What about nudes, anyway?

[Richard Bingham]

Coming late to the party, I wish it were possible to respond to Bill Whittaker's excellent commentary in the locked thread in this section.

Surely, little need be added, although anyone who has painted the nude from the life, and finds themselves stymied in some way, by the subject , the reception accorded such works, or the reaction they elicit would be well served by reading Kenneth Clark's The Nude (Doubleday, 1956) - a compilation of lectures he delivered under the auspices of the National Gallery, Washington DC, 1953-55.

Of particular interest is the deep impression made by nude works of art upon the humanist philosophies of classical Greece, and how that great impact redounded through Christian European culture before the Renaissance into the present day. The simplistic raison of Clark's thesis is discussion of the tension between sacred and profane love, between "nude" (in humanist terms) and "naked" (which implies obscenity).

It's puzzling how adverse reactions to the nude figure in art continue to be prevalent in the current world culture where the "decent" limit of partial nudity is a perennially receding line, and baring yet more flesh is ubiquitous and acceptable.

A lively discussion of this topic on these boards would be gratifying!

[Sharon Knettell]

I really don't KNOW what to say, except the last time I hired a model to paint a nude I got REALLY bored and put a tutu on her.

Sort of a topless ballet dancer if you will.

Shouldn't we be painting WHAT we love instead of dissecting it.

I think since artists can paint ANY kind of nude today in ANY way, obscene or elegiac, it does not leave a whole lot of room for discussion.

[Richard Bingham]

??? I thought I had posted this to "Nude Unveilings - all medium", the reference is to Bill Whitaker's article in that thread. Apparently I haven't mastered the wherefore of this forum.

Sharon, I detect a definite "end of discussion" tenor in your reply, but since you pose your comments as questions, I feel compelled to respond to them.

I feel that if the sum total of making art were satisfied by painting what we love (as I agree we should be doing) there would be no reason for a forum such as this to exist. We can't always be painting . . . (I'm taking five to write this, because after a day at the easel, I'm well nigh cross eyed!).

Given our current freedom to paint "any kind of nude", should we? My musings concern questions of purpose and subject matter in painting generally, the nude as a specific subject is a ready focal point because it's easy to analyze in this sense. I don't think anyone remains entirely neutral when considering the nude in a work of art.

[Sharon Knettell]

Richard,

Sorry, I moved it. As moderator at large and sort of nude moderator as well, I took the liberty.

This is the section where we hash out things and examine ideas. That area is strictly for posting your work.

I just thought I would get the ball rolling as it were.

There are many here who would feel differently, especially I would dare to say, men.

I think there has always had an artist model relationship, that is both historical and erotic among male artists, from the Pygmalion myths through Picasso and his 'etchings'.

I can only speak for myself. I only paint what I like and personally do not care for subtext or purpose in art.

As to this forum, it a veritable Britannica of techniques, mediums and methods. Some participants enjoy exchanging ideas, but many come to learn the how to's and exchange ideas on materials, methods, teachers, workshops, paints, etc.. You name it, it's here!

[Steven Sweeney]

Perhaps you could restate the question. I don

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

. . . I moved it . . .
I . . . do not care for subtext or purpose in art.

Certainly, that's your perogative.

If by subtext, you mean those essays accompanying a painting on display, I agree wholeheartedly. A painting should stand on its own merits. Not many works transcend their originating point of reference, however.

If there's no purpose . . . why do it ?

[Sharon Knettell]

Originally Posted by Richard Bingham

If there's no purpose . . . why do it ?

I do it because it interests me.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Richard, usually I'm game for a philosophical discussion, but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. All I know is you want to discuss the nude. Could you rephrase your comments in the form of one or more questions that we can ponder?

Thanks,

Alex

[Richard Bingham]

My pleasure, Alex! Just for starters:

1. Has anyone read The Nude by Kenneth Clark? - care to comment?

2. What aesthetic considerations do you apply to nudes ? - (whether you are creating them or viewing them.)

3.Can the nude as subject matter be relevant today ?

4.What's the importance of the nude in art . . . going back 2500+ years?

[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.