Forums > Model Colloquy > what is artistic nude?

Photographer

Risen Phoenix Photo

Posts: 1417

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

As a primarily nude photographer it is all in the eye of the beholder.  I would like to think that what I create is art but ultimately that is up to the viewer

Mar 04 13 06:19 pm Link

Model

The Red Menace

Posts: 26

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

I'm not sure that artistic nudes can't also sometimes be pornographic- I have seen some images in my time that are both beautifully artistic and definitely highly sexual and sexually moving. For me personally, my distinction lies in the quality of the image- is it reasonably original? Well drafted? Is the lighting carefully created, is it an image that you keep looking at after you've brought yourself to orgasm?

It's highly subjective.

On a personal note, I do fine art nudes (I'm waiting on quite a few to add to my port, shot on film so it takes time) and my selection process includes that what we are trying to do is make art- We might not succeed, it may not turn out well and the intention could vary greatly, but I don't shoot stuff that's just intended to titillate without artistic merit and ability and talent do make a big difference in the final product- and when original, talented and skilled individuals make porn- well I think it's a new genre- Art Porn.

Personally, I'm a fan smile

Mar 04 13 06:24 pm Link

Model

The Red Menace

Posts: 26

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Designa Davina wrote:
Not spreadeagled

I disagree.

Mar 04 13 06:26 pm Link

Artist/Painter

redletterone

Posts: 1

Tampa, Florida, US

in figure drawing the rule of thumb was the lack of clothing plus anything else would emphasize sexuality. so a nude woman wearing a necklace and socks or a nude man wearing eyeglasses, etc. i would reference euan uglow to disagreed with this point as his figures often are nude plus say a small shirt or article of clothing and i would think it very hard to argue against his working running the classy, sophisticated and very valuable art side of nudes. i also dont think this applies to photography the same as it does painting but i find the general rule to be interesting if nothing else.

Mar 04 13 10:15 pm Link

Photographer

A K

Posts: 217

Charleston, South Carolina, US

The more explicit the image, the more likely it will be interpreted as smut. But, no degree of nude content automatically eliminates an image from being art. Conversely, artistic intent does not guarantee artistic output.

Mar 22 13 07:38 am Link

Photographer

Creative Image

Posts: 1327

Avon, Connecticut, US

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Some may find porn artistic.

So?

Mar 22 13 08:59 am Link

Photographer

Andrew McDonald

Posts: 13

San Francisco, California, US

So, this is the usual argument about art. I think someone else already made the allusion to religion.

I divide the work I do as:

- work done by me, for me, to satisfy some introspection about the world and how I live in it = Art
- work done by me, for a client = probably not Art. Creative, sure. Art, no.

Why do I make this distinction? For me, art is about intention. My intention.

I'm very critical of my own work and that of others, so, I'll just say, I examine my intentions pretty deeply when I'm shooting.

I do think in basic terms, good vs. bad art.

Good art = work that is visually pleasing, that encourages me to ask questions about the subject.

Bad art = work that can be visually pleasing, and then stops there.

Lots and lots of really nicely photographed nudes in the world, but that's all they are. Just nice images of nude figures. Give me Manet's "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" (https://www.google.com/search?q=dejeune … e&ie=UTF-8)...

Now that's an artistic nude.

Mar 22 13 01:56 pm Link

Photographer

JOEL McDONALD

Posts: 608

Portland, Oregon, US

in my opinion ...

Art Nude is where the Model is simply a part of the over all concept of the image that includes her/his nudity.

Glamour Nude is where the Model IS the main ingredient of the over all concept of the image that emphasizes her/his nudity in a flattering way.

Porn is where the "Model" is simply the bearer of the specific anatomical parts that are the only purpose of the image.

Art is to make the viewer think. Glamour is to make viewer admire. Porn is to make the viewer ... (oh you know). smile

Mar 22 13 02:03 pm Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 3506

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

JimBobLc wrote:
An art nude is a nude that is unfit for masturbation.

Me Tarzan, you Jane, sex now!! Lol


But seriously, this might offer you a little more insight or at least a reasonably well thought out opinion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_art

Mar 22 13 02:06 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew McDonald

Posts: 13

San Francisco, California, US

Oh, and to add fuel to the porn vs art thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Origine_du_monde

Courbet's painting of what is essentially a spread-leg shot.

Mar 22 13 02:22 pm Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Is there such as thing as artistic sculpture....... artistic water colours.......artistic pre Raphaelite .......artistic fashion .......  artistic nude ?

Mar 23 13 06:20 pm Link

Photographer

M A R C P H O T O

Posts: 262

Mission Hills, California, US

money_train wrote:
what is artistic nude?

Really???

Mar 23 13 06:31 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

money_train wrote:
what is artistic nude?

For me, it's an image where the model is nude, or effectively nude, and the goals are "artistic."  Which is most of my work, because other styles tend to bore me.  Some of my stuff has a bit of fashion to it, but still.

I consider these "artistic nude" even though the model is obviously wearing something.  (18+)
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/23017669
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8514/8568 … 1539_o.jpg
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6108/6265 … d9c2_o.jpg

This one is "topless implied" with just panties.  And I STILL think of it as "artistic nude" even though that combination is usually more glamour:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8244/8496636032_4e875f6da1_c.jpg

Mar 23 13 07:21 pm Link

Photographer

DOUGLASFOTOS

Posts: 8462

Los Angeles, California, US

Everyone....Elvis left the building about 3 or 4 days ago. This is moot!

Mar 23 13 07:29 pm Link

Model

Random One

Posts: 35

Canton, Michigan, US

Whatever you want it to be?

Mar 23 13 10:09 pm Link

Photographer

Imageography

Posts: 6768

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

You are correct, but your models are not "Just standing there" which is what I referenced. I have seen many artistic nudes with no props and a plain background, but again, not just standing there.


Art of the nude wrote:

So, figure studies aren't art? 

Interesting.

Using mine as an example, this WOULD apparently be art, because of that whole "natural geometry" thing (both 18+)

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/15089501

While this wouldn't, since it's just the model:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/16169171

To the OP; I think of images as "art" if that's the way it was approached, and that was the goal.  Certainly, some people are better at it than others, but at least in my mind, I can usually tell what was intended as art.

Mar 23 13 10:28 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Everyone....Elvis left the building about 3 or 4 days ago. This is moot!

You mean, so that someone else can start a thread with the same question in a week, and be told to "do a search"?

Mar 24 13 07:03 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

And there we have it there is no such thing as art nude just the same as no such thing as art sculpture.

Mar 24 13 11:44 am Link

Photographer

Art Silva

Posts: 9457

Santa Barbara, California, US

I will not even try to speak for everyone but for me personally if I look at a nude image and it hold my attention, makes my eye travel around the composition, makes me think and interpret the energy... And then if I go back days later and I sometimes see a different interpretation in the same image, I will then call it art.

Technical aspects of the image can be a combination of millions of things but the final print determines in my mind if it is art.
Maybe not for others but for me is all that counts.

Mar 24 13 12:25 pm Link

Photographer

alessandro2009

Posts: 7540

Florence, Toscana, Italy

On my previous reply i quoted this sentence:

MelissaAnn  wrote:
A nude image that *you* find to be artistic.

since the perception is different for each person and also change depending on the historical period.

Mar 24 13 02:06 pm Link

Photographer

sidney_k

Posts: 874

Paris, Île-de-France, France

Andrew McDonald wrote:
Oh, and to add fuel to the porn vs art thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Origine_du_monde

Courbet's painting of what is essentially a spread-leg shot.

There is a big difference regarding nude photography and nude painting.

The exact same pose taken with a camera, will have a different impact upon the viewer.
Imagine Lucien Freud's nudes shot on film wink

Mar 24 13 02:39 pm Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

I'd like to see a list of photographers (artists) exhibiting their images of nudes in a galley.

Mar 24 13 04:46 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew McDonald

Posts: 13

San Francisco, California, US

Carioca wrote:

There is a big difference regarding nude photography and nude painting.

The exact same pose taken with a camera, will have a different impact upon the viewer.
Imagine Lucien Freud's nudes shot on film wink

Totally agree. Just playing devil's advocate to those that define art vs. porn by a pose or exposed body part.

Mar 26 13 11:53 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I'd like to see a list of photographers (artists) exhibiting their images of nudes in a galley.

Me.

And I know of several others in my area, which is far from a great "art center."

Mar 27 13 08:48 pm Link

Photographer

Floating World Images

Posts: 3

Birmingham, Alabama, US

Someone once said that  a work of art and a work of pornography both instill desire on the part of the viewer.
The difference is that with pornography the viewer desires the subject depicted in the work, whereas if it is art, the viewer desires to possess the work of art--the painting or print--itself.

Apr 03 13 05:04 pm Link