|
Tom, thank you much, for your thoughts. I'm not too sure where I'm "going" with this either. Frankly, I don't have an agenda other than I'm interested to learn what artists are thinking, and this is a piquant subject. The examination may well extrapolate to all we do. "Why paint a nude? " may become "Why paint a portrait?" or simply, "Why paint?"
Your statements reiterating Bill Whitaker's are certainly true enough and make a good point - some things can't be re-stated often enough!
Other points you made address the reason for my query. I do want to know what you and others think, and I appreciate your taking the time to post.
Some implications of the nude in art which are current (hence transitory) such as exploitation of women are better viewed with a historical perspective, such as, only males were the subject of Greek nude art for quite a long spell in classic times; in past centuries, only males posed for life-study classes in the academies of Europe until the late 19th century.
Giving art historians a (not undeserved) cut, I don't quite think it's fair to include Clark's book which examines the aesthetics of the nude in art through the ages and is very intelligently written. I encourage you and all who are prone to wool-gathering on this subject to read it. I think you'd find it very enjoyable.
|