Who’s Afraid of the Female Nude?
Paintings of naked women, usually by clothed men, are suddenly sitting very uncomfortably on gallery walls.
Sometimes on the internet I see people asking questions. They're a specific class of questions, though; they're the kind of inquiry where, simply by dint of asking, it's apparent to an uninvolved viewer that it's clear the moral conundrum isn't applicable to the party speaking. For instance, when people anonymously ask the internet if they might possibly be abusive towards their partner because they fear they may be, dollars to donuts every time that if there is a power imbalance in the relationship, it's not in favor of OP. The people who are interested enough in this line of thought are not the people who should not be painting female nudes. They're not skeevy amateur photographers with expensive cameras. They believe in art for art's sake, not for getting hot girls scantily or totally undressed in front of their horny hidden (and so abusive) gaze. It's cool people care about stuff like this enough to think about it and write this well about it. But this is not an article that will evoke change in its audience; this is an article that will appeal to those who read it because they already agree
Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that if someone asks for outside perspective on their relationship cause they fear they might be abusive, it's usually them being the victim?For instance, when people anonymously ask the internet if they might possibly be abusive towards their partner because they fear they may be, dollars to donuts every time that if there is a power imbalance in the relationship, it's not in favor of OP.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that if you're asking for outside perspective and consciously worried about being an abusive partner, the likelihood is extremely good that you are not. To do so requires caring about how you treat your partner and a desire to be a good person; it requires the ability to look at oneself and wonder if maybe things are one's own fault, and not only that your personal tendencies can be changed or fixed, but maybe that they should be. People who are abusive do not look at their relationships through that lens
In terms of final product I get the point of the article. But for me figure drawing class was entirely non sexual. Certain not very bright people can't understand that but it's necessary to understanding anatomy. I just dealt with a holy shitstorm involving a serial sexual predator who was working as an artistic photographer of naked ladies. So my class is a lot different than a private figure model and a male artist. My comment is maybe not entirely relevant as a result but I just wanted to explain my experience with nude women walking around a government funded building
Figure drawing was one of the most valuable parts of my art education. It was not a sexual experience for me. Of course, anyone should paint anything, and we should be able to make of it what we will. That's a pretty big part of the whole thing. I'm not much into art that challenges, but I'll support it endlessly.
i think that thinking about how people / appearances are portrayed in art is something that's obviously a good thing, and the stupid title and that stupid tag try to swing this into a big ol culture war me-too masturbapile it's an interesting thing to talk about but the format is all wrong
Curious about who's been tagging posts with #bubblewrapundies, had to do a couple searches to understand what it meant... (current understanding is its a reference to GenY and political correctedness). I'd like to think the expansion from gun rights discussion to racism and now the me too topic means the trend is more about current events on the whole - its not as though these discussions are new or came about when GenY grew old enough to talk/contribute to public discourse. If you see the trend in what's been tagged, then I guess its worth pointing out that it's serving its purpose to open the discussion - wrong formatting or otherwise. Sidenote, sorta wondering who made the tag and their idea for its inception. Since the current posts under the tag have a scope that could have included loads of older posts of late, wondering if it was a newer user. If so, does the promotion system grant new users the ability to add/change tags even if they haven't earned a full hubwheel.
I made the tag. Loosely, it represents what I see as the continuing infantilization of the average citizen. Individual people have never had a greater potential to self-actualize than today. And as time goes on that potential will increase exponentially. This problem cannot be solved by whack-a-mole-ing specific modes and methods of causing harm, because new and more horrific forms of harm can always be devised. It started as a firearms specific tag, but I think it just as easily applies to certain kinds of badthink as well, such as the British teenager who is now a criminal because of some lyrics posted to social media. As I have said in another post relating to guns, ‘feeling offended’ is not justification for anything other than strong words. Combat must be restrained to words and ideas, and never cross over into physical violence. By equating speech to violence, we open the spectrum of acceptable debate to include physical violence. I tagged this post because retailers of all kinds have Youtube channels that they use to advertise and demonstrate their products. Many of these other vendors are selling products that if used inappropriately, could result in harm to their users or others. Truck attacks are becoming increasingly common, is the solution to that problem the banning of all automobile related content on Youtube? This is symbolic at best. Those who want to shoot various things wrapped in or filled with tannerite for fun will always ALWAYS find ways to do so. Better to have these things out in the open where they can be monitored. Various countries have legislation that says if you want to own a firearm you have to be a part of a regular attendee of a gun club. This prevents the kind of isolation that can lead to radicalization and violence. Jokes have been made in the past about ‘not trying to nerf the world’ but that’s precisely what I see happening. I found the ‘The Path Forward’ article insightful and reasonable. I tagged it because of the discussion that resulted is a perfect example of what the article is trying to describe. There exists a massive amount of bad faith on both sides of this debate, and the moderate majority is left unrepresented. This problem is not unique to the gun control debate. This post is not about gun control in specific, but about the origin and intent of this tag. I find the position of ‘ban all guns’ impractical and un-nuanced. It it represents an undercurrent of semi-political thought that believes that the gradual removal of all possibly dangerous things from the public awareness is desirable. Random person to person to violence is at an all time low and decreasing. Drastically restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to account for the actions of a tiny proportion of people is simply unreasonable.
you won't let me make fun of your JP posts anymore
I read both articles and did the little quiz at the bottom. I have to agree with the second article that the "Women" series seriously misses the mark. Most of the male-painted nudes shown in the main article also didn't seem to have any purpose besides to look at slim, perfect-breasted women with minimal pubic hair, whereas many of the female-painted nudes were humanizing to the subject or otherwise carried a powerful message (Judy Chicago's especially). There were a couple that looked interesting painted by men, but if you're making something like Jansson Stegner's "Undressing" then of course people are going to think you're just doing it to be a pervert and objectify women. I think it's less a question of whether men can paint a female nude, but how often they bother to paint one with any artistic value.
I don't understand why the female form, when put into artwork, must be sexualized. ....what i mean by that is yes we all know that being naked or seeing someone naked often equals sex, immaturity, wildness, immaturity, porn, a wide array of things seen as negative by most of society. however, in the world of art, which is a very broad term, its a thing of beauty, so why make it into a massive debate as long as both the model and the painter have agreed to it together?
It has a lot to do with how the figures are being painted. I don't think every nude painted by a man is necessarily sexual, but it does seem to be the majority of them that don't really have any point except to look at attractive naked women, and the artistic merits of pieces like that are pretty questionable even when the technique is good. As for why to bother debating it beyond the model and the painter, that's because they're not the only one involved. If the model and painter got together to do the painting and then the artist immediately threw his work into a fire, or stuck it in the basement to rot, then sure. But what people are talking about is gallery space, pricing, and ultimately how much importance we want to give them in our cultural fabric. People like art because it evokes certain thoughts and emotions in the viewer. A painting of a perfect looking woman who is apparently nude except that her feet are naturally formed into a high-heel shape (Allen Jones, Backdrop) really does nothing for me, or I reckon for most other people. It literally looks like cartoon porn with a thin veneer of "art" put on top for plausible deniability. Checking out his other works certainly didn't change my mind. Personally I would have no interest in visiting or supporting a museum that thought this was good art. It's equivalent to a schoolboy drawing titties on his desk, except that this guy has developed a better technique. Unless it's jerkoff material, what's the point? And if it is jerkoff material, why would anyone care about it as art?
talent has no sexual characteristics. if the artist paints beautifully, then what difference is a man or a woman
Of course yes. My friend does the best nudes I have ever seen
When you fall in love with your craft, you can't decide what will look good to the viewer or not. I don't see why suddenly the paintings are uncomfortable. That's like saying I need a female photographer for my photos. This seemed more like a way to peak interest in modern artists that enjoy the female form.
Lol IDC if hes a man or women. Art is art. who the fuck knows or cares what the artist is thinking. Does it matter? You cant call a rapist a rapist if he hasn't raped anyone. People are looking to find the rapists in any man these days, who cares about ruining the persons career right? Just as ridiculous as men not being able to take care of kids in a kindergarten etc we need to stop hating men for crimes they haven't committed.
Your thinking is wrong here... Why not a clothed men paint a naked women? This is not always lust... This is so normal.
Anyone can paint anyone nude as long as they have the same intentions in the artistic presentation and interpretation of the art.
Well but that's the thing, right? Who gets to decide what the artist's intentions are? Pornography is what THEY like. Erotica is what WE like. It's difficult to decontextualize the artist out of the art, I think, and until the artist's generation of critics is dead their product seems more about the context than the actual product.