i never really got what was wrong with nudity in art but i sometiems hear alot of people aginst it... i think that the human body is beautiful itself... but i hear some people that say that nudity in art is just pornography... so i just want to hear what you think... is it beauty or pornographic?
2006-08-10 18:17:03 · 19 answers · asked by Dont get Infected 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
if theres a difference between nudity and art what about those old statues.. like michelangelo's david, and the venus de milo... you come and tell me thats not art
2006-08-10 18:28:03 · update #1
Spadesboffin.... im not talking about ur land lady...
2006-08-10 18:31:07 · update #2
I am an artist, and I feel all creations are a work of art. We are the only creation that chooses to hide from it's true beauty...so, I think that makes us ashamed, maybe even blind.
Art is beauty, just take a look back in the centuries gone by, all male and female statues are nude(even the cherubs are nude ). They had no shame, they had a true understanding of beauty and grace!!
Leave it to modern man to misconstrue everything and make it all ugly and sinful and vile......It makes me sad.
I'm sure there's more out there who feel the same way, but they're to scared to speak up, or maybe I should be saying to ASHAMED to voice the truth , why be a lone shark when you can run with the pack ??!!!
2006-08-10 18:41:52 · answer #1 · answered by Torri * 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pornography exists mostly in the mind of the viewer. A sculpture or painting of the sexual act need not be in itself pornographic. Nudity merely reveals the beauty of the human animal. As a painter the loveliest nudes I ever painted were (a) a much-decayed former weight-lifter and (b) a very old lady - both with falling folds of flesh like drapery. And (c) a series following a woman through her pregnancy. The only thing wrong with any of them was I could not do justice to the beauty I saw. I pity the prudes, poor sods.
2006-08-11 02:09:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say it is pornography art, there is kind of art exist right now that happen before. After all, pornography also play a role of art in oil painting, according to art contemporary history book. These kind of nudity is a privacy in real life that we are humans, except if it is a job to be a model.
It's a sensitive topic that we grow up to wear clothes all the time, and it is because of different genders can feel the hormones of intimacy was rushing that sometimes make some people feel uncomfortable, or others enjoyed. So it named as pornograhic art, because there is ratings of censore only allowed for mature audiences with sexual warnings.
Few people liked to be naked model when they have been paid, as it is a job has been exposed through centuries. However, I'm not, because I heard of this pornography art before, it has been once mentioned once in art history.
I did paint one nude in art diploma class with classmates as it is requirements. It did give me a real shock afterwards, even I know about it!
2006-08-11 01:53:37 · answer #3 · answered by Eve W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You might say there's really something wrong about nudity in art, but it's true, there is nudity in art, but it's just made something wrong for reasons of conservatism. The old people are the first ones who would really be against nudity in art because it's undeniable that before, people see women or men who are naked as prostitutes, therefore they are considered disgrace. But I believe so, that's just the wrong part with nudity in art, PEOPLE who say they're against nudity. Mind you, just wait for a couple of decades, this assumption would eventually disappear. I say, if someone says it's art, then it must be beautiful. If not, it's just plain pornography. Just a note: If it would disappear, can you imagine what kind of world we'll be living?
2006-08-11 01:41:09 · answer #4 · answered by agent 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only reason why people who say that nudity in art is pornographic is because they're too immature to realize that they are aroused when they see this sort of thing. That's why it seems like pornography to them.
I actually don't have an opinion on nudity in art, believe it or not.
2006-08-11 01:25:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's beauty- the human body is amazingly beautiful.
There is difference between pornography and art- if the sole purpose is quick sexual pleasure,without any aesthetic value, then I'd call it pornography.
However, only complete prudes can say that David is pornography.
2006-08-11 01:26:49 · answer #6 · answered by jimbell 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think nudity dosnt bother, but it really represent the ART n the concept of the Artist.
C O O L
2006-08-11 03:29:00 · answer #7 · answered by fayub 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there's anything wrong with nudity period. I think the human body is a work of art.
2006-08-11 02:06:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is definitely a difference between nudity and art.
2006-08-11 01:22:40 · answer #9 · answered by Jen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say art is nudity and happieness is to be truly free. One time i was working at a house and this lady paid me to work naked. I thought it was perfectly fine. Because she asked me. i got a $600.00 dollar tip. Now thats art.
2006-08-11 01:42:41 · answer #10 · answered by David R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋