AriDublyu wrote:
A nude does not invite a viewer. A completely unclothed body can be unassuming, and in a way private. We marvel at the nude body, knowing we are seeing just that, a beautiful creation with no adornment.

Adornment of any kind invites a viewer. Wearing just one thing while otherwise unclothed automatically makes a statement of sorts: A single adornment or minimal coverings highlights what is unadorned as well! So yeah, just one little piece of jewelry on an otherwise nude form becomes quite provocative.

Great insight!

Rays Fine Art wrote:
I agree.  I think that any ornament or article of clothing detracts from the naturalness of being naked, at least in situations in which naked is natural.  I can spend a whole day with a beautiful naked woman and it doesn't phase me, but let me walk down the street and a breeze blows a skirt up or creates a nip slip and my eyes are drawn as if by a magnet.

Good point.

Project4145 wrote:
I know exactly what you mean. 

It's like sitting in a completely silent room with no noise but the hum of an air conditioner.  When the air conditioner cycles off and the silence becomes complete it seems somehow odd.  Like the silence was underlined by the hum of the A/C and now that it's gone there is nothing to give you perspective on it. 

If that makes sense.  It's kind of the same principal for me with nudity and something simple like an anklet.

Then the correlation might be that when a model who has been posing nude all day slips on a pair of stockings, she becomes sort of "newly" naked.

Herb Way wrote:
My view is that items of clothing and accessories tend to add an element of sexuality to images which I generaly find undesirable. Part of my artistic objective is to show that nudity does not have to be about sexuality. I'm sick of all the "don't you want to f**k me" photos that abound in the portfolios of MM models.

When I was photographing women for my book (http://www.portraits-of-eve.com) and working with women who had never posed nude before, some said that they needed to wear a a piece of jewelry, at least, to keep from feeling completely naked.

I have had that with glamour models who I shot art nudes with. they always need some accessory even though I insist on total nudity. I think it was the "glamour" mentality of wanting to be sexy more than trying to feel less naked.

Herb Way wrote:
My view is that items of clothing and accessories tend to add an element of sexuality to images which I generaly find undesirable. Part of my artistic objective is to show that nudity does not have to be about sexuality. I'm sick of all the "don't you want to f**k me" photos that abound in the portfolios of MM models.

When I was photographing women for my book (http://www.portraits-of-eve.com) and working with women who had never posed nude before, some said that they needed to wear a a piece of jewelry, at least, to keep from feeling completely naked.

Jeff Fiore wrote:
I have had that with glamour models who I shot art nudes with. they always need some accessory even though I insist on total nudity. I think it was the "glamour" mentality of wanting to be sexy more than trying to feel less naked.

You help to make my point about the limited scope of so many of these women who feel the need to associate nudity with sex.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
I agree.  I think that any ornament or article of clothing detracts from the naturalness of being naked, at least in situations in which naked is natural.  I can spend a whole day with a beautiful naked woman and it doesn't phase me, but let me walk down the street and a breeze blows a skirt up or creates a nip slip and my eyes are drawn as if by a magnet.

There are two basic components of appeal:

That almost platonic appeal of the curve and shape of the body, perhaps epitomized by greek sculpture and mimicked by many of our designs - the leg of a Queen Anne style table for instance.

The other is a sense of the "naughtiness factor" - perhaps the one thing of value that 2,000 years of Christianity has bestowed upon Western Civilization. 

Actually the Christians didn't invent the naughtiness factor, they simply enhanced it by adding the dimension of the forbidden. Flirtation and display is as natural to sexual beings as is the first factor above. Some species have gone to great evolutionary lengths to hone and improve upon natural flirtation. Male peacocks have learned to grow huge adornments with which to wow the female; Bowerbirds have developed complex behaviors whose sole purpose is the enhancement of flirtation; Male Beta Fish grow long decorative fins and so on. I for one am happy that the gender involvement in this is bass-ackward in humans.

IMHO a good melding of the two is essential.

So many choose to play it safe by pretending that the second doesn't exist. The world of photography is filled with boring, meaningless nudes that attempt to deny the fact that humans are sexual beings. This is the moral equivalent of the "don't you want to f*** me" attempts that similarly lack the ability or willingness to bring factor number one into play.

Either can be done well in the absence of the other but I frankly very seldom see that.

aquarelle wrote:
As an artist who never tires of working with the nude model, I have noticed a phenomenon that I would like to share with artists, photographers and models.  In my studio, the model is usually completely nude, for the duration of a session.

Occasionally, a model will wear something different, like a pair of nylons, some heels, or even a waist chain or ankle bracelet.  When this happens, the model seems to me to become even more naked.  It's as if adding an element to the nude figure intensifies her nakedness.  She seems more naked than when she's actually just naked.

Has anyone noticed this?  Why would this be? Do you have any insights you can share?  For instance, models, do you ever feel more naked when you have actually put something on?

Sorry, but this concept really is taught in "art of the figure 101".

Anything, a hat, a glove,  a necklace will turn an "innocent" nude into something that causes the nudity to pop out.   It really is taught in basic art classes.

aquarelle wrote:
As an artist who never tires of working with the nude model, I have noticed a phenomenon that I would like to share with artists, photographers and models.  In my studio, the model is usually completely nude, for the duration of a session.

Occasionally, a model will wear something different, like a pair of nylons, some heels, or even a waist chain or ankle bracelet.  When this happens, the model seems to me to become even more naked.  It's as if adding an element to the nude figure intensifies her nakedness.  She seems more naked than when she's actually just naked.

You're awareness levels have just increased basically, because things are not normal....

Has anyone noticed this?  Why would this be? Do you have any insights you can share?  For instance, models, do you ever feel more naked when you have actually put something on?

I think I understand what you are saying. And yes even an ankle bracelet could do it. I think it has to do with our nature. Psychologically most humans understand nude, pure nude, and that is perfectly acceptable in the mind of most humans, like this is "alright, nothing wrong here, nature and I understand it, things are fine and as intended".

Then, you add this small unnatural element to the person, and things now become "wrong", psychologically. Things are now amiss and not natural, things are now in an unnatural, semi-material state. It accentuates the nudity. Its naturalness being connected to unnaturalness and you enter into a more heightened state of awareness but its more on the subconscious level, but you still feel it....

Your awareness levels have increased because things are out of place...

Luminos wrote:

Sorry, but this concept really is taught in "art of the figure 101".

Anything, a hat, a glove,  a necklace will turn an "innocent" nude into something that causes the nudity to pop out.   It really is taught in basic art classes.

Yes, but that doesn't explain the reason. You are oversimplifying it by just saying it happens....And kind of being indignant to the OP by saying "oh, brother art 101, who doesn't know that".....

Luminos wrote:
Sorry, but this concept really is taught in "art of the figure 101".

Anything, a hat, a glove,  a necklace will turn an "innocent" nude into something that causes the nudity to pop out.   It really is taught in basic art classes.

No need to apologize.  I'm not referring to the element of innocence. I'm referring to the intensifying of the sense of nakedness that seems to be reinforced by the addition of a costume piece.  If the nudity "pops out", I'm just wondering why.

Is a nude model less "innocent" because she has added something to her figure?

J McLaren wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't explain the reason. You are oversimplifying it by just saying it happens....And kind of being indignant to the OP by saying "oh, brother art 101, who doesn't know that".....

Good response. Yes I did Art of the Figure 101, thankyou, and I don't remember this actually being discussed.

Herb Way wrote:
You help to make my point about the limited scope of so many of these women who feel the need to associate nudity with sex.

Exactly, most glamour models I worked with are used to more sexually visual imagery than the subtle sensuality of an art nude. Even when they are totally nude, they still do "glamour poses" which with some adjustment can be turned into more artsy poses. The biggest problem I have had was that they keep looking at the camera smiling.

aquarelle wrote:

No need to apologize.  I'm not referring to the element of innocence. I'm referring to the intensifying of the sense of nakedness that seems to be reinforced by the addition of a costume piece.  If the nudity "pops out", I'm just wondering why.

Is a nude model less "innocent" because she has added something to her figure?

Again, both the philosophy behind the concept and the existence of the phenomena are addressed in basic figure drawing classes.

There are many views (artistically) as to why the human mind perceives the exaggeration of nudity that comes from adding even the simplest item of adornment to the nude body.

Clinically, the phenomenon isn't universal, and is noted as having cultural roots as well as having psychological ones.

You won't receive a serious treatment of it in the forums here.   So I suggest to refer to one of the basic life figure class textbooks, or check for a "theory of art nude" advanced text.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It's not a new phenomenon.  Marshall McLuhan defined the terms "hot media" and "cool media" way back in the 50's.  A "hot media" engages the viewer's brain more than a "cool media".  I remember being given an art assignment, to demonstrate the differences between "hot media" and "cool media".  On the art school's bulletin board, I pinned up two different Playboy centerfolds.  On one, I cut out some black construction paper strips, which I pinned over one Playmate's naughty parts -- the other Playmate simply showed everybody everything.  Passers by would look at the centerfolds and would walk over to the one with the strips, would pull the push pins out, peek at the model's naughty parts, and they typically would replace the strips. 

So, nude is nude.  But if you want nude to be sexy -- over it up.  When I create nude art, the model is naked.  When I want to create a sexy image, the model is naked, but she might be holding a towel up to her chest -- you can see that she is nude, but you can't see the naughty bits -- she's just a towel drop away from being revealed.  That's a hot media.

Very well said. Something for me to share with those female age 40 and up prospective clients who express interest in intimate portraits.

Also, it's very interesting and fitting that the OP is a painter, not a photographer. This is one of the most intelligent threads that I've seen on this site in a long time.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
I can spend a whole day with a beautiful naked woman and it doesn't phase me

It doesn't faze me either, but perhaps it's just a phase.

cheers,

David Hirsh

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It's not a new phenomenon.  Marshall McLuhan defined the terms "hot media" and "cool media" way back in the 50's.  A "hot media" engages the viewer's brain more than a "cool media".  I remember being given an art assignment, to demonstrate the differences between "hot media" and "cool media".  On the art school's bulletin board, I pinned up two different Playboy centerfolds.  On one, I cut out some black construction paper strips, which I pinned over one Playmate's naughty parts -- the other Playmate simply showed everybody everything.  Passers by would look at the centerfolds and would walk over to the one with the strips, would pull the push pins out, peek at the model's naughty parts, and they typically would replace the strips. 

So, nude is nude.  But if you want nude to be sexy -- over it up.  When I create nude art, the model is naked.  When I want to create a sexy image, the model is naked, but she might be holding a towel up to her chest -- you can see that she is nude, but you can't see the naughty bits -- she's just a towel drop away from being revealed.  That's a hot media.

You're missing my point (that could be my fault).  I'm not talking about covering up the naughty bits to make the subject more provocative.  I'm talking about a nude model that seems more naked when something is added to her body, not covering it up the bits to play peekaboo.  An example I used is the naked model with the covered areas of a bikini tan making her seem more naked than if she didn't have tan lines.  It's not about sexy and naughty, it's about what intensifies the nakedness.

Looking over the thoughtful posts on this threads, I realize there are two different interpretations: one being the idea that a model becomes more "sexualized" when she adds something to (obscures) her naked form, like a towel or lingerie.  I well know how this adds to the allure of the model.

What I'm trying to get at is how the nudity of a model is amplified (I don't know a better word for it) with even the slightest adornment.  I'm not wondering about sexiness.  I'm thinking more in terms of the abstract.  It's kind of a question like, "What could make black even blacker?" or "How can white be even whiter?".

How can naked, which is the extreme, seem even more naked?"  I don't know if there is a real answer for it, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

I'd like to hear from more models about the question I first posted:  "Do you feel  more naked when you have something else on, no matter how small?"

aquarelle wrote:
As an artist who never tires of working with the nude model, I have noticed a phenomenon that I would like to share with artists, photographers and models.  In my studio, the model is usually completely nude, for the duration of a session.

Occasionally, a model will wear something different, like a pair of nylons, some heels, or even a waist chain or ankle bracelet.  When this happens, the model seems to me to become even more naked.  It's as if adding an element to the nude figure intensifies her nakedness.  She seems more naked than when she's actually just naked.

Has anyone noticed this?  Why would this be? Do you have any insights you can share?  For instance, models, do you ever feel more naked when you have actually put something on?

tends to turn it into more a glamour nude, when there is a little something being worn...heels, stockings, even a chain.  Makes the model look half undressed.  But I always like it!

Steve Awesome wrote:
I think what you're saying is that once the model is completely 100% nude there is no more threshold. However, by wearing something small -- even if it's a piercing or a thin necklace, you are pushing back the threshold of nudity a tiny amount -- but it is clearly perceptible and equally exciting. Makeup and hairstyling do what they can to address the nude form, but something simple -- like leaving shoes on (and nothing else) -- is what drives the emotional reaction to the unencumbered form.

PRECISELY!