Modern pessimism denies the intrinsic beauty and replaces it with a subjective vision that cares little for the objective truth. In this thought the figure, whether nude or clothed, loses its form by putting more value on its symbolism than its actual form. That’s when you need a Rembrandt to step in a remind us of the value of content in its relation to form and beauty! -Shane Conant
[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]Everyone gets naked, but not everyone knows how to be nude. Being naked is inevitable; one bathes, one changes clothes, sooner or later naked happens to everyone. Being nude, though, requires a level of comfortability with being in one’s own skin. The person who is naked is more likely to run for cover is the doorbell rings while the person who is nude may go ahead and answer the door. The person who is naked is careful to keep the blinds closed and the curtains drawn while the nude individual enjoys the warm sunlight coming through the window. Being naked is inherent, but being nude is a choice.
Artists often focus on the nude, not the naked, and I think it is important that we understand the difference between the two not just in the personal sense but how it makes a difference in the basic condition of approaching a work of art. Art school is partially responsible for our focus on the nude because it necessarily looks at the figure first as an object to be drawn. Even some photography schools insist that their students first take figure drawing classes before moving on to other forms of photography. Understanding the basic mechanics of the nude form is essential to accurately portraying the figure in other settings.
At the same time, part of our need to find symbolism and meaning in the nude form comes from a defensive position wherein we feel the need to justify having an unclothed person in front of our lens or our canvas. Moral criticism of the nude, which by its very nature objectifies the body as a thing to be shamed, puts artists on guard and finds us looking for meaning in work that, such as today’s image, doesn’t necessarily need any additional meaning for it to be appreciated. [/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Insisting that there be meaning to every aspect of an image takes away one’s ability to enjoy the human figure for the natural work of art that it is. The human form does not require us to explain what makes it beautiful for it is beautiful beyond the ability of our words to describe. Imposing unintended symbolism on every image of a human form we see is just as improper as those who impose unnecessary morality upon everything that exists. Not everything requires our intervention or interpretation in order to be a work of art.
I very much like this quote from an artist who understood the difference between nude and naked:
Hitherto the nude has always been represented in poses which presuppose an audience. But my women are simple, honest creatures who are concerned with nothing beyond their physical occupations… it is as if you were looking through a keyhole. (Edgar Degas)
Dripping chocolate down a naked back has absolutely no symbolism, no greater meaning, no architectural inference. Mmmm, Chocolate is simply dripping chocolate down a naked back. That’s it. Nothing else. Any artistry comes naturally in the juxtaposition of light and dark, highlights and shadows, contrast and toning. One needn’t be an artist of great experience or full of profound thought in order to take this picture. Sometimes we don’t need any reason for capturing an image beyond the basic desire to capture that specific image. Art doesn’t always need an explanation or deeper meaning. Let art be art. Let naked be naked.[/one_half_last]
Not Quite Naked: Implied
INTENSITY (2012)
“When I met her you could tell she was on the verge. She was a girl becoming a woman. We took those pictures and I thought she looked so beautiful and having a little bit of an edge to her. She loved doing the pictures, and she was made to feel bad for doing them.” Photographer Annie Leibovitz in LA Times interview with Steve Appleford, April 19, 2014. Annie Leibovitz talks Taschen book, Miley Cyrus, John & Yoko
[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]In the world of television there is this annual ritual called The Upfronts. This is where networks show samples, sometimes whole episodes, of what they plan on broadcasting in the fall in hopes that advertising executives will encourage their clients to purchase ad time during these programs. Upfronts are a huge party with a huge payoff and networks typically spare no expense trotting out their biggest stars in order to impress the host of advertising and media bigwigs assembled.
So, it was with interest I watch as Adult Swim announced Miley Cyrus was going to be performing this past week at their Upfronts. There was no way this wasn’t going to be interesting and sure enough, Miley didn’t disappoint. In case you’ve not already seen the pictures, she came on stage wearing a giant set of butterfly wings and not much else. Her breasts were fully exposed, her nipples covered with butterfly pasties. She wore a pair of white tights as well, but under the stage lights seeing through those wasn’t terribly difficult. For all practical purposes, she may as well have been naked. What was obvious was the fact that Miley was having fun and the rather uptight advertising suits were more than a little uncomfortable, especially when she told them where to lick her.
All this brought me back to 2008 when Vanity Fair photographer Annie Leibovitz shot a 15-year-old Miley with only her back exposed. You would have thought she had shot Hanna Montana live on the evening news for all the furor it created. Annie was demonized by practically every outlet on the planet for daring to “sexualize” a young woman in such a way. Miley was forced to apologize (and then later recanted). Vanity Fair threatened to not pay for the pictures. Everyone wondered if Annie’s famed career was over and what would happen to Miley as a result of this “horrible abuse.”
Well, now we know, don’t we?[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Americans don’t know how to handle the nude form. Little difference is made for efforts made toward being socially appropriate or artistically posed; Americans see bare skin and automatically achieve a state of hyper-hysteria that causes them to have difficulty breathing, blurred vision, and an unrealistic fear of judgement from the late Jerry Falwell. Just the notion that a person may not have been wearing clothes when a photograph was taken causes those who feel they must protect the innocence of the world to become absolutely apoplectic. Â There’s no attempt to understand, no regard for artistry, they’re just angry.
At least, until they think no one is looking. I watch with routine amusement as my website stats fluctuate from day to day. On days when the #POTD is a landscape, hardly anyone pays attention; numbers are in the cellar. Days when the #POTD is an attractive young person see a more respectable hit count based largely on how popular that particular model might be. Let me post a picture that hints at nudity though, even if it’s implied, and watch the traffic soar! This isn’t unique to my site but is an exact reflection of traffic patterns across the Internet. If you want attention, post a picture of someone naked.
Social media hypocritically decries nudity while at the same time enjoying the fact that even there a little skin increases their traffic. They’ve each re-written their rules over time to allow for as much skin as possible without  actually giving into allowing “real” nudity. So, it is in deference to Facebook and other such sites that we’re focusing this week on photos that are not quite naked. You won’t see any nipples. For that matter, you won’t always even catch side boob. Our goal is to give one reason to think about the artistry of the human body and just how messed up society’s reaction is. We hope you’ll join us. We hope you’ll think.[/one_half_last]
Share this:
Like this: