Nudity in Art... why do people hate it?

[ACampbell]

Art is meant to convey only the most beutiful and terrible of all human interactions and emotions.
I can't think of anything more key to human life then sex, and nudity.
All these people protesting nudity in art are very misplaces when they use good christian morals as a backdrop to their argument.

In the Sistine Chapel, in the holiest city in the world, sits a beautiful work of art, called The Final Judgement, and all over it are naked people.
So If its good enough for the pope then why not us?

Was it not in the bible where God asked Adam and Eve why they covered their nakedness? God made our bodies this way for a reason, not to be ashamed, And by telling artists to stop drawing this or hide it from your children, you are further spreading this idea to your children that the human body and its natural impulses are wrong and dirty, instead of what they really are, natural and beautiful.

So If you hate nudity what are you going to do when your children want to go to the Louvre, or Italy? So much history, but are you going to cover their eyes every time they pass a greek statue with a penis? Or breasts? Is it in any way right to be disgusted with your own body ?

[Loed]

Art is meant to convey only the most beutiful and terrible of all human interactions and emotions.
I can't think of anything more key to human life then sex, and nudity.
All these people protesting nudity in art are very misplaces when they use good christian morals as a backdrop to their argument.

In the Sistine Chapel, in the holiest city in the world, sits a beautiful work of art, called The Final Judgement, and all over it are naked people.
So If its good enough for the pope then why not us?

Was it not in the bible where God asked Adam and Eve why they covered their nakedness? God made our bodies this way for a reason, not to be ashamed, And by telling artists to stop drawing this or hide it from your children, you are further spreading this idea to your children that the human body and its natural impulses are wrong and dirty, instead of what they really are, natural and beautiful.

So If you hate nudity what are you going to do when your children want to go to the Louvre, or Italy? So much history, but are you going to cover their eyes every time they pass a greek statue with a penis? Or breasts? Is it in any way right to be disgusted with your own body ?

I just think that anyone who pretends that sex is not a very big part of a human life is kidding themselves, and is probably very boring in bed.

People have been conditioned into this mindset for many, many years. Religious fundamental beliefs have created the world you are speaking of.

It's a sad state of affairs, but it IS becoming better slowly in that regard. People are becoming more comfortable over-all with nudity and such.

[Lady tehMa]

I don't hate it. I just prefer landscapes.

What I do hate is when people try to tell me what kind of art I have to like. >_>

[marooned]

I just read the three letters in the Cap News over my lunch break. The only consistent thread you can read through them all is a severe discomfort with the human body. Throw in a few arbitrary, very subjective comments about the line between nudity in art and pornography, and the letters are all the same.

That an article about the acceptance of nudity in art through the valley even elicits this response is reason enough to print the article along with the accompanying photos. Good work Cap News.

[skidlips]

It's a good thing, just as long as only the female body is used and portrayed!

[coffeeFreak]

Makes a person wonder when did the human body in this form become something children or "families" should be protected from.

BC Ferries bans Giller Prize finalist The Golden Mean because of a bare *bleep*
Michelle Pham Posted: Aug 25th, 2010

...Annabel Lyon's book, The Golden Mean was banned by BC Ferries. The reason for this book ban may surprise you. There are no racy tidbits or derogatory sections in the book. The reason for the book ban is actually because there is a picture of a man's exposed rear-end on the back of the cover art. How scandalous.

BC Ferries spokeswoman Deborah Marshall explained the decision not to sell the book, which is published by Random House: “Because we’re obviously a ‘family show’ and we’ve got children in our gift shops, we had suggested we could carry the book if there’s what’s called a ‘belly band’ wrap around the photo.” This suggestion did not sit tight with Random House and Lyons, so the book was pulled off the shelf. One would hope that books would stir intellectual ideas and conversation instead of discussion about human anatomy...

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/bedsidetable/2010/08/25/bc-ferries-bans-giller-prize-finalist-golden-mean-because-bare-arse

[strwbrrydvl]

Makes a person wonder when did the human body in this form become something children or "families" should be protected from.

9780307356208_0.jpg

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/bedsidetable/2010/08/25/bc-ferries-bans-giller-prize-finalist-golden-mean-because-bare-arse

It is a butt!

*sarcasm*

[Gigamortis]

I have a nude my great grandma sketched back in art school, it's about 90 or so years old now. My mothers side of the family were mostly artists so I never grew up with that perception so I don't really understand the logic behind it either. The only time I ran into this was in high school art class me and my friend painted two women in a rather questionable position, we were both sent to the principals office who we had to convince that it was a "gay rights" piece.

[WKRocks]

I just read the three letters in the Cap News over my lunch break. The only consistent thread you can read through them all is a severe discomfort with the human body. Throw in a few arbitrary, very subjective comments about the line between nudity in art and pornography, and the letters are all the same.

That an article about the acceptance of nudity in art through the valley even elicits this response is reason enough to print the article along with the accompanying photos. Good work Cap News.

I also read the article and thought it was excellent! I really don't understand the negative comments....what.....too much skin? Seriously, don't look in the mirror next time you get in the shower!

[Glacier]

I don't hate it. I just prefer landscapes.

What I do hate is when people try to tell me what kind of art I have to like. >_>

Excellent point!

[ILBT uh-huh]

People were skinnier back in biblical times. Do you really want to see a fat broad naked?

[Lycoming]

Because there is no beauty in nudity, only eroticism. If you see a naked person, they are either ugly, and thus not beautiful, or they are attractive and thus your first thoughts go to sex, not beauty.

Likely women have a much different interpretation of the beauty of nudity then men do. Maybe women see beauty. I'd wager men only see sex.

[marooned]

Because there is no beauty in nudity, only eroticism. If you see a naked person, they are either ugly, and thus not beautiful, or they are attractive and thus your first thoughts go to sex, not beauty.

Likely women have a much different interpretation of the beauty of nudity then men do. Maybe women see beauty. I'd wager men only see sex.

I am hoping that this is sarcasm. If not, you display a very... primitive/messed up/confused... understanding of how men and women see men and women. And I guess by this rationale, men should be saved from themselves, and women should wear burkas.

c.

[Lycoming]

Because there is no beauty in nudity, only eroticism. If you see a naked person, they are either ugly, and thus not beautiful, or they are attractive and thus your first thoughts go to sex, not beauty.

Likely women have a much different interpretation of the beauty of nudity then men do. Maybe women see beauty. I'd wager men only see sex.

I am hoping that this is sarcasm. If not, you display a very... primitive/messed up/confused... understanding of how men and women see men and women. And I guess by this rationale, men should be saved from themselves, and women should wear burkas.

c.

What? I'd say you are the one who is confused : / Burkas? Where did that come from? People can dress however they like. If you're going to debate something at least be coherent.

I am merely saying that in this day and age nudity is very black and white. It's sexy or it's not. If it's sexy, it's about sex, not beauty. If you disagree put a supermodel in a crowd of 'normal' nude models and see which one everyone looks at/remembers first. It'll be the same for both men and women, at men and women.

That being said I don't hate nudity in art, but I don't find it beautiful or consider it art.

[marooned]

Art is complicated, just like life and people. Throwing around words like 'erotic', 'beauty', and 'ugly', and then trying to create comparisons and contradictions between these terms is about as easy as holding a snowflake in your hand. Boiled down, your claims of:

"Good art can't contain ugly naked people because they're not beautiful"
"Art with beautiful naked people can't be art because it's erotic", and
"Women can maybe see beauty in nude art, but men see just sex"

The first claim confuses the issue. It's not the subject of the art that's judged, it's the art itself. There's more to art than the subject of it. If this is not the case, then abstract art (in some cases lacking an identifiable subject) would not be art.

The second claim is simply your reaction to nude art, and again confuses the subject of the art with the art itself. Your first thoughts go to sex when you see a piece of nude art with a beautiful subject. You even claim that these are the 'first thoughts', which I assume means there are some other thoughts that follow. Hopefully these include such things as the tone of the piece, the details in the brushstrokes or lighting, or the complexity in which the subject resides - something beyond what you are planning for dinner.

Your final claim is again your reaction to a woman's naked body. Your second claim about first thoughts contradicts that notion that men see "just sex", as you leave open the possibility that people can have diverse and multiple reactions to nude art. It should be apparent by now that I do.

This third claim is also dangerous, as it reflects a stereotypical reference to men only seeing 'sex' in portrayals of naked women (or men - depending on your interests), and stems from the same line of thinking seen in more conservative aspects of society to justify the covering of women's bodies. It may seem a stretch, but you are making a normative (read moral) claim against nude depictions of only beautiful women, because art with naked men is okay to be consumed by women, who react differently. Your argument is a simplification of every man's reaction to art, and by implication creates a double-standard whereby the female form is problematic for men to see but not vice-versa.

The reference to burkas is a reference to the ideology that supports the notion that men need to be shielded from the temptations that a female body holds when exposed. Sorry I didn't spell that out for you. I hope it's a bit clearer, now that you can see that your argument is nested in a centuries-long tradition that vilifies public portrayals of the naked body.

Your line of argument comes from a very simple context - your response to naked women, how society portrays men relating to women, and how you therefore believe other men react to nude art. This is where you display a very skewed sense of how art is consumed - confused between the subject of the art and the art itself, primitive in your portrayal of men's responses to naked women (in art or otherwise), and messed up in that you can't get past the idea that NAKED = SEX.

Note that you don't really cover notions of men's responses to male nude art, because to you, men also can't appreciate art depicting nude males. I suppose that for you, that experience lands into the category of 'ugly' art, and therefore has no value as art per se.