Nudity in Art: A Virtue or Vise?

"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble

than the shoe, and skin more beautiful that the garment with which it is clothed?" —Michel Angelo

Some people feel that the undraped form is something that should not be put on display both in art and the artist's classroom. Although this may seem at first like a mere displeasure, such

people frequently attempt to stop others from observing or learning from the human form,

thereby infringing on their rights to create and consume art as they wish. All of the recommendedart training programs include nude figure drawing in the curriculum, and thus it has always been, back to the days of the early Greeks. In fact, it would be virtually absurd to teach someone how todraw true human forms without this essential tool.Even to design a clothed figure, one needs to understand every inch of what is underneath. Drawing the nude figure is the only way to do a bang up job, as is the practice of learning how to draw the bones and muscles beneath the skin.

Educational affairs aside, nude figures also pitch important allusive tools to artists. They can

show human beings in ways that are dissimilarly respected. For one thing, expressions of nudes

are the supreme contradictory from expressions of figures wearing trench coats, hats, and

sunglasses. They also allow the artist to show people outside of a classical context if he wishes

to do so. Put any kind of clothing on a body in a painting or a sculpture and you tie them down to a time when that kind of clothing was monotonous or trendy and apart from times

when it wasn't.

That said, at times the figure may need to wear something due to the nature of what is being shown or

revealed, yet the artist may still wish the message to be accepted worldwide to all men of all

times. One way of doing this has been to dress the figures in a sheet or simple cloth which is

often called classical garb which drapes the figures and feels like it could be taking

place in the past present or future. I like to call this placing the figures in the

"ancient distant future".

Using nudity, the artist can show human beings in a way that spotlights the attention on the figure and not insignificant matters like how their shirts are buttoned, how their skirts are being draped,

and even if they are wearing the most classy kind of hat. The capability of the artist to seek

attention on the important aspects of what is going on and to amputate distractions from this

subject of focus is a common reason for the choice of nude figures as well.

Lastly, the human body can be an alluring thing to think about seriously and this can be a useful

artistic tool in itself, just as flowers, sunsets, and mountains are furthermore useful tools in

the artist's toolkit. And if the point of art is fundamentally to express ideas about the nature of

humanity and man's role in the world, then it would be accustomed to expect that the unadorned

human form would be among the most dominant of those expressive tools and indeed it is.

If you look at circumstances where nudity is commonplace, such as showers in gyms,

nude figure sketching sessions in art schools, nude beaches, and primitive societies where public

nudity is commonplace, you don't see a hyper-sexualized environment at all.

Quite the opposite, in these frameworks, nudity loses its sexual connotation entirely.

On the other hand, in social situations where little or no display of the body is allowed (such as

certain Muslim countries today or 19th century Europe and America for example) tame

displays of the body such as exposing a body part, a short sleeved shirt, or the ruffles of a petticoat might drive men into a sexual frenzy. If

anything, it would seem that sexual hypersensitivity and obsession is far more

associated with a Victorian approach to nudity than to one that makes it

more commonplace.

I think that adults tend to project their own aggravated interest in sexual affair onto children who

in fact don't have such interests at all. Rather, they are more likely to have desire to know about

whatever "forbidden fruit" it is that their parents seek to hide away from them. In my experience,

young children are likely to respond to a nude painting or statue by saying something like "Oh,

so that's what a naked woman/man looks like." shrug their shoulders, and go back to whatever

they were already doing. If an uncomfortable sexual situation arises, the situation is generally far more uncomfortable for the adults who are worried about being asked embarrassing questions, than for the

kids who are just mildly curious about what's going on rather than blushing and becoming

upset.

Likewise, it is generally parents rather than children who typically have the bouts of anxiety

associated with discussing where babies come from. There is a broader social level of concern

as well. In a free society, we should expect to enjoy the maximum level of

freedom of expression in the arts, whether as creators or consumers of it.

To put a lid on this creativity, ends our range of appreciation and playfulness of the human

condition and causes us to constantly and overly edit our expressions and interpretations in

ways not unlike the way people in totalitarian societies do. What good does the freedom

to fully express our ideas do us if for foolish reasons we hold back in doing so?

If the best expression of some idea includes nudity then by all means let's see it!

Without passing any judgement.

That way we will always have the best, both of today and also of the past, which contains plenty of nude work. Would we really be better off if all of that great art, such a Michelangelo's 'David',

was hidden away? Destroyed? Never made in the first place? If he covered with fig leaves? I don't

think so.

I want the artwork I experience to be created with the best training, the best raw materials, the

most creative ideas, and the widest freedom to use all of those things to make the most

excellent works that best efforts can achieve. To do any less, would make the

world a worse place to live.