When does Nudity become Artistic?

Many people have different definitions of it, and the definitions or "bars" per say, have been raised and lowered from country to country, period to period. What seems graceful, natural or angelic to one, would be perverse, exploitative and pornographic to others. Disputing a work's claim as artistic of course never works because anything can be art, art can be anything. Shitty pointless art to one can be brilliant and strangely metaphoric to others.

Of course, assuming everyone has the same tastes, thresholds, enjoyment, tolerance or judgment when it comes to the topic of nudity definitely does not work. A more interesting topic would be to, of course, explain your own experiences and read the experiences of others.

Can you see artistry behind a seemingly trashy nude image? Is pornography still pornography no matter how many filters, lighting or angles you use? Is art never supposed to entice, arouse or stimulate sexual desires?

Simple topic that seems to come up quite a lot in real-life, but with the anonymity and freedom of the internet Y'all kan say whateva y'all want!

What is your opinion on Nudity and Art? When does it stop being art for you and become something pornographic? Should Nudity in Art stray away from trying to arouse the viewer (aside from the cases where people can be turned on by it anyway)? Have you ever made any Nude art of your own or have been involved with it at a class, school or a spouse/friend/enemy?

Short version? When it's not intended to arouse. Nudity can be used to indicate a lot of things in entirely artistic terms — from innocence to vulnerability to purity. It can also be used to indicate "that person is very attractive and I would enjoy sexual relations with them", which is of... dubious artistic value.

It can be intended to arouse, it becomes un-artistic when it is solely intended to arouse.

At least as far as American legal jurisprudence is concerned. Porn, like other forms of obscenity, must appeal "only to the prurient interests." Which is why you can't shit on your neighbor's front porch and then later claim you were making a political statement, but you can burn the flag.

edited 8th Nov '14 11:29:00 AM by Ogodei

Uh...the same time anything else becomes artistic? Isn't art kind of in the eye of the beholder anyway?

It's art if there's an urn in it somewhere. Or, failing that, a plinth.

I guess... when there is thought put into it beyond just 'phwoar, that'd be hot'? Like, even if you are trying to evoke sexual desire, if there's something else to it as well.

It might be easier to sy when it stops being artistic.

The answer is in the eye of the beholder. You will have to slay the beholder with this salad fork to obtain it. Beware the many dangerous effects of its eye rays. Different people have different ideals of where art stops and porn begins, or vice versa.

I'd agree with that. The line between "tasteful" and "rule 34 pron" is usually pretty clear.

I wanted to open up with that line originally but then I remember the dissenting commentary on many a piece related to nudity or "poor man's porn" and thought that it's more difficult for nude artists/photographers to earn the art title than it would be for flower photography/art or sceneries or fractals/avant garde artists.

"When does Confusing the Viewer stop being Artistic" could be a topic someone could open up.

they certainly have to be more careful, for sure.

Most obscenity laws define 'nudity' acceptable as 'artistic' when genitals are not displayed on screen; if they are, it becomes pornography. This obviously means that it is much easier for women to be shown completely naked on camera than men, whose genitals are outward.

But at what point it becomes artistic? It's tough to say. You could ask that question about all sexuality, really; at what point does sexuality transcend pornography? I believe that nudity, generally but not necessarily in conjunction with sex, is only artistic (perhaps 'justified' is a better word) when it seeks to make a point about characters difficult to make otherwise. That attribute about characters, revealed during their most intimate moments, should also be relevant to the film later. It should also be kinda non-obvious, though some obvious ones are forgivable.

The Maggie Gyllenhaal film 'Secretary' tells a lot about the titular character when she masturbates thinking of how her boss used her as a sub. Another film, Francois Ozon's Swimming Pool, can provide a character study of the protagonist in the scenes where she is topless (that she is topless while talking casually to most people is in itself an indicator as to how comfortable she feels, and how little she cares for the scorn of others). Nudity is a tool. It should be used as a scalpel, not a hammer. If you want to show your audience that your leading lady is sexy, you don't really need to take her clothes off (as Bollywood has learnt after dealing with Indian censors).

edited 9th Nov '14 10:33:52 AM by arcanephoenix

Most obscenity laws should be purged. They serve only to regulate taste.

The question if nudity is artistic or pornographic is misleading. Pornography is art. It's most often not high art, but neither is an action movie.

When it's done by someone with enough previous prestige, of course!

If the nude person is rich, or the expected audience is rich.

When it has a message and purpose beyond 'hey, readers, be aroused by this'. I mean, technically, porn is also a form of art with a particular purpose (getting the consumer's rocks off), but the way this question is phrased implies a distinction between it and more mainstream or elevated art-forms.

Nudity in classical art was generally used to convey a sense of innocence and/or otherworldliness, a distance from then-modern social convention. Clothing was a signifier of civilisation, so it made sense that ancient gods, innocent children, and savage wild-men wouldn't wear it.

Nudity was also an excellent demonstrator of talent - remember that classical art was done before photography, so a painting was the only way you could get a representative, realistic picture of something. A great way to show that you had the artistic chops to do realistic work was to paint your subjects naked. Clothing was easy to use as a cheat, concealing anatomical imperfections, so creating a beautiful (or interestingly ugly), detailed, and recognisably human nude was a sign of a master painter. See, for example, Leonardo da Vinci's legendary Vitruvian Man.

Nudity has its purpose in modern art as well. The 'lack of clothing = lack of interest in/connection to social conventions' principle still stands, which is why we have tropes like the Full-Frontal Assault and why the half-naked barbarian remains a popular visual concept. While representative art isn't nearly as popular or necessary today as it used to be, nudity is the most direct and obvious way to show a character's physical build as a visual shorthand for their personality and narrative role. There are few simpler and more effective ways to show that someone is enormously strong and not to be fucked with than to see them shirtless, with their broad shoulders and bulging muscles unhidden by clothing. Similarly, seeing someone scrawny and/or unhealthy naked emphasises their physical vulnerability when stripped of external protection. Building on the vulnerability thing, a degree of nudity is important to Body Horror - it's difficult to tell that ghastly things are happening to someone's flesh if you can't see the flesh.

What makes nudity artistic? Lighting, mostly.

I read the title as "when does nerdy become autistic".

That's probably my cue to take a nap.

I wonder if that would be a worthwhile discussion. I don't know of many autistic professional sports stars.