What makes the nude into a work of art?

<p>This just in (well, just seen by me):</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/1524226</p>

<p>There is the intrusive gaze, and then there is the intrusive gaze. The gender of the functionary doing the surveillance work would not affect my perceptions here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>At what point does a nude become profane?</p>

<p>http://www.entrenousphoto.com/thatstufflkillya.html</p>

<p>and what precisely is it that is profaned?</p>

<p>http://www.entrenousphoto.com/presentation.html</p>

<p>I am not at all sure that sexual titillation is the point of such humorous photos (at least as conjoined with the titles), but the question remains as to whether these or art or not, given such obvious "in-your-face" sexual content.</p>

<p>What does one have with such photos if one takes away the titles?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I read these forums 5 days a week during lunch. I have not contributed to the discussions in the past. This one, however, interests me. I have worked as a professional photographer off and on since 1976. I must state I have seen many thousands of nude images within photo.net galleries. I can honestly say I have never felt any sexual response from any of the images I have observed. I will say there have been several, by a select few photographers, that totally turn me away from wishing to see any of their images. I think one mans art is easily another mans pornography. The culture within the US teaches our children to be ashamed of nudity, to hide it. Yet as with most things you try to make taboo, that just increase the desire to see the nudity. I personally believe the European philosophy towards nudity is much healthier for creating stable mature human beings.</p>

If, as some believe, life came out of the primordial ooze and evolved to the point where some specie divided itself into the two sexes and then one had to be attracted to the other in order to survive. So somewhere in that evolutionary process that attraction was genetically implanted. That implantation grew somewhere along the line to sexual attraction among various species including us. I think women are attractive clad or unclad. I like nudes because I get to see more of what is attractive and that is not purely in a sexual way but some people clothed or unclothed are just nice to look particularly through the view finder of my camera and I like the persons in my photographs. I used to fall in love with my brides for a day when I did weddings. I think this is because I have certain genes implanted somewhere in my cerebral cortex that makes me think our species is attractive. My cat has different genes and she likes other cats, I believe. I still think of myself as an animal with visceral urges that are not a product of my conscious mind and that I don't truly understand. They are just there. Looking at a parade of nudes in PN does little for me. They don't seem real. I like real walking, talking people. What I am saying is I don't really know sometimes what drives me to react, whatever it is it just does. I don't really have to explain myself or explain human reactions I just have to live with them and keep them under some civilized modicum of control while at the same time taking solace and sometimes joy in looking at others no matter what their state of dress.

<p>Is "in-your-face"sexuality profane? Is pornography profane?</p>

<p>My answer to both these questions is "no."</p>

<p>I find "in-your-face" sexuality challenging, often fun, often a turn-on. I don't think of sexuality in terms of profanity.</p>

<p>I enjoy pornography when I'm in the mood. It's fun, titillating, can supply a nice release, and can be entertaining. Sure, there's a difference between porn and art (and some overlap . . . as proven by Mapplethorpe and others), but that doesn't make porn profane.</p>

<p>As to the so-called maybe profane photos Lannie just linked to, I wouldn't give them much thought and don't think much about when the nude becomes profane. If Lannie thinks they are profane or thinks there are profane nudes, it would be interesting to hear more than the label. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on why profanity comes up for him regarding this subject and what profanity related to nudity is, or what it's at least close to or about even in general terms. To me, violence is profane. Poverty is profane. Homelessness is profane. Theft is profane. Hypocrisy is profane. Nudity, not so much. Nor is sexuality profane (unless it is in some way abusive).</p>

<p>Sacred/profane, as far as I'm concerned, is an unhelpful dichotomy when talking about nude photographs. I'd suggest a more interesting dichotomy in all this, especially regarding viewer reactions, is adolescent/adult. That might more help to explain some things, including the popularity of the nudes section of PN.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "person" represented in the photo seems unharried, at rest</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think I would disagree with that assessment. To me, the subject appears tense, nervous. The set of her shoulders, the way her arms and legs are tightly drawn together, the position of her hands suggesting she's been nervously wringing them, the way her head is turned as if anticipating someone's arrival... I dunno, what photo suggests to me is (and yes I'm a hopeless romantic) a nervous bride about to meet her husband for the first time. Anyhow...<br>

As for the larger question of "what makes a nude art"... I think it's largely in how UNimportant any erotic or sexual appeal of the subject being nude is to the overall work. It's much more how the shape and shading of the body interact with the lighting, the background, and maybe to some extend how jarring the juxtaposition of the nude subject is when related to the setting or action going on in the rest of the picture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, violence is profane. Poverty is profane. Homelessness is profane. Theft is profane. Hypocrisy is profane. Nudity, not so much. Nor is sexuality profane (unless it is in some way abusive). --Fred G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I think that the concept of the profane presupposes the concept of the sacred, as you also suggest near the end of your post above. I am not trying to slip off the hook by linguistic sleight of hand, but I suppose that I was simply asking whether the photos posted (or the viewing of them) were in some way(s) violations of something sacred.</p>

<p>I can say that I think that persons' feelings are sacred, and I also think that our fragile sensitivities and sensibilities to things of great value are somehow about something so valuable that I would, for lack of a better word, also call the "sacred." Matters relating to sexuality would seem to qualify, at least potentially.</p>

<p>The question (or at least one question) then becomes whether or not the viewing of such "materials" for enjoyment in some kind of way does damage to that sensitivity or sensibility.</p>

<p>There is also the additional matter of feelings suggested by Julie Heyward. Julie seems to be offering a view often heard (from women in particular) that being looked at for the sake of sexual enjoyment in many social settings reflects a kind of objectification that is hurtful in part because it both reduces the personhood of the person being gazed upon (possibly to the point of degrading them or making them feel degraded) at the same time that it makes the person so objectified feel powerless under "that kind" of gaze from another.</p>

<p>I find it interesting that "feelings" come into play in both cases: in the first case which I just mentioned, the suggestion is that viewing "that way" somehow damages the viewer, whereas in the second case it damages, injures, or contributes to a sense of insecurity on the part of the person who is so viewed.</p>

<p>I do think that these kinds of arguments (often but not always advanced in a feminist context) deserve to be taken seriously. I would also welcome more female participation on this thread so that we might hear from more women, since these kinds of objections usually come from women.</p>

<p>It is perhaps instructive also that a woman in love often does not want her man to be viewing other women "that way" and thus feels threatened by the male gaze when it is directed not at themselves but at other women. It seems pointless to tell persons that they should not feel threatened or demeaned. If they do, then they do.</p>

<p>I even felt uneasy about posting those two pictures on this thread, even though one can see more much simply by selecting the "Nudes" category on the critique section at the top of the page (under the "Sharing" tab) and see many, many more photos of a similar nature. I am not sure that I can locate the source of my own unease (which I feel from time to time), but I do not think that it reflects a prudential concern on my part. I, too, at times sense that I should not at times be viewing a woman "that way," whether I am in love with someone else or not, whether I am indeed unconsciously "visually devouring" or debasing her in some way (to use the language that women sometimes use to try to convey the sensation of being so viewed <em>qua</em> objectified in certain contexts).</p>

<p>These comments are not intended to be ethical arguments <em>per se</em> so much as reports which I can only characterize as "anthropological data." If a woman tells me that she feels threatened or debased, then that report is simply one more anthropological datum, but I do think that it merits being taken seriously. I would not want to dismiss too casually such claims where persons' feelings are concerned. The mere fact that one can always find women who do not have the same sensitivities or moral sensibilities proves nothing. Perhaps the ones who have retained that kind of sensitivity or sensibility are the ones most worthy of getting to know better. (I speak from a heterosexual perspective, but the arguments could be easily amended and offered from other perspectives.)</p>

<p>I would not myself want to have my own love like too much the glances of other males--or enjoy too much the viewing of them in return--naked or clothed, in either case, in either direction. Again, my own feelings prove nothing but also are just a few more bits of anthropological data to be thrown into the mix for further ethical or other theoretical analysis .</p>

<p>The "nature v. nurture" distinction which has figured in previous threads on related topics once again raises its head in these kinds of reflections: why do persons report having such feelings, if they do? Is it something which they have learned, or is it something which comes from their genetic nature, even if moderated and shaped by common norms in perhaps all societies worth living in? (I do not, for the record, see all this as a "male v. female" thing in and of itself.)</p>

<p>The simple fact is that I would not want to hurt someone else's psyche or damage my own with regard to such things. I think that we seem to be getting a long way from discussions of art when we speak of such things, but perhaps not as far as we might think. In fact, it is possible that clarification of the effects of a certain type of viewing (or display) on persons' feelings is very much to the point of this thread.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Grrrr ... I hate posting in the evening because I'm tired and I don't have time, but I have to straighten Lannie out before he goes too far with the "male domination" theme.</p>

<p>You wish, Lannie ... In civilized or safe settings, I'd say it's more of an evenly matched power struggle. Women know how to arm themselves, to apply suitable war paint, tactics, strategies ... ; they surely know how to "handle your gaze" -- and if Lannie's not aware of that by his age ... [rolling eyes]</p>

<p>The nude linked in the OP seems to me to have disarmed herself. To have (almost) given herself, without defense, to the viewer. That's unusual (with or without overt sexuality). Usually the woman is "presenting" in posture, in expression, in ... you should know what I mean -- or maybe some guys don't ??</p>

<p>[Zack, feel free to argue with me any day. I hope you'll stay with this forum. And it was Potter Stewart who knew it when he saw it (not the brightest bulb in the court, but, oh never mind... I digress).]</p>

<p>I have more questions than answers<br>

Can you provide a more detailed definition of "Trashy Nude",<br>

1. Can "trashy" be a genre or art, or by definition cannot be called art.<br>

2. Is it a pictorial representation of a human treated as an object rather than as a human, or in a harmful way<br>

3. If the subject is portrayed as "trashy" and is apparently treated as an object or in an apparent harmful way, for the purpose to portray how humans can treat others as objects or how they can harm others, would this be art? A shocking torture scene in a play on human rights abuse comes to mind or the Doneky Show at ART at Harvard.<br>

4. Is it simply the viewers reaction to the creation?<br>

5. Is it the creators view of the image - I suspect many creaters or images "pornographic" magazine consider themselves artists,<br>

6. If a group of people and the creator agreed that an image was trashy, not art. If Salvador Dali did semi realistic painting of the image, could it suddenly become art?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don, since there seems to be no objective standards on such matters, I would have to say that the "trashy nude" is in the eye of the beholder.</p>

<p>That said, I think that I do indeed know it when I see it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_pornography">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_pornography</a> . A long shot from art, but our art can only exist, if we exist. Something with close ties to our existence and survival is surely going to wreak havoc about our ideas of art in a related field...</p>

<p><strong>Spock:</strong> <em>(to McCoy)</em> Doctor, I am emotionally compromised and no longer fit for command...</p>

<p>Curiosity.</p>

<p>In looking at nude photographs, what about the role of simple curiosity for/about fellow creatures of our fellow kind of flesh? In our alienated, ever more compartmentalized, covered, concealed, protected, wary ... distant society, what about simply wanting to explore, share, empathize with the fleshly being-in-ness of other people? Because women (for men) are so especially out of reach, one is especially curious about what they're <em>like</em> as compared to what your own fleshly experience is like.</p>

<p>I'm just guessing, but when reading several posts above that say things like, "I have never felt any sexual response from any of the images I have observed." [Kevin Snider Jul 28, 2011; 01:34 p.m. -- who was moved to make a very rare post to this forum because he feels this so distinctly to be true -- and I thank him for that] -- I am reminded of the three John Coplans books I have. All nude self-portraits of his lumpen 70+ year old body in every kind of position and contortion. If I've had any sexual response to Coplans, you'd need a nano-detector to find it -- but I love these photos because I get to look and look -- in an empathetic, sympathetic, but also sometimes a "good grief!" ish way at a very fellow being in a very (despite age, weight and gender difference) fellow kind of flesh. We are tribal beasts; clustering, grooming, touch-emoting surely are natural inclinations aside from sex/mating.</p>

<p>In this context, sex and sexual arousal are precisely the problem. They are what prevent one from looking, touching, exploring those living people all around you but ever at a distance (and covered and defended) about whom you are curious. Thus the non-sexual enjoyment of nudes in photographs or other kinds of art. Maybe?</p>

<p>My entry in the "what's a trashy nude?" would be that it's one that (you think) is lying to you. He/she (or whoever is in the picture) is conveying powers, intentions, desires, promises that you feel are BS.</p>

<p>... and/or, continuing on my "what's a trashy nude?" entry, even worse, it's <em>not</em> lying. The nude in the picture calls to, pointedly implies, points to, that in the viewer that he/she won't admit to having. This makes the viewer unhappy.</p>

<p>I'm gathering from the discussion that a nude in a photograph isn't experienced by the viewer as art when it violates the viewer's sensibilities somehow. It may nevertheless be art though, and I'm looking for a definte definition of art, and am beginning to suspect that there isn't one. I say it may nevertheless be art because I've found that a nude photograph that may have originally touched my sensibilites the wrong way, upon self-reflection, no longer did so: and I'm then more comfortable with myself for the inner process. I understand from all the above that there are contexts in the creation and in the viewing. So here: <a href="../photo/11261712">http://www.photo.net/photo/11261712</a> there is a treatment that has some context as to how nudes have been presented in art in the past, and my context in viewing is that it seems well balanced and has nice light, kind of making me forget that the model is unclad. Seems very natural though obviously it isn't for being conceptualized and posed.</p>

<p>First off, I want to thank you Lannie. Both for the compliment, and for starting this thread. I'm starting an MFA in photography program in Monday believe it or not, and I have been extremely worried about it. The chair basically told me, "We put you in because of your work ethic, and because you're different (more commercial, it seems) than your classmates." Which on one hand, reads, 'you're different, good job.' On the other hand, it also could read, 'you're different, good luck.' I can't tell you how much it means to me to receive an unsolicited comment from another excellent photographer. Thank you.</p>

<p>Fred, I do think <em>The Birth of Venus</em> is sexual. Ish. Thanks for reminding me that italics exist, btw. However, I think the innocence trumps the sexuality. To me, the fact that she is about to be covered up tells me that she's not overly concerned about it herself. Sure she's covering her bits, but she doesn't look like she's overly bothered about the whole thing. She's not covering herself with clothing or with a fig leaf or any other object than what God (or Zeus? What's the Roman version of Zeus again?) gave her. I think that societally, Venus is covering herself because she needs to. Venus herself doesn't need to of course, but if Botticelli doesn't want to be burned alive he needs her to cover herself. I think you are totally correct in that innocence, like yin, cannot exist without at least the implication of sexuality, its yang. Where we disagree though is that I feel that the yin in this image is walking all over the yang, which is basically there because it has to be.</p>

<p>But again, that argument depends on arbitrarily drawn line. And thanks, Julie, for pointing our Mr. Stewart as the judge who 'knows it when he sees it.' I'm picturing Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington right now, but no matter :)</p>

<p>Lannie, objectification has become and extremely hard thing to pin down in the last few years. Really, ever since the idea of Postmodern thinking. In the 1920s, if you bought a picture of a naked lady, she was being objectified. There was really no other way of looking at it. But today, if you buy a girlie mag, the subject <em>knows</em> she is being objectified. More importantly, those who do porn may be doing it because they see it as a way to make a living, and not a last-ditch effort to get into showbiz. I forget the title, but Netflix has a very interesting documentary by Michael Grecco on pornstars. Some of these women do porn because they know they can be paid for, essentially, being extremely good-looking. I would argue that in a Postmodern society, those women are not being objectified. If anything, the dudes that pay them, buy their magazines and DVDs, or whatnot are the ones being objectified.</p>

<p>Don, 'trashy art' is not a line I am prepared to draw. Personally, I don't feel Ed Hardy or the dirtier parts of Mappelthorpe's catalog is 'fine art.' I wouldn't say it isn't art though. I really like Banksy, and I wouldn't call his work 'fine art' either. To me though, the word 'fine' implies a distinction. To me, 'art' is subective, and can be argued. 'Fine art' is that which is more-or-less universally agreed upon. This distiction is only for myself and my own thought process though.</p>

<p>Kevin mentioned his own experiences, and I think it's only fair that I should mention mine, since thay have so much to do with my opinions. I very rarely shoot nudes - in fact, I have only shot four women nude whom I was not 'intimate' with. And really, only two of those women were actually supposed to be nude; the other two had a nipple slip or somesuch in there somewhere, and we just sort of went with it.</p>

<p>Personally, I always get nervous and blushy when I shoot nudes. I didn't realize my upbringing was so waspy until a few years ago, but this explains it. This is probably why I have difficulty shooting women nude that I'm not already 'intimate' with. Looking at my photos, I see that even the women I wasn't intimate with that were relaxed and confident about taking off their clothing do not appear as relaxed in most of the images as the ones that I was intimate with. It's obvious that here, the photographer's perspective influences the final result as much as the posing and lighting do.</p>

<p>Also, in reviewing my post, I see more waspiness. I went way to far to avoid using the term 'having sex.'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>t seems well balanced and has nice light, kind of making me forget that the model is unclad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, this observation of yours about a particular photo gets to the crux of what impelled me to start this thread in the first place. I have noticed over the years that the nudes that I admired the most as art drew my attention to other than body parts. I am not saying that an adolescent seeing such a nude for the first time would be indifferent to the display of body parts, nor that I always would in all possible moods, but the display of the naked form certainly can be done in such a way that the fact that the model is naked seems almost irrelevant. This is a great paradox for me, and I shall never fully understand it, but what you have said certainly resonates with me.</p>

<p>As for defining "art" in general, I have almost given up on that one. Perhaps it is a curious philosophical exercise that we are engaged in, such that we cannot even define the core terms, but I still think that philosophical reflection on such matters can be useful and fruitful, even though there never seem to be firm conclusions that we can draw.</p>

<p>I do think that philosophy at its core is about conversation, and, though there are typically implicit rules for philosophical conversation ("do not attack persons," "do not try to win a debate," etc.), the most important general rule (in my opinion) is that one should say only that which keeps the conversation alive. After all, philosophers today are still trying to answer Socrates' question "What is justice?" I do not even know that we have come a long way in answering that question, but I feel very strongly that the question needs to be asked and that we must continue to think about it.</p>

<p>In like manner, in discussions of (a)esthetics, one knows at the beginning that one might not arrive at a hard and fast answer. Even so, the conversation is worth having, and one comes away from a really good philosophical conversation feeling that one is somehow the better for having engaged in it, that one has gained a certain perspective on the topic (or on human nature itself) that helps one cope with the real world. I like to say (although it is not original with me) that "there is nothing more practical than theory."</p>

<p>In any case, I think that truly civilized persons do not flinch when certain topics are raised, and only through rational, non-titillating conversation and analysis is this possible where topics involving nudity and sexuality are concerned.</p>

<p>In the instant case, the photo that impelled you to say that you forgot that the model was unclad must have something about it besides the naked form. What that "something" is is of course the elusive "something" that we are no doubt seeking in all art, even if we cannot quite put our finger on what it is. An artistic photo (of any subject) has "a certain something" that resonates with at least one viewer in such a way, I believe, that the viewer is left edified by it. If we could find something that resonated with all persons, we would have discovered something rare indeed, but I am not sure that such an entity even exists. That "fact" (if it be fact) does not keep me from looking for it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Thank you for the kind words, Zach. I hope that your MFA goes well. Unless you run into some kind of control freak, you will probably be quite happy and productive. Graduate schools are typically full of prima donnas, but they can usually be endured or avoided to some extent. Control freaks who want to make their vision your vision can be a lot more difficult to deal with. (Try to stay civil, as I had a hard time doing upon going back to grad school at the age of fifty-four in a very different field from my earlier graduate studies. I never got my M.A. in Spanish literature as a result, but I refused to kowtow to intellectual imperialism. I am sure that I could have handled it all better, but it is just as well that I finally just took what I learned from the program and went back to what I had been teaching since the 1970s. I was richer as a result of having been in the program, and how many letters does one need after one's name, after all? Sour grapes? Maybe, but I am okay with the outcome now, years later.)</p>

<p>On another note, in responding to Fred, you said that "I think you are totally correct in that innocence, like yin, cannot exist without at least the implication of sexuality, its yang." Opposing "innocence" to "sexuality" has always troubled me, since it strongly suggests that sexuality is not or cannot be innocent. Perhaps that is the legacy of the Genesis account of the beginnings of human shame: being aware that they were naked made Adam and Eve feel ashamed, so the story goes, and so they had to leave Eden. Even as allegory, the account is not without its difficulties. Its legacy lives on nonetheless. How it got tangled up with sexuality is still beyond me, unless that is what it was about all along.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the larger question of "what makes a nude art"... I think it's largely in how UNimportant any erotic or sexual appeal of the subject being nude is to the overall work. It's much more how the shape and shading of the body interact with the lighting, the background, and maybe to some extend how jarring the juxtaposition of the nude subject is when related to the setting or action going on in the rest of the picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not saying that an adolescent seeing such a nude for the first time would be indifferent to the display of body parts, nor that I always would in all possible moods, but the display of the naked form certainly can be done in such a way that the fact that the model is naked seems almost irrelevant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are likely nudes where light and shape are as important or even more important than the nudity and body per se. (Of course, the light would be reflecting off the body and the shape would be there because of the body, but let's just say in some instances the nude is not primarily about nudity or the body.)</p>

<p>The flip side of that is that I am certain that many artists and photographers are not in denial, not uncomfortable with nudity itself or sexuality, and not into either transcending the nudity and body or obfuscating what they're doing. They are fully aware of and in touch with both the nudity and the sexuality of their nudes and that's exactly what they're portraying . . . nudity and body, and in many cases, sexuality.</p>

<p>Many artists and viewers are not trying to clothe these things in something else.</p>

<p>I appreciate Julie's addition of curiosity as a motivating factor. I hadn't really thought about that and it seems quite pertinent. I'll add that it's not only about what's out of reach. Men's bodies are within reach to me and I still enjoy and employ that curiosity I think Julie is getting at, though it may be somewhat different than the dynamic between males and females. I've often thought of doing a series exploring whether there would be a difference in how I might handle gay male nudes and how I might handle straight male nudes, which might deal to some extent with a kind of out-of-reachness.</p>

<p>I also empathize with Julie's not feeling particularly sexually aroused by the photos of Coplans. My reaction to nudes is often not sexual as well, or at least not as overtly or decidedly sexual. At the same time, I have photographed men over 60 where the sexual component was very much at play for the photographing and I think many viewers would feel that as well.</p>

<p>What's great about photographing is the myriad of possibilities to explore even with the same subjects or subject matter. I am much more into exploring those possibilities than assuming certain limitations to what's "art," be it a nude body or a chair or a landscape.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"[W]hat's a trashy nude?" . . . The nude in the picture calls to, pointedly implies, points to, that in the viewer that he/she won't admit to having. This makes the viewer unhappy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And once again, Julie gets to the crux of much of this thread.</p>

<p>Fred, I think that you are right in much of what you say, and I am not even sure that we should (except in jest) refer to certain body parts as "naughty bits." Are they inherently naughty? If so, why?</p>

<p>I still find it to be the case, however, that the most powerful nudes for me have typically not been the most explicit ones, for whatever reason. The most erotic views of women are also (for me) those in which the woman is still clothed. (This implies to me that covering them up to varying degrees does nothing quite so much as whet our appetites all the more--nor is that necessarily a bad thing.) Curiosity does indeed drive us, but we also can be intrigued (perhaps energized) by a sense of mystery, even modesty. I do not want to overstate the case, nor do I want to deny the erotic content of many powerful (and artistic) nudes. I simply want to clarify my own position somewhat.</p>

<p>As for the element of forgetfulness (as to either what one is seeing or what one is showing), I have always been intrigued by the naturists and their own curious attempts to (one presumes) capture "lost innocence." (There is that 'i' word again. What does it mean in this context?) There is what one might even call the genre of "naturist art," which is usually composed of a group of snapshots and would therefore be dreadful art at best; but the viewing of such snaps nonetheless might give some limited insight on these matters.</p>

<p>http://www.terra.es/personal/arealo/ (See the "Albums.")</p>

<p>What is striking to me in such photos is the capacity of adults to quickly forget that they are unclothed and thereby displaying their "naughty bits" without any self-consciousness whatsoever. All of this suggests to me that, whatever evils may derive from lustful and sexual behaviors (and I shall not try to catalog them here), those evils probably do not derive from nudity <em>per se</em>. Nor are those evil propensities banished by draping ourselves very modestly from head to toe. One might even infer (correctly or incorrectly) that there is nothing inherently evil in the public display of the body, whether formally in art or informally in play on the beach. Perhaps I am mistaken on this point, but one gets the sense that "nurture" has completely won out over "nature" on this one--and that we just might be the worse for it. I have noticed that the indigenous tribes of the Amazon rainforest have stable relationships and family structures in spite of their lack of clothing--and they are not promiscuous, either. Is there a lesson there for those of us who are presumably more "civilized"?</p>

<p>Perhaps a line from a song from the Woodstock generation conveys the aspiration to be free of sexual guilt (as manifested in its symptoms through the making of more and more rules governing nudity and sexuality): "We have got to get ourselves back to the Garden."</p>

<p>That being impossible, on the other hand (since I am quite sure that the Garden never existed except perhaps in the allegorical sense of the "innocence" of pre-sexual childhood, if then), what do we do to regain our sense of perspective on such matters? I have no idea except to say that there is perhaps a reason that raising these issues or linking to nude pictures disturbs some persons: society as we know it does indeed seem to be threatened by the open airing of these issues. I am not sure why. I am not sure that the given order is so sacred or perfect that I am deeply troubled by the prospect of such an eventuality as its final (but gradual and peaceful) demise.</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, a degree of romanticism is to be our redemption, in both our personal relationships and in derivative social institutions, then perhaps clothes perform a subtle psychological function that I do not fully understand. I am still not sure that I want my beloved to go traipsing around naked on the beach, much less on city streets, but is that a reflection of the moral impulse, or mere possessiveness and insecurity? I really am not sure, although I was sure (and very insecure) when I was twenty years old--and I did love her, and the thought of others seeing her was horrifying. Have I lost something? Have I gained something?</p>

<p>I have heard it said that the fact that a person thinks about something a great deal indicates that he or she is disturbed by it. So maybe I am just disturbed! If so, let it be noted that I am still unashamed, and I am not yet to the point of Mark Vonnegut that I am running around the block naked to free myself from the shackles of our Puritan capitalist order, as Mark reports having done during his bouts of total insanity near the end of his magnificent autobiography, <em>The Eden Express</em>.</p>

<p>In any case, I do not apologize that this issue disturbs me--as an intellectual issue, of course. Ninety-five plus percent of my writings is about politics and ethics--and especially about violence and its alternatives. Now, there (violence!) is an issue that really disturbs me--not only intellectually but emotionally. My response to that disturbance has been to write my own (inadequate) tract on pacifism. I am not quite prepared to offer my own naturist manifesto, if only because I think that the naturists see only part of the truth. Clothes do, I think, perform a social function apart from hygiene and protection from the elements. Besides, one thing that continues to enthrall me more than seeing my beloved undraped is process of undraping her myself--from which I infer the paradoxical conclusion that clothes might actually heighten our sense of sexuality, as well as our moral sensibilities regarding sexuality. I really am not at all sure, but there is something mysterious at work here in the way that the mind functions in all issues relating to sexuality and nudity.</p>

<p>In any case, please forgive this extended digression into general social theory. I simply think that the answers are ultimately to be found in relating our responses to the nude (as an art form) to our responses to sexuality and nudity in culture. In spite of the many words above, I must finally join Socrates near the end of his life and admit that I know nothing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>." Are they inherently naughty? If so, why?"</p>

<p>Naughty bits can and do stimulate certain hormonule responses.. the breeding areas of our species. This is considerd to be wicked in many cultures and can lead to loose sex without commitement from either partner. The word generally used for such acts is "lust". Once we started wearing clothes and religion became a major influence..well, we know the story. In some cultures the dispay of an ankle can be considered a naughty bit which can lead to lustful desires.</p>

<p>Nudes like any other type of photography if it's done with talent can reach a place which transends into what we call Art.</p>

<p>Interestingly, there was a nude bike ride through London which after a few cursory glances most folks just ignored.</p>

<p>Yes, the display of the ankle was considered indecent around the turn of the twentieth century. Upper arms of women are not displayed in some cultures. In other cultures the entire face must be covered except for slits for the eyes. (I guess that means that a nose poking through the wrong hole in the garment would be considered a "naughty bit.")</p>

<p>None of this would suggest to me that any particular part of the body must be or ought to be considered "naughty" in and of itself. The entire body (or parts thereof) can be an erogenous zone. Some female paraplegics report orgasms, even though they cannot detect stimulation of their genitalia. (One theory "implicates" the vagus nerve as the link to the brain in such cases, but the source and nature of the stimulus are not so easily located, nor always the same.)</p>

<p>Even "lust" (or, more precisely, what evokes lust) is largely contextual.</p>

<p>It seems clear enough to me that convention (and concomitant cultural socialization or "nurture") has trumped nature where the issue of what is considered suggestive or lust-inducing is concerned. It seems to be thereby fruitless to try to define which parts of the body are inherently indecent or "naughty."</p>

<p>It thereby also seems fruitless and arbitrary to say which parts of the body must be covered up. Lust is a matter of the heart and soul, not just the body, and so the only successful approach to its regulation is self-control involving certain norms of behavior which the individual internalizes for himself or herself. Attempts to impose these norms through external devices and extrinsic incentives are largely ineffectual. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Has anyone considered in the discussions so far - to which I have paid only moderate attention (a well worn road..) as it comes up so often and provides the same answers (notwithstanding a few this time that push the envelope a bit further) - that we are so fascinated by the human body (our own, those of others) that we are unable to consider it, or representations of it, in the same manner we consider other things that we mentally or physically contemplate and which are more at arms length to us?</p>

<p>I think we usually react sexually as well as aesthetically (as well as repugnantly in some cases) to the bodies of others, in proportions that vary quite a bit, whether the person is known or unknown to us, and I see no controversy or mystery in that. On the other hand, a successful nude is difficult to come by, just like a successful portrait is also no easy task. There is always something missing for the viewer, if only because we have highly subjective views of what we want to see in another (and in ourselves), especially when we go beyond the sexual thought to the aesthetic one or one which communicates to us as very specific individuals.</p>

<p>We seem to agree more about what constitutes a powerful photojournalistic image or landscape or mood image. Why are there so few nude images of men. If the aim of the nude is to communicate sexual and aesthetic qualities, you would think that something like 50% of viewers would appreciate male nudes. But that field is mainly empty for a large part of the population. Nudes are often less suggestive in a sexual sense than the clothed human, as we are able to imagine what is not shown. Nudes can have as much or more potential in an aesthetic presentation, as clothing does not interfere with the form of the body. It is usually easier to show the different faces of a building or inanimate object than a nude body, because we are not faced with as highly charged a reaction of the viewer, or the captivity of the photographer. Maybe if animals could photograph humans we might start to see ourselves in a less subjective or perceptually flawed sense?</p>

<p>(Maybe not much food for thought, and no doubt uncorrected orthography (in all its nudity), but I have to get out to a r-v with some friends).</p>

<p>I'm going to offer my thoughts on the Tree of Life and innocence/sexuality discussion. I hope this will add to the main discussion. rather than cause another tangent.</p>

<p>According to various parts of the bible (and my apologies for not knowing passages, or even which Testamentl I've familiar, but not an expert) the reproductive organs are only for reproduction. We are to go forth and be fruitful, but we are not supposed to enjoy it. If sex was a universally unenjoyable event, I don't think that genitalia would be seen as even remotely taboo in any culture. Before eating from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve obviously knew that had genitals. They may or may not have known that they were for reproduction, but they knew they were there. In eating from the Tree of Life, one of the things learned was the (physiological) role of genitals: pleasure. In learning this, Adam and Even also learned that these parts were 'special.' Arguments can be made that they covered themselves to protect those parts, to help prevent others from having power over them through the objectification of their bodies, or to have power over others by, basically, being a tease. I don't think any one of these is a bad argument, or is better than the others.</p>

<p>But for a non-religious version, look at children. Young children, even those old enough to know that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina, have no trouble being naked. Little girls like to lift their dresses, and little boys are oddly fast at removing their shoes and pants. I don't know if children do this outside of the West, but it sure as hell happens here. As children get older though, and begin to explore their bodies, that behaviour changes. They may not yet understand the concept of sex or masturbation, but they stop getting naked in public around the same time that they learn that 'that tickles,' and little boys stop taking off their shirts at every opportunity right around then too. Sure there are a LOT of guys that still walk around shirtless in the summer, but they stop trying to take off their shirts (and, more symbolically, their shoes) every time you turn around at about that point.</p>

<p>We'd need a pretty big international sample to call the nature/nurture debate here, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of the shame that comes with realization is ingrained in our DNA.</p>

<p>To bring it back around, this is why I say that sexuality is the opposite of innocence. I think that other things can be the opposite of innocence too, but that is how I define sexuality. I think that, at least on a Freudian level, a good deal of other acts are the result of our sexual urges. Violence can be a result of hatred, but it can also be a subconsious acting-out of one person's desire to prove he his better than another, and thus a more suitable mate. Men, ask yourself this: have you ever thought, "Man, I'd love to kick his smug ass right in front of his girlfriend"? This is sexual violence. You may not be sexually interested in the girlfriend at all, but it <em>is</em> sexual in that you would be beating up on this guy to show that he is a weaker man, and thus a worse mate than you are. If you <em>really</em> weren't interested in his girlfriend, you might even hope she got a little rise out of it so that you could snub her.</p>

<p>I'm not above admitting that I was in that exact situation a few years back. I had a messy breakup, and bumped into the ex and her new fling at a bar. He had a few drinks in him, and was pushing me around and telling me how she was his now. Thankfully I was with my own new fling at the time and she wasn't even remotely cool with fighting, because I'm honestly not sure I could have taken him. He was pretty drunk, but he was also a lot bigger than me :)</p>

<p>I hope these examples illuminate why - to me at least - innocence and sexuality are like yin and yang.</p>

<p>I also want to agree with Julie on a point: I also think that some clothing is often more sexually alluring (lustful) than no clothing. From an evolutionary standpoint, human beings, both male and female, are hunters. We are also pack animals, and pack animals seek dominance over others to be alpha. A sexually suggestive <em>clothed</em> figure provides some element of the hunt or the chase; something that must be conquered. A nude figure provides none of that. </p>

<p>From a non-evolutionary standpoint, a cothed figure also provides more mystique. As anyone who has dated for any length of time can tell you, we've all had at least one instance were we were attracted to someone, we got their clothes off, and ... oh. "Well, that wasn't quite what I expected."</p>

<p>Clothing allows us to make up the features that we find most attractive, while a full nude just tells it like it is. If he has a beer belly, or if she's too skinny, then that's just the way it is.</p>