This is something that I've been talking about with friends lately. I think the first time it was brought up, someone was asking if they'd found some pants for Michelangelo's David, which led to discussion as to whether he was nude or just naked. A few days later I had a similar conversation with a group of friends, aided in explaining nude/naked by a fellow artist.
When I got to my first art history class I think one of the first things we covered was the nude/naked issue. I was not thrilled by the idea of studying the David other works similarly attired. I wasn't sold on the the nude/naked thing but I have since become very converted.
So here's the nude/naked argument, you're welcome to make up your own mind. I have very much come to appreciate the difference between a nude and something that's naked, erotic or even pornographic. A nude is not intended to be erotic or pornographic and even naked can have a negative connotation. A nude is about the beauty of the human body. I would not say that every unclothed figure in art is a nude, and I would say that there are probably many unclothed figures mislabeled as nudes. So there you have it, nude/naked in a nutshell.
No comments:
Post a Comment