Is nudity ART?!

[joey777]

I just wanted to bring this issue up because I wanted to know how Eagle Pass views the subject of art. My roommate and I just had a conversation yestersday on whether people painted in the nude is art or not. We were also discussing on whether this is offensive or not to some people depending on a person's religion.

A couple of examples of artists painting people in the nude are Leonardo da Vinci who painting nude people on the ceiling inside the Sistene Chapel at the Vatican and Diego Riviera who painting Frieda Kahlo hugging flowers in the nude.

My roommate who happens to be Catholic says that some people misinterpret the meaning behind nude paintings, and think that they're meant to arouse when they're only meant to show the beauty of a nude person.

He also says that many people here in the U.S. tend to sexualize everthing that is in the nude because of the culture coming out of Hollywood. The culture coming out of Hollywood tends to objectify a woman's body and turn it into something that is meant to arouse people. On the other hand, art like the art of Leonardo da Vinci or Diego Riviera is not meant to arouse a person. It is meant to be studied like a work of art where the focus is not on a particular painting's nudity, but on the neutral parts of the painting like the colors used, the lines, the curves, the background, well, anyway, you get the picture!:)

Check out these paintings!;)
Sistene Chapel:
http://virtual.park.uga.edu/cdesmet/class/engl4830/work/projects/pratt/sistene.htm

Diego Riviera:
www.diegorivera.com/index.php (http://www.diegorivera.com/index.php)

[joey777]

Sorry guys, it appears that instead of Leonardo da Vinci painting the Sistene Chapel in Vatican City it was Michelangelo who actually painted the mural on the ceiling. I always get the two confused. Maybe it's because I can't make up my mind on who I like better as an artist.:D

[ArtKid]

Hi,

Yeah I do think that nudity is art as long as there is intent and a good artist statement. I think that nudity in paintings by Michaelangelo and other painters of his time were done to show the purity and beauty of the human form. If you think about it, most nude paintings were depicting Gods and Godesses or used to represent an icon such as liberty and triumph. So in this sense, nudity was not used to create and sexual arousal in the viewers mind but to signify something much deeper.

Unfortunately there are many times when people with certain beliefs do set a boundary in their minds as to what type of nudity is art. Back in time during the counter-reformation in europe nudity was frowned upon. As soon as Michaelangelo died, the Pope ordered sashes to be painted over the groin areas of all th figures. After restoration was attempted, it was revealed that rather than just painting over the figures, they actually cut out the groin areas in the plaster of the fresco, and single handedly almost ruined a great work of art.

Shows that with the times come different ideas.

Diaz

[pesqueso]

I think, is beautiful. There are some bods,I just thank the Lord for the beautiful things his has made. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Getting past the sexual part, it's a piece of art if done right. Not with my bod of course

[Darkstar]

I really don't see the point to this topic. If anyone here opens up a Art History Book they can clearly see that nudity is nothing new. I don't see where Catholic's are brought into this issue for the reason the Vatican is full of nude paintings. Catholics don't object to nudity in paintings or statues for that matter. Walk into almost any Catholic Church and more than likely there will be a Jesus Christ Statue on a Cross that is almost nude only wrapped with a piece of cloth. That should leave little to the imagination. Now since most people like me are not perverts and don't get aroused my looking at a painting with a naked lady or a statue of a naked man then there is nothing strange about nudity.

What goes on in Porn Video known as pornography is not Art and will never be. A man doing a women that he knows nothing about while being filmed in a studio is never going to be considered art. That is what arouses people.

Nudity in real art is not meant to get people exited it is meant to show the real beauty of the Human Body and also to show off the Talent the Artist has.

Just my 2 Cents!!!

[ArtKid]

Perhaps Catholics have no problem with nudity in sculpture now but trust me, back in the 1500's soon after Michaelangelos death, it was Pope Paul III who ordered for the nude figures to get covered up. This was in part because of the counter reformation against the growing Protestant Church but also because there was a sincere beliefe by the Clergy that nudity was evil. They considered Michaelangelo "the inventor of obscenities." So when I refer to peoples beliefs I don't neccesarily mean only religious ones, but also moral and ethical ideas of their time.

[Tarotreader]

He also says that many people here in the U.S. tend to sexualize everthing that is in the nude because of the culture coming out of Hollywood. The culture coming out of Hollywood tends to objectify a woman's body and turn it into something that is meant to arouse people. On the other hand, art like the art of Leonardo da Vinci or Diego Riviera is not meant to arouse a person. It is meant to be studied like a work of art where the focus is not on a particular painting's nudity, but on the neutral parts of the painting like the colors used, the lines, the curves, the background, well, anyway, you get the picture!:)

And then there's art that is both arousing and artful. In many areas nudity isn't given a second thought, it's being completely clothed that is unusual. Why should arousing images be "bad" or "wrong" anyway? Sex is a natural part of who we are, not some aberration that only afflicts a few of us like extra fingers or three nostrils. We're only "naked" because we think we are. Adam and Eve should be a good example of that.

"Who told you that you were naked?"

"That guy in the tree over there told me."

"Well, dang, now the secret's out. You'd better go ahead and cover up."

I get a little sick, more than a little sick, of the constant barrage of sexual images in the media. But, at the same time, it's only flesh--and we all have it. It would be nice if we got to a point in this country where nudity was considered a natural state and not something so shocking and controversial. Then these sexual images wouldn't be so sexual, they'd just be pictures.

[gsgutz]

It would be nice if we got to a point in this country where nudity was considered a natural state and not something so shocking and controversial. Then these sexual images wouldn't be so sexual, they'd just be pictures.

I personally think that if it is done in an "artful" way its not sick. Its Art! But everyone sees it how they want to see it, and believe me there are a lot of sickos out there. On the other hand, I wouldnt want to see naked people walking around outside thats for sure!! There are communities for that.