i use that term VERY loosely. i mean should they go ahead and say, "well'p, no more calling naked chix art,"; i rather doubt this would/could occur coming from the same community (and this doesn't imply you do or don't subscribe to the community as a whole) that took the NEA funds to post the virgin mary in shit or whatever it was (and i don't have an opinion good or bad there either as i'm a jew; it's an observation). i mean 'art', if you will, is spoon fed to the public by these people on high telling us what we should like and/or dislike. i think that's a rather dangerous proposition. i too feel abstract renditions are bullshit, but hey i'm not an 'artist'. back on point, so do we censer naked/emo/[fill in the pc term here] women or what?


----------



## Gypsybones (Aug 28, 2009)

the art community should keep on truck'n.
one mans work of art is anothers eye sore, and as so it makes bitching about anothers idea of art frivolous.
like cesar said "you can't argue with taste".

and as for censorship, Never!


----------



## dirtyfacedan (Aug 28, 2009)

First of all, i would like to say, my idea of beautiful people is a lot different than most people...especially what i think a nice looking girl is...i'm hetro, and don't like what most guys like. My idea of a beautiful woman is not what most folks would think. Second..my father is a sculptor, and primarily sculpts the naked human form. He does a lot of youth, and a lot of women. While my ideals of what preferences might be are very different than his, i like the art...i like the beauty of nakedness, the beauty of innocence, and the art of the sculpted forms themselves. His art has nothing to do with sex, or manipulative tendencies. It does have to do with love, and appreciation, while still maintaining respect, honesty, and dignity. Not all Human form is without taste, and fucking garbage. Just most of it in our media whore mainstream pop culture is.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 29, 2009)

I never mentioned a word about censorship. people can, and better, make what they want. I just beg that they get some brain cells and stop making stupid shit like what you find under than link. TRY HARDER


----------



## drun_ken (Aug 30, 2009)

thats a tit and i would consider this artistic....no its not my tit or my photo....


----------



## drun_ken (Aug 30, 2009)

oh wait thats what ya told me not ta do...damit naver been good at following directions....


----------



## drun_ken (Aug 30, 2009)

it kinda makes me think it should be a stamp....oh wait it made me think...doesn't that make it art?


----------



## Mouse (Aug 31, 2009)

that one's kinda interesting. it makes me think more about what's going on rather than nothing at all. it's not some hyper sexed nude and it's not trying to be sexy.. it's just real. 

still not to my personal taste but whatever.


----------



## drunken marauder (Aug 31, 2009)

Hmm see I just clicked on this link hoping for a bunch of dirty girls that wanted to be a part of my disposable camera art craze.. I swear I'll pay you when the book sells just get nekkid....


----------



## ashley (Oct 12, 2009)

I just the thread title and laughed. Jeez, have you seen Vice Magazine or anything that they have at american apparel. I can be an artist if i pose really awkardly, while doing something random while being topless.


----------



## mkirby (Oct 12, 2009)

Here's an idea....let's roll a bunch of squatter around in the mud and take pictures. I'd consider it art.


----------



## finn (Oct 12, 2009)

Some of my friends wanted to get Brodie to do pornography for them for a site that was to be named "ride me dirtyface." You know, for those people with a crusty trainhopping fetish... which I guess wouldn't be anyone with money... It was a hilarious attempt though!


----------



## mkirby (Oct 13, 2009)

Yeah. The whole target audience for crust punk porn is broke as fuck, so I doubt it'd be the most lucrative enterprise...although they do always manage to find cash for shows and 40s...


----------



## hartage (Oct 13, 2009)

Mouse said:


> I never mentioned a word about censorship. people can, and better, make what they want. I just beg that they get some brain cells and stop making stupid shit like what you find under than link. TRY HARDER




Try harder ? Have you ever thought that maybe they are ? Try as any artist might, not every piece is going to make everyone say WOW !

I don't think I've ever met an artist that would think....... "Hmm, today I'll make some underwhelming, emotionless piece." Shit just happens, not everything will be spectacular.


----------



## lobotomy3yes (Nov 13, 2009)

To be clear, art is whatever. I can't really say "this isn't artistic!" about something because that kind of defies the point. Some things are art to some people and a load of shit to other people.

That being said, I dislike nude art for a variety of reasons. My biggest problems with nude art are the sexism and humanism that are so ingrained in its history. I can't really speak on sexism in the nude art of ancient Greece because it is a bit less clear. However, during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment the intentions of nude art were blatantly sexist. I don't want to write a novel, but here is the down-low. Nude art reinforced gender roles and ideas about female beauty. This really becomes clear once you read up on mind-dualism and sexism. I know, the two sound totally unrelated, but the connection is there. I would recommend reading Bordeau's theory about mind-body dualism being sexist if want to understand this better. The idea is that everything about women is related to the body and physical things. Women are supposed to be beautiful, sensual, fallible, corruptible, etc. Nude art from those times portrays women in this light. This idea really shines through when you consider the religious and philosophical views of the time, which were strongly influenced by mind-body dualism. Women are supposed to look pretty, and we are supposed to marvel at this beauty portrayed in nude art. Leave the "thinking" to the men.

As for modern nude art, it is pretty much the same story without the mind-body dualism. Nude art almost always reinforces societal notions of what women are supposed to be: playthings for men. Sure, we can obscure this fact by calling it art, but the intentions are clear. Women are something to be oogled over. 

Lastly, I cannot stand the humanism in nude art. The idea that we should marvel at the sight of a human body is ludicrous to me. It elevates humans to place that they should never be. Humanist attitude has led to countless atrocities and grievances not only against nonhuman life, but to other humans too! The humanistic man knows he is better than the rest, and he is supposed to use his better judgment for the good of society, regardless of what other "common men" might think. Essentially, the intelligent elite know all. Rather than seeing the human body as simply an occurrence of nature, nude art encourages us to place it on a pedestal. Yes, the human body is amazing, but nude art does not show that. You are only seeing the skin-deep persona that you more or less see every day. To me at least, the real beauty of the human body is in the mechanics. This is why nude art does not impress those who are not infatuated with the human body. If the body is shown "naturally", we would not think much of it. Who calls nude pictures from a disposable camera art? The body must be elevated in order to impress people. If you are not fooled by the elevation, then of course nude art is boring. 


Now these ideas are not meant to be taken as absolutes. Think of them as trends. There are always exceptions, and correlation does not prove causality. I apologize if this is a bit confusing and drawn out. My mind is scattered at the moment, and I am sure I left important stuff out. Please point that shit out to me so I can explain further.


----------



## connerR (Nov 13, 2009)

I never really looked at Renaissance nudes with any thoughts of sexism, but that's because I *do* think that the human body is beautiful. 

I think the human body is incredibly interesting outside of an artistic sense. It's architecturally, biographically, and emotionally a very complex machine. Take the golden ratio for instance: Human Face

To me, nude art demonstrates perhaps the only perfect part of the human: the outside.


----------



## Rstank (Nov 30, 2009)

if she wants to throw herself half naked all over a bedroom and call it art...its fine by me im just not going to look at it.....i believe art is what you make of it...and if its going to be half naked women tossing themselves around a crummy bedroom i dont want to partake.....mainly because its aim in my oppinion is sexual arrousal which i belive is something used and reused through art as a cheap trick.....hungry eyes will look they will devour the image over and over again which is its point......i dont want to gaze at the image to turn people to sex hungry fiends...this is down a road which i will not follow


----------



## Rstank (Nov 30, 2009)

Mouse said:


> ok, this is probably not going to make sense to most of you because it's one of my photo-nerd rants about art related things that bother me but I had to see if anyone agreed.
> 
> ok, so I'm looking online at galleries and I keep coming across these peopel doing photography and their pictures are good, great even, but the subject matter is what really irks me.
> 
> ...



i whole heartedly agree the only "point" in these are getting pimpley faced preteens off......no artistic means have been reached beautiful shots but subject matter is lacking an existence that is seen .......these are vacant stares into blank clean lenses to achieve NOTHING to say NOTHING a meandering only known by the copy and paste generation the online duality the online ego......"this is likes totally hawt!" a stroke of ones ego fantasies of being the object of desire want want need need ...... im sure she is fine with pasteing her body everywhere and im sure there are many that will have no problem with looking.....but all it is in the end is a parade of the self worth and the self it turns every person on the other side of the key board 

:zombie: "HAWT!" :mummy: "NICE ASS!"


----------



## Mouse (Jan 13, 2010)

how did this thread end up in the sex and relationships section?

it's about art, not sex...

and definitely not relationships.


----------



## Gudj (Jan 13, 2010)

How did this post end up in the wastebin is another good question.


----------



## dirtyfacedan (Jan 14, 2010)

This thread needs more tits.


----------



## hippiecrust (Jan 14, 2010)

respect nude artsy photos but theses pictures are indeed a crock of shit... horrible , un-inventive , and just worthless. they do not amuse me at all. i agree with ur statements completely.... and as for suicide girls hahahah what should i say but i dentally dont have an account


----------



## boucaneer (Jan 14, 2010)

i think crass aid it best, when they wrote,

"your tactile eyes is running over glossy paper,
printed on with tactile lies of glaze and guaze,
they say "forget yourself,adorn with this disguise."
this womanhood of smooth and tampered whores.
let me warn you of their cold sensitiviy,
they'll have you gathered in a trap of glass,
is your reflection all that you will reconise,
that cruel lie will stare you in the face,
wrapped up in the flow of haze and bridal gown,
they tell your lover he must hold a gun,
your the pornographic reasurance he's a man,
they deal with flesh, incarsanate with rags,
red lips, shimmer silk and body bags,
hairless legs against the blistered napalm burns,
i want to watch the substance of your downy hair,
in that midst a gutted child fights for air.

from "poison in a pretty pill."

i grew up with crass and was quite lucky to have them living down the road from me. i dont know where i would be without them, 

good for the soul.


----------



## anywhere_but_here (Jan 14, 2010)

It would be artistic if they had their tits painted different colors or maybe paint a van gough aross each breast. i dunno


----------

