Tasteful, classic nudes only

[Michele Rushworth]

I suspect that prudishness is at the root of this rather than what is relevant to a portrait site and if so then that is a shame.

I, for one, am extremely grateful that Cynthia has created this Forum, expending considerable time and money to do so, and allows us to use it at no charge. Because of that, I don't insult her taste.

[Debra Jones]

Peter, have you tried wetcanvas? They have a lot of figurative and classical and historical discussions, all interesting, and all they ask is if you post, put the icon of warning of content up. It is a big site, but you can discuss pretty loudly and thoroughly anything you want.

Like Michele and Michael, it is here for us to use as presented.

Funny, you call it prudish. Somehow that is supposed to make us cringe, yet sensationalism is a completely worthy point of view? Figure study as a strong basis for anatomy in any sort of portrait is always a good thing. I have found this site to be a great place for aspirants - as you have mentioned in your bio - to rub digital elbows with the pros. I have participated heavily in sites where theories, ideas, concepts, rumors and philosophies prevailed. Acting as the nearsighted as leader to the blind, I got some use out of them, but without fail, when a professional shares their EXPERIENCE, the resulting advice is going to help me on my way. EVEN if I personally disagree, I can not argue with the results: professional advice.

This is an opportunity, not a blog. One can come in and proclaim and see how their ideas are received or they can do the work and show the progress.

To agitate and shock is of little use to most of us. Challenging ideas is a good thing if there has been a proven track record of results, but I will say, in this economy, I am trying to keep paying my bills from my art. The opportunity to have my questions answered by a working portrait painter overwhelms EVERY instance I can think of to engage in a debate over the masters. Erotic, shocking, tasteful or dull. These are boots on the ground opportunities that one may not have room to absorb while carrying a heavy attitude.

[Cynthia Daniel]

Peter, as a newcomer here, perhaps you do not understand the purpose and nature of this Forum. First of all, though it has become over time somewhat of an entity unto itself, it was originally created to provide a place for practicing portrait painters who do commissioned work to share discussions related to their career - it is not a general art forum. The main site existed long before this forum and its focus is traditional commissioned portraiture. The intent was and is for this forum to stay aligned with that focus. There are other forums that are wider in scope.

[Peter Dransfield]

I have been reading posts here for more than 2 years so I believe I do understand the purpose and scope of this forum. You are of course perfectly free to establish the parameters where you want and that is not in question. My point concerns the wisdom from an artistic point of view saying that certain 'classic' poses are tasteful and that non-classic poses are not but also I question the value of the term tasteful given its moralistic tone. I personally find non'classic nudes by Degas, Klimt or Shiele (and countless others) more human and profound than the artificial poses found in Bouguereau and others and I think it is a shame to say to artists here that they can ape B but keep away from Klimt or others.

Have a Nude section or not, that is your right but if you have one why censor it and potentially deprive us of great work? Again I repeat that I have no nudes to post and have no plans at present (or the space) to paint one so this is not me bitching out of personal interest or desire to shock.

[Peter Dransfield]

This is an opportunity, not a blog. One can come in and proclaim and see how their ideas are received or they can do the work and show the progress.To agitate and shock is of little use to most of us. Challenging ideas is a good thing if there has been a proven track record of results, but I will say, in this economy, I am trying to keep paying my bills from my art.

Every human tribe has its god, its high priests to point accusing fingers and its rottweillers to attack the heretics.

Your replies are high on aggression but low on relevance from an artistic point of view.

I too have seen the dynamics on a number of forums over 10 years or so. They operate as in-groups which means that when an 'outie' questions something we immediately get someone who steps up and says that the owner of the site can manage the site as they wish. This is perfectly true but usually irrelevant to the question since their right is not being put into question merely the wisdom of certain decisions. Then the rottweillers line up to savage the heretic and the heretic either lies on their back and recants or leaves. Conformity is restored until the next heretic stumbles in.

In practice this is a rather wide church ranging from Marvin to Thomasin passing via Debra and Ilaria. Many different styles responding to very different aesthetics and that is the way it should be with artists challenging and stimulating each other. Trying to quash discussion by chanting 'traditional portrait site' is pointless.

[SB Wang]

http://inventorspot.com/articles/onl...new_meme_15499

[David Draime]

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

Every human tribe has its god, its high priests to point accusing fingers and its rottweillers to attack the heretics....Then the rottweillers line up to savage the heretic and the heretic either lies on their back and recants or leaves. Conformity is restored until the next heretic stumbles in.

Hmmm, that's interesting. I never thought of the Portrait Artist Forum as being fascist.

Huh

[Peter Dransfield]

Of course no such claim has been made - reductio ad absurdum David.

[Cynthia Daniel]

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

They operate as in-groups which means that when an 'outie' questions something we immediately get someone who steps up and says that the owner of the site can manage the site as they wish. This is perfectly true but usually irrelevant to the question since their right is not being put into question merely the wisdom of certain decisions.

Perhaps the lack of wisdom was in bending to the wishes of a very few members of the forum who requested a nude section to begin with. Originally, there was not one.

Per the dictionary: in good taste - satisfying generally accepted social or esthetic standards

Of course, what is "good taste" will always be somewhat subjective, but notice the definition says "generaly accepted." Since the majority of paying portrait clientele seek clothed portraits, keeping the focus on clothed portraiture aligns with the focus of the main site. I'm more than happy to take the nudes section down.

And, yes, I do make judgments of what I want on my forum. And personally, I don't care to have erotic art on my forum or have spread open vaginas or erect penises staring me in the face - no matter how well painted they may be. If that is prudish, then so be it - but, some who may be prudish in public can be quite the opposite in private - so your judgments may be based only on superficial social data.

This is not a general art forum - it is a forum intended to serve the artists who do commissioned portraits - and the great majority of those are clothed.

[Debra Jones]

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

In practice this is a rather wide church ranging from Marvin to Thomasin passing via Debra and Ilaria. Many different styles responding to very different aesthetics and that is the way it should be with artists challenging and stimulating each other. Trying to quash discussion by chanting 'traditional portrait site' is pointless.

MY!.. but I am flattered to be visible here......

Have you raised any specific artistic points?

This is one of those arguments, that seems to come up to test the right to argue. Have you really been stopped from posting anything yet? Can you show us the Rottie scars? It seems you are dancing around two issues. Either you do have something so say and are laying the groundwork for indignation if it is not welcomed with open arms.....or simply agitating for the sake of agitation.

Tasteful - ON THIS SITE - will be judged by the owner. In other fora I have likened it to being invited to a persons home for tea and popping a Bud, stripping to your shorts and putting your feet on the table to watch football. We are all guests.

It is sort of presumptuous of you to assume things will be censored before you speak them. If I am aggressive, by simply reading the contract I signed when I joined the site and answering the questions I hear you asking, then I will honestly give you an opinion: (based on the evidence I see in the site) this looks a wee bit paranoiac. Nothing personal, but what is the stink? You seem to be speaking up a storm, and quite freely, you have not been denied this ability. You have neither posted or even linked to these impending abominations - what is the actual problem?