No, I wouldn't pose nude. I am too modest. I have painted and drawn nudes in the classroom before, though.
As to your other question: If we are talking about the original Playboy nude photos where Hugh Hefner had complete artistic control, the only difference is the medium. I've seen Hugh in many interviews and (no matter what the conservative public may think) he honestly was interested in portraying the human form in its best light. Nowadays, well....... the purity has been corrupted.
2007-10-03 04:16:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by artistagent116 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well I am a naturist nudist and believe in Nudity is Freedom and have been naked in public many times in many places where being nude is appropriate like at nude beaches, resorts ect... If and when I do go again to my favorite places My wifey will be at my side and WE will both experience body Freedom together as Mr & Mrs NIF But I could not see myself posing for a magazine I am no hunk or have the body for that just and ordinary guy ...
2016-05-19 21:28:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
play boy nude is just a legalised way of presenting pornography to people, including youngsters whereas
a Modigliani or a Sickert nudes are capturing beauty in a natural not full-on way and for artistic purposes....
and yes, i would pose in the nude but only for someone i am in a relationship with.. lol
2007-10-02 22:02:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Est passé de velours ♥Rose♥ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I got paid enough or really needed the money I might....for fine arts though, never for porn.
In my definition the diff. between porn (Playboy) and "fine art" (Hitchcock) is intention. If I am painting this nude figure to educate myself on proper porportions and that sort of thing or if I am doing it as part of a statement it's art. If I am doing it soley to arouse somebody it's porn. The rest is a question of your own personal morals and tastes.
2007-10-02 23:29:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by pspoptart 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would have said never a year ago but six months ago I started work as a life model for artists. I was utterly terrified but I really enjoy it now. They don't see you in a sexual way but rather as a series of lines and curves, light and shadow and it has been very liberating for me; there was nothing I was more scared of than that as I have scars and flab. Now, I think, I am a lot more confident and with my other "real" job I feel much more in control and believe in myself more; effectively, if I could do what scared and upset me most, I could do anything. It's actually rather a beautiful experience; one becomes vulnerable and open.
2007-10-02 22:16:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Vivienne T 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
If someone wanted to paint me unclothed, they would be getting desperate or wanting to use me as a dreadful warning - this is what 70 looks like!
Not sure I could sit still long enough - the bladder ain't what it was (!) - but if there was a need, I'd have a go.
Been naked in front of so many people in my lifetime that I don't care anymore.
2007-10-02 22:59:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Veronica Alicia 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
For fine arts, I definately would. I used to take life drawing classes and I know by experience that it's fine, and there's no pervertion in it.
2007-10-03 00:24:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by LZ 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes I have had to strip for a camera due to a lost bet
2015-08-14 07:39:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by tomdillard@ymail.com 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
no, never!!! aside from the fact that it is against my religion and morals, i wouldn't want EVERYONE to see EVERYTHING in me. it's not that i hate my body...in fact everybody's body built is beautiful but you don't need to show everything, right?
2007-10-02 21:59:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by montalespebbles 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Only if i had a tan :) j/k
I think i would if it wasn't like perverted.
2007-10-02 22:09:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋