Portrait Artist Forum    

Go Back   Portrait Artist Forum > Cafe Guerbois Discussions - Moderator: Michele Rushworth
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


 
 
Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-27-2006, 04:24 PM   #13
Tom Edgerton Tom Edgerton is offline
SOG Member
'02 Finalist, PSA
'01 Merit Award, PSA
'99 Finalist, PSA
 
Tom Edgerton's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 819
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
__________________
TomEdgerton.com
"The dream drives the action."
--Thomas Berry, 1999
  Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing this Topic: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Topics
Thread Topic Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharon Knettell no longer Nudes moderator Cynthia Daniel Nude Unveilings, All Medium - Moderator: The Board 2 02-21-2005 08:17 AM
The first week of Nudes section Cynthia Daniel Nude Unveilings, All Medium - Moderator: The Board 2 02-09-2005 09:07 PM
NO Nudes? Patt Legg Cafe Guerbois Discussions - Moderator: Michele Rushworth 1 03-24-2003 12:20 AM

 

Make a Donation



Support the Forum by making a donation or ordering on Amazon through our search or book links..







All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.