What about nudes, anyway?

[Kimberly Dow]

What could possibly be more interesting than painting skin? If the person is nude - it is even MORE skin. I love seeing nudes if they are well-done. I would hang them in my house. Well - maybe not in the diningroom or kitchen, but everywhere else. I think there are paintings and ideas in paintings that can be hurt by the distraction of clothing.

I cant imagine anything more beautiful, interesting or fufilling than to paint than people. Since most of us here do this full-time or part-time at least - I would imagine most would agree. People have bodies, not just heads. People are dressed most of the time - but that portion of time they arent can be pretty darned interesting and lovely to see.

I am out of state, but there is a book Kirk Richards wrote with Steven Gjertson (sp?). It is about Christianity and art. There is a section on nudity. I will find the Michangelo quote when I get back home - but it is something to the effect of painting people is a noble profession and glorifies God. Then he goes on to say that surely we can see as creations of God that our feet are more noble than shoes, that our hair more noble than our hats, that our skin more noble than our clothing, etc.

I really should wait until I get the quote at home. I know Im making it lose all its punch with my clumsiness.

[Richard Bingham]

Hooray, Kim . . . that's a positive "take" on the subject in question that shows in your work. Mediterranean classic period nudes are "perfect" (well, ideal anyway) . . . male and female. That's a statement about the human condition that reflected in the Greek dictum, "sound mind, sound body." The beauty (and hence the value) of corporeal being adopted by Christianity humanized the dichotomy of temporal physicality and eternal spirituality. Could Michaelangelo's commentary on the nobility of the body have ever been made without the impact that mass of nude art produced in antiquity made?

Without pointing to specific work, a number of current artists deal with the nude human body representing it as something scrofulous and loathsome. Is this a cause or an effect as it relates to the society that produces this?

[Richard Bingham]

Garth, thanks for that thoughtful reply.

[Tom Edgerton]

Richard--

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but here's my view.

Painting nudes seem to me to have two functions, one personal and one public.

On the personal side, it sure helps with anatomy if one desires to paint accurately and realistically. It's easier for me to paint clothed figures if I have a sense of what's underneath. As Mr. Whitaker stated also, painting a lot of skin will teach you to paint skin, under numerous lighting conditions. (I realize this is reprising the obvious.) Beyond that, painting nudes carries a wealth of personal and psychological meaning (baggage?), pro and con, for each artist, but if the result is not shown to others this is pretty much a moot point to me.

Publically, one may wish to convey or communicate something to a viewer by painting nudes. The results will either be aesthetically pleasing, or not; uplifting, or not; disturbing, or not; interesting, or not; pornographic, or not, or (insert your word here), or not. Much of this depends on how skilled the artist is at achieving the desired result, but the viewer will either get what's intended, or something else, and it's not always under the artist's control.

I realize some folks charge sexism in regard to the tradition of male artists painting nude women, and historically this may be a valid charge. But it's been rendered again, moot, at least to me, because in this age women are pretty much free to paint whatever they want, including nude men. And the results will also be exploitative, or not. And I will also surely grant that women artists are a lot more knowledgeable than me about their particular issues, so I'd welcome their opinion on whether this is so.

But to categorically ask whether it's kosher to paint nudes in the 21st Century is a very broad question. And I think the operative answer is another question: "According to whom?" I haven't read Kenneth Clark, but I don't know many artists who guide their choice of subject by what art historians might opine. Why shoud they?

Remember, art historians declared realism invalid too.

Best regards, and thanks for this discussion
--TE

[Richard Bingham]

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.