Tasteful, classic nudes only

[Peter Dransfield]

There may well be practical arguments limiting what style of nudes are posted but it is a limitation that cuts off a good deal of what is real and conversely includes much that may be superficial and that is a real issue. It is probably more than 20 years since I have painted a nude so it is not a burning posting issue with me but when you consider Degas, Renoir, Klimt and Shiele all of whom produced their greatest nudes in less than classic poses I do wonder what we might be missing in the work of artists here. What is the reason for the limitation - practical or misplaced morality - I would like to understand?

[Debra Jones]

Portraiture.

[Michael Georges]

Primarily because it is a portrait site, dedicated to portraiture first, and figurative works - nude or otherwise - second. Thus, the desire to not create a large category of work that would take the focus of the forum off portraiture.

[Peter Dransfield]

That may or may not be an argument for having a Nude section in the first place but since it is there........

I can think of very good examples of Klimt's work as well as of Shiele that pass muster as portraits better than many of the 'classical pose' nudes in the section here but would not be accepted because they are not classical poses. 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.

[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.