Sijun Forums :: View topic

Awetopsy · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 11:38 am

I mean I was looking at the gallery page and noticed that almost half of the images there incorporate some sort of nudity or sexual theme.

whats up with that? It almost feels like its to the point of gratuitous now.

Dont get me wrong, I believe in knowing the human anatomy just as much as the next guy but somehow we seem to keep wanting to push the envelope as to whats appropriate.

I am however thankful that most people are now putting a "nudity" tag on their posts but still, there comes a point where an artist has to take a step beyond the nude stage and start putting clothes on their figures and so on.

Perhaps its just me but Im finding that Im really appreciating the non-nude images.

Any one have opinions on this?

horstenpeter · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 11:47 am

Can agree wholeheartedly. I don't find erotic images to be appealing, not even in a sexual way. I don't even know what all this fuss about porn is all about. Sex may be fun but there's more important things in life.

Bishop_Six · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 11:47 am

I agree with you. We all know WHY they do it. But there is more to art than drawing nude women.

balistic · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 1:24 pm

Billions of years of evolution encoded into every cell in our bodies tells us that the most beautiful thing in the universe is a sexually-receptive member of the opposite sex. Personally, I find it remarkable that we ever draw anything else.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: balistic ]

Pat · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 2:19 pm

I only draw naked women because the cool artists will push me down and take my lunch money if I don't.

-Pat

Dthind · member Member # Joined: 12 Dec 2000 Posts: 436

quote:
Originally posted by Pat:
I only draw naked women because the cool artists will push me down and take my lunch money if I don't.

-Pat

That was funny.

Some of you need to lighten up and get off that high horse you sit on.

Awetopsy · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 2:43 pm

Dthind: high horse? what are you talking about?

balistic · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 2:57 pm

I dunno what he's talking about, but this horse looks like he might be high:

burn0ut · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 3:04 pm

Pat · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 3:07 pm

Actual photo of me being terrorized in 5th grade. Honest.

In all seriousness, nudity as an art subject isn't always ment to be erotic. It's designed to be classic. Stipped of our stylish clothes and other visual trappings from our time, the naked form is one of the few honest subjects an artist can study. It's a very relevant one as well.

-Pat

Awetopsy · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 4:33 pm

If you read my original post you'll see that Im not opposed to the use of the nude figure in itself... its just that there comes a point where artists should move on. Ive studied the nude figure too but Ive ventured off into drawing other things.

gLitterbug · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 5:24 pm

I�ve nothing against nudity and I love naked women, but I think that right now there�s that problem that the nudity gets in front of the art and thats not good.

christian cox · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 5:32 pm

This has turned into a rather humorous post - while I agree with Awetopsy, I have found the above images to be hysterical.

I expected a nude image to be posted right after the original message when I first saw the subject line - luckily I was wrong.

But I wouldn't be suprised if someone posted one *right* after I posted this

[Shizo] · member Member # Joined: 22 Oct 1999 Posts: 3938

quote:
Originally posted by christian cox:

But I wouldn't be suprised if someone posted one *right* after I posted this

I just made sure it didnt happen! hehe
i saved the world

Snakebyte · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 8:28 pm

Its hard to say quite how I feel about the subject, I think it’s ok to a point, if the subject is tasteful non-porn its ok. But for some people on the board nudes are all they do and it is those people that need to move on. (Unless it for practice and tasteful)

The only thing that bothers me is that you see so may **NUDES** on the board, people (old school artist) will start overlooking them and assume the image is just your a-typical nude, without giving them a second thought. And when someone like me who rarely if ever draws a nude may paint one and have it overlooked if I were to worn you with the **NUDE** heading.

Samson & Friends · member Member # Joined: 02 Jan 2001 Posts: 106

Just an observation: there's hardly any male nudity - it's always girls with their breasts and asses.

Pat · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 9:45 pm

quote:
Originally posted by Awetopsy:
If you read my original post you'll see that Im not opposed to the use of the nude figure in itself... its just that there comes a point where artists should move on.

Says you. There are a lot of artists who spend their entire careers painting only nudes.

-Pat

Lunatique · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:18 pm

Oh man, that pic of the horse on drugs.... ROTFLMAO!

I think the nude subject is about as classic as you can get in painting, as Pat already stated.

BUT, I do have a problem with some dude just taking an obvious porn picture to draw from, and try to pass it off as some tasteful "nude study." I'm not saying nude studies can't be erotic, but when it's too damn obvious that the original pic was some chick spreading her gams, it's just silly.

I understand that for some of the younger artists, it's impossible to find a nude model, but at least be a little more selective in choosing your reference material. We've all seen the countless Jenny Mcarthy/Carmen Electra/Pamela Anderson crap and we're numbed by them.

Personaly, I find having a little bit of clothing is FAR more erotic than just the birthday suit. But that's just me. I'm sure Dr. Bang and Shizo will disagree and comment with, "TAKE IT ALL OFF!!!"

Right?

Awetopsy · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 12:19 am

Pat: seems kinda pointles to get stuck in one area of study concerning art. that would be like saying all Im ever going to paint from now on is apples. but nobody makes a career from just painting apples...

I just think the nudity thing is overdone in alot of cases. (not all because like I said earlier, I believe that knowing the human figure is important.)

[Shizo] · member Member # Joined: 22 Oct 1999 Posts: 3938

Because the goal of life is sex! HEHE
PS: it's true

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: [Shizo] ]

Dr. Bang · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 12:45 am

cause its soooo fun and satisfying to draw a naked chix. I really dont see anything wrong with it all all.....look at all the photographers out there....90% of their photos is full of naked chix in bw.

Pat · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 2:34 am

quote:
Originally posted by Awetopsy:
Pat: seems kinda pointles to get stuck in one area of study concerning art. that would be like saying all Im ever going to paint from now on is apples. but nobody makes a career from just painting apples...

Ok, now you're just flapping your gums and making no sense at all.

For your information, there was an entire generation of Dutch still life painters who made their careers off of painting only apples. Some specialized in flowers. They got so good at rendering these subjects that horticulturists can identify the exact plant species to this day. They were supplanted historically by those "obsessed" portraitists who established their careers by only painting faces.

Maybe I don't think like you, but "getting stuck" in one area of art seems to be the point. Most artists eventually single out one or two themes or problems that resonate with them. It might be the way light plays over form. It might be the particular way paint splatters when jolted with electricity. It might even be a subject like water lillies, ballerinas, or the horrors of war. Artists can explore these themes methodically for their entire careers. This isn't spinning your wheels, it's the kind of time and focus needed to really see and understand a particular subject.

Consider the strange case of William Bailey. He spent the majority of his career painting the same set of cups, bowls and pitchers. He did this for decades. When he was feeling racey he took them off the table and painted them on a shelf. But his work eventually transcended a simple still life and became something more. The only way to get where he went was to spend the time like he did.

I can understand your issue with nudes --there's a lot hacked out novice material out there. But every artist is in a different place on their path to understanding. We all start "cliche" because that's what's at the beginning. But like William Bailey it's not where you begin, rather where you end up, that gives your work true value. So stop bitching about all the nudes and get on with the journey already.

-Pat

Sedone · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 7:44 am

Amen to that!

HawkOne · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 8:08 am

Amen again !

Pat for president ...

12345 · member Member # Joined: 25 Nov 2001 Posts: 127

quote:
Originally posted by Sedone:
Amen to that!

Amen to Sedone for posting at Sijun again.

Awetopsy · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 9:25 am

I stand corrected. My apologies, I seriously didnt know that there were dutch painters who specialized in those areas. Ill have to do a little research...

anyways, I still think the nudity thing is way overdone here.

(but you dont need to take a patronizing tone)

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

Awetopsy · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 9:47 am

Just for the sake of things..

You'll notice I replied to Krobars post in the gallery, which contains nudity.

Im not opposed to artistic nudity in itself, because it is quite useful in the learning process. Maybe it is different thinking, but take a look at the artists, even here at sijun, who really stand out. Take a look at Don Seegmiller or Craig Mullins or Loki or Francis or Fleabrain etc. They dont get hung up on one subject but they've developed their own distinct styles of work. Now each of them do have their preffered subjects, such as Craig Mullins likes to paint pirates and Francis likes technical things but they have really diversified their skill.

Yes everybody is at their own skill level, I have no problem with that.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

Pat · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 11:24 am

Awetopsy, sorry about the tone. I can be an irreverent ass sometimes --it's just my nature.

I'm just passionate about the classics, so when someone says something that sounds really ignorant to me, that scarcasm just kicks in. I try to reign it in, but I'm weak.

Everyone around here worships Mullins, and deservedly so, but keep in mind there were artists who could paint the pants off of him. Do yourself a favor and take the time to check some of them out. I honestly fail to see how you can become any kind of decent painter without a solid acquaintance with art history. And I'm the guy who doodled through and skipped my Art History classes. Boy, I'm savoring that delicious irony now.

-Pat

Anthony · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2002 11:30 am

I like naked. I also like clothes. I think people look better, and as someone said, are more interesting, with clothes on. I don't have a problem with either way, as long as it doesn't revolt me by being pornographic. But someone could exculsively paint nudes and it wouldn't bother me, it's silly to consider it taboo at this point.

Malachi Maloney · Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2002 4:44 am

I agree with Pat whole heartedly.

M