Nudity in Art: Acceptable vs Pornographic
#538
Hey everyone, welcome back to another great article! As always, thanks for the continued support.
What makes nudity in art acceptable, and what makes it pornographic? That’s what we’re going to discover today! The answer might be obvious, but there are more gray areas that you’re probably not aware of. We’ll be looking at some great quotes, while comparing tons of master paintings and photos. Let’s get into it!
What’s the Big Deal? Nudity in Art
This article was spawned by a great quote by Michelangelo:
“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 than the garment with which it is clothed?”
Michelangelo is basically calling out all of the prudes that have a tough time viewing his nude paintings and drawings. He painted the Sistine Chapel, which means the church accepted the nudity he was portraying in his art. Michelangelo’s work must’ve been continually critiqued by sensitive people because he’s got several more quotes that defend his masterful work.
“And who is so barbarous as not to understand that the foot of a man is nobler than his shoe, and his skin nobler than that of the sheep with which he is clothed.”
“He who does not master the nude cannot understand the principles of architecture.”
So what is the big deal anyway? We are all adults and can handle nudity in a responsible way, right? Well, unfortunately it’s not as black and white like that. If we take nude paintings and put them in a book that children might read, it might create an impression on them that was premature. Take the work of Egon Shiele for instance. I wouldn’t want my two-year-old niece viewing one of his nude paintings (see article). It’d be too vulgar for her innocent mind…even though she’d probably not understand what she’s looking at. We have to continually teach them what is “good” vs what is considered “bad” in order for them to eventually form a strong opinion.
There are many other reasons why nude art isn’t acceptable, and one might stem from the opinion of a recovering sex addict. I could see how nudity could be bad for someone that was once a sex or porn addict. Does this mean we should ban nude art or nudity from art schools or figure drawing classes? Definitely not. Just like we don’t remove liquor ads from the world for people in Alcoholics Anonymous, or ban all fast food joints for people on a diet. Temptation is everywhere, regardless of what we do.
Hmm, there’s a word…temptation. Maybe that is what makes nudity in art pornographic. Does it tempt us? Does it arouse us? Well, we can’t really judge it in that way because people are aroused differently. Also, people are desensitized (see Day 297) as they grow older, so what might’ve been obscene when they were four years old is probably not an issue when they’re twenty. This also means the culture changes with time. Just look at the history of marijuana and you’ll see how the culture has slowly changed it’s perception.
So what makes nudity in art acceptable vs pornographic? Let’s dig deeper into some masterful work and find out!
Acceptable vs Pornographic Nudity in Art
OK, first let’s look at nude vs clothed to address the quotes by Michelangelo, then we’ll take a look at the subtleties that push nude art into a questionable area of eroticism and pornography.
Here we have a comparison of Pablo Picasso’s art. We’ve got a clothed painting on the left and a nude drawing on the right. They are both created in the same “monumental” style, similar pose, and same subject matter. The only major thing that is different is the lighting, but it’s not enough to create a bias.
So, which one is more interesting? Was Michelangelo right? I think he was. I find the nude much more interesting than the painting on the right. How about you? So even though these are considered abstract paintings, the abstract nude is more interesting than the clothed one.
Here’s a comparison of Gregory Crewdson’s photos, where the one on the left is clothed and the one on the right is nude. Both have similar poses, environment, mirror reflections and lighting. Yet, most of us might find the nude one more interesting. Hmmm.
Is this nude photo pornographic? Not at all. But why not? Let’s keep digging to find out!
Here’s a couple of images by Alfred Cheney Johnston. The one on the left is clothed and the one on the right is nude. Both are artistically done, but which one verges on the “naughty” side? It’s the nude one this time, but why?
This question leads us to pose, which is one of the major things that can determine an acceptable image vs a pornographic one. We can see the difference a pose makes in this comparison of Annie Leibovitz photos. The one with Cindy Crawford on the left has a modest pose, while the one with Lady Gaga on the right has an erotic pose. There’s a story in each image, just like the Crewdson photos, but the one on the right is considered erotic because it’s meant to arouse us…even though it’s actually showing less of each breast.
So yes, pose is huge! And if we’re wanting to control the way our art is perceived, we need to be aware of it.
Here’s a great example of a modest pose. The statue “Capitoline Venus” shows Venus coming out of the bath and covering herself. Modest poses don’t have to be this unrevealing, as long as there’s not a portrayal of flaunting.
Here are some more modest poses by Irving Penn.
Now that we know the pose has a lot to do with the way the image is perceived, let’s view some more. This comparison of David Bellemere’s images should be obvious. The pose on the left is modest, while the one on the right is more erotic. Both are lit well and have their own finishing approach (see Day 122), so we can see how the overall mood of the image doesn’t change the perception as much as the pose does.
Again, we see David Bellemere with a modest pose on the left and a more seductive pose on the right.
Here’s another great set of images by Alfred Cheney Johnston. Notice how the pose on the left is modest, while the one on the right is perceivably more erotic. Still not sure how to determine which one is more erotic? Are both acceptable in your eyes? Well, try the cubicle test. Which one would be worse to hang up in your workplace environment, or have a screensaver on your computer? The one on the left is covering most of the body parts and has that “shy” feeling, while the one on the right is more exposed and has a “come get me big boy” feeling.
The context of the image can play a role in the way people perceive the nude art as well. Take this comparison of photos by Annie Leibovitz. Both can be considered modest poses, but the one on the right might be perceived as erotic because she is laying on a bed. So, if there is a bed in the scene it might suggest or arouse sexual desires.
Here’s another example with paintings by Paul Gauguin where we have modest poses, but the full bed on the right might be a little suggestive.
In this Alexandre Cabanel comparison, we have a bed on the left, but her pose is not revealing and the women characters in the scene tell us that it’s just a bunch of girlfriends hanging out. The painting on the right, though, has Venus sprawled out in an erotic manner.
Here’s a nice comparison with Thomas Kennington paintings, where both poses are modest, but the context is different. On the left, we have something more innocent in nature, while on the right we have a nude female sitting on fur which is more sexually suggestive. Other props or garments like lace or fishnet stockings might also overpower a modest pose and push it to the erotic side.
In this Picasso comparison, we see that the female on the left is exposed more than a typical modest pose, but the context is innocent. She’s just fixing her hair in the mirror with her friend. Much like the Cabanel, the context helps the way we perceive the nude. The poses in the painting on the right is more erotic…even though it just looks like some girlfriends hanging out by the ocean.
I looked back at some of my nude photos after writing this article and realized that I was capturing modest poses for the most part, but I did recently capture a pose that could be perceived as being erotic.
In the image on the left she is covering up and is in nature, but on the right she is exposed and thrusting her head back. She’s in nature as well, but the pose is more suggestive.
Let’s take a look at more master paintings and photos to compare modest vs erotic poses. The images on the left will always have the more modest pose, while the one on the right will be questionably erotic. See if you can notice the difference in pose and context.
William Etty
William-Adolphe Bouguereau
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
Peter Paul Rubens
Michelangelo
Amedeo Modigliani
Lucian Freud
Jules Joseph Lefebvre
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
Herbert James Draper
Henri Matisse
Euan Uglow
Egon Schiele
Edgar Degas
Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot
Paul Cezanne
Alfred Cheney Johnston
Pablo Picasso
Pablo Picasso
Conclusion
So what are your thoughts on nudity in art? It’s interesting to understand how art is perceived depending on the pose and context. Learn to control these things so the nudity in your art is viewed as you want it to be.
Thanks for joining in, see you next time!
April 28, 2020 @ 11:22 pm
What determines if an image is pornographic or not is the ‘intention’ of the artist who created the image. The ‘intention’ should be your guide. Thoughts come first and action follows. Hence, pose follows intention.
In Steven Spielberg’s film, ‘Schindler’s List’ to have images of women and men naked in a concentration camp is not pornographic because the ‘intention’ was to show what actually happened in history. On the other hand, if a film showed naked women running around in a nudist camp with the ‘intention’ to titillate the senses, then that is pornographic. ‘Intention’ is the key.
May 23, 2020 @ 10:27 am
Thanks for reading the article and sharing your thoughts!
May 24, 2020 @ 8:40 am
Satan says, PORNOGRAHIC! God sees what he made, saying nothing. People need to be told that they can be seen without clothing, knowing that they will not be treated badly.
May 24, 2020 @ 2:41 pm
Judge yourself. The sin of another cannot lose you your soul. The good deeds of another, cannot save you your soul. Things would be in constant limbo, had that be.
May 24, 2020 @ 2:47 pm
Satan says PORNOGHRAPHIC through a person. God says nothing through a person, seeing what he made. God is not bothered by erections, and sex.
October 24, 2020 @ 3:52 am
wow ur comment makes this article more concise, thank you for sharing your very brief thoughts.
February 6, 2021 @ 1:07 am
You’re welcome, thanks for reading!
February 6, 2021 @ 1:08 am
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
February 6, 2021 @ 1:08 am
Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!
April 20, 2021 @ 10:18 am
I dropped on this by accident while looking for art images.
So, here is a view on the subject from a slightly different perspective; that is because nearly all my life I have been a nudist. As a nudist of course you cannot possibly be offended by nudity; and most of the time, seeing other people in the nude is not arousing. Nudism is not about sex (although admittedly there are some for whom it is).
I have spent days on end over many years walking, running, swimming, sunbathing and other activities over many years, sometimes accompanied by female partners and sometimes on my own. My/our preference is clothing optional beaches. I seen many thousands of naked women over that time and even stopped and had conversations with complete strangers. Generally, most people on beaches are not that attractive. The women I would find attractive enough to be aroused by their appearance, I would also find attractive and arousing if they had clothes on. For example, one of my former partners was an extremely attractive (stunning) woman in her late twenties. At the beach we would be nude all the time, but it was rare for me to become aroused by the sight of her at the beach. I found her much more sexually arousing to look at when she was dressed in her signature short skirt and high heels. She had great legs!
The relevance of this to your question “Is nudity in art acceptable versus pornographic?” is, pornography is not always about nudity, and vice versa. That said, the definition of pornography is material that is intended to arouse sexually. It is a very grey area! An artist might take a photograph or paint a painting that he or she does not intend to arouse, therefore it is not pornographic, even though some people might find it arousing. In that case, it is the way it is seen by the viewer that determines whether it is arousing or not, and therefore whether it is pornographic.
It is remarkably like the laws on nudity. In the UK, particularly in England and Wales, it is not illegal to be nude in a public place, so long as that nudity is not intended to offend, cause shock, alarm or distress to someone who sees it. The guidelines provided by the Crown Prosecution Service are that a nudist (or naturist) going about his or her business in the nude should not be prosecuted. No action should be taken unless it can be proved beyond doubt that someone (who must be a reasonable person) actually was offended, alarmed or distressed, and that the nude person intended them to be. In other words, in most cases, someone who is shocked, offended, alarmed or distressed by seeing a nude person walk past twenty or thirty yards away, minding their own business, cannot reasonably argue that it was offensive or distressing. To clarify, it is both parties that determine whether the nudity is offensive, shocking, alarming, distressing, and was intended to be. Likewise, with art and pornography, it is probably the case that the artist must intend the work to be pornographic and the viewer to find it pornographic, for it to be pornographic.
I wanted to mention one of the photographs you have used in comparison. I am talking about the photo of the girl sitting on a rock, leaning back supported by her arms, with her head thrown back, which you describe as “more suggestive”. More suggestive of what? That is something women often do, with or without clothes when they are enjoying the sensations of the sun, breeze and open air. To me she looks like a nudist just enjoying the elements. She could also be ensuring that the skin under her breasts catches some sun, so she does not get white patches.
You will often see nudists (men and women) sitting with their legs wide open. That is not with the intention to blatantly expose their genitals to others for any sexually motivated purpose, but rather to expose the areas to the sun to get an even tan and avoid white patches in the corners of the groin. Both my former nudist female partners did that all the time.
There are nudist or naturist websites that publish photography and art of nudists and naturists. Some of those images may appear pornographic and arousing to some people, however, that is not the intention of either the person in the image, or the photographer. For example, let us say an attractive 25-year-old woman nudist is relaxing, lying on a flat rock next to the sea. She is lying on her back with her head on a rolled-up towel, her arms resting alongside her angled slightly away from her body. She has both knees bent, one pointing straight up, with her foot on the ground, and the other leg, knee bent, flat on the ground. Obviously, that means her vulva is fully visible for anyone to see, especially as she is shaved or waxed, so completely void of pubic hair. Her breasts are firm and point at the sky. She has a pretty face and beautiful long hair. She is not doing this with the intention to arouse or offend, she is just a lady who prefers to relax in the nude and is doing so in a perfectly natural position. Let us say a photographer takes a photograph of her (with her permission of course) and his intention in doing that is just to capture the beauty of her female form.
I am sure there are a lot of people who would find that photograph arousing to look at and may well use it for that purpose. But it was not the intention of the woman or the photographer. I do not think that because someone is aroused by that image, that the image is pornographic, any more than the girl walking along the high street in a short skirt and high heels showing off her gorgeous legs is pornographic, but some will be aroused by the sight of her too.
A final example: Myself and one of my female partners went on a holiday abroad and we forgot to take a camera, so we had to buy a throw-away one. We spent the entire holiday in the nude except for a couple of hours or so each evening when we would go out to eat. After the holiday I took the camera into Boots pharmacy for developing and explained to the staff on the photographic processing counter that the images were from a nudist holiday and asked whether they would have any objection to processing them. They were perfectly happy to do it. When I collected the photographs a couple of days later, I told them I hoped the images had not been offensive to them (because there were photos of me and my girlfriend leaving nothing to the imagination) and the lady who served me (most of the staff were women) said no, they were fine, they were “very nice pictures and it’s only natural isn’t it?” They did not find our nudist holiday pictures pornographic.
In conclusion, I think it is a noticeably large grey area with no real definitive boundaries. What some people find pornographic others will not. It is only clearly pornographic when it depicts actual sexual acts.
December 19, 2022 @ 11:09 am
Art/Porn is in the eye of the beholder, regardless of the artist’s intentions. When I was a kid before the internet, we masturbated to National Geographic because that was all the nudity freely available to a minor. It may have been INTENDED as “art” or “life in pictures,” but to a 12 year old with brand new weird hormones raging, it was PORNOGRAPHY.