According to an art teacher, nude is an idealized human form or "perfect" human form, naked is wrinkles, warts, and scars.
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
That is hilarious!! However, I think there is alot of truth to that statement. Do we ever see a nude painting with wrinkles, warts or scars? I can't say that I have but I'm not a big art buff!
Awesome point, I too don't think that it is too often that we see a painting of the naked human body that involves wrinkles, scars and/or warts!! Interesting view point
What I find most intersting about this view is that is doesn't follow the general consensus of what most of the comments by us were last week. The nude pictures tended to have more wrinkles and "normal" human characteristics than what we called a naked or pornographic nature picture would. But if the discussion was limited to art, and assuming pornographic material isn't art, than I would agree with this view. Naked is more exposed, or realistic, and nude more perfect. Dan J
I personaly think that there should be an artist who actually does human form at it's best and that is including not only the beauty of the body but as well as the flaws (if that would be a right way to put it). Beauty of a body and face is how you we're born, without any add ons as i would call it (for example breast implants or botox).
Good points Dan. I can see what you are saying. You're right... it kinda goes in the exact opposite direction. I guess I can kinda see this one in both lights. I suppose it simply depends on your interpretion of "naked and nude." I did find the whole thing rather interesting though!
I guess I can see where this art instructor is coming from. From my perspective, he/she is showing how the nude or 'perfect' human form is naturally the way the human body is, no matter the flaw. The nude body always looks perfect and beautiful when depicted through art. On the other hand, the naked body is something that should be ashamed of, like how people associate embarrassment with wrinkles, warts, and scars.
I love your statement, especially about wanting artists to show the human body with its flaws. I would have to say that Leonardo da Vinci had a way for making ugliness beautiful in his painting 'A MAN TRICKED BY GYPSIES.' He painted five elderly people, showing every bit of loose skin and wrinkle, but the painting had a certain elegance about it as well.
I agree were you say that naked is more exposed but also i agree that naked is what we see in magazines so they do make adjustments to the bodies of the models. Nude is art and should be perfect and the definition of perfect should not only be "without flaws" but it should be as we we're born, after all that is how our body was made.
Granted most would not want to see the truth as far as wrinkles, warts, etc. But i think that it would put another twist to art as we would see life as it is rather then what the artist thinks we should see in a nude picture.
The art teachers comment saying naked is the super models art and naked is a person in it's natural form. I agree with the other comments that she has an oppposite outlook then most of us.
That's a neat way to look at but it's true and of the famous painting of people all looke flawless. I never realized that til now, I mean they never look gorgeous, gorgeousl; But at their time I'm guessing they could have been.
In response to Mckensie: I think your point is very interesting. There was a period in time, I want to say Elizabethan Era, where women were seen as beautiful when they were curvy. By today's standards they would be seen as fat but in those portraits, they were naked, white and beautiful. When looking at paintings, taking into account what was seen as beauty at the time really determines whether the people are naked or nude.
12 comments:
That is hilarious!! However, I think there is alot of truth to that statement. Do we ever see a nude painting with wrinkles, warts or scars? I can't say that I have but I'm not a big art buff!
Awesome point, I too don't think that it is too often that we see a painting of the naked human body that involves wrinkles, scars and/or warts!! Interesting view point
What I find most intersting about this view is that is doesn't follow the general consensus of what most of the comments by us were last week. The nude pictures tended to have more wrinkles and "normal" human characteristics than what we called a naked or pornographic nature picture would. But if the discussion was limited to art, and assuming pornographic material isn't art, than I would agree with this view. Naked is more exposed, or realistic, and nude more perfect.
Dan J
I personaly think that there should be an artist who actually does human form at it's best and that is including not only the beauty of the body but as well as the flaws (if that would be a right way to put it). Beauty of a body and face is how you we're born, without any add ons as i would call it (for example breast implants or botox).
in response to Dan's post
Good points Dan. I can see what you are saying. You're right... it kinda goes in the exact opposite direction. I guess I can kinda see this one in both lights. I suppose it simply depends on your interpretion of "naked and nude."
I did find the whole thing rather interesting though!
I guess I can see where this art instructor is coming from. From my perspective, he/she is showing how the nude or 'perfect' human form is naturally the way the human body is, no matter the flaw. The nude body always looks perfect and beautiful when depicted through art.
On the other hand, the naked body is something that should be ashamed of, like how people associate embarrassment with wrinkles, warts, and scars.
In response to yess
I love your statement, especially about wanting artists to show the human body with its flaws. I would have to say that Leonardo da Vinci had a way for making ugliness beautiful in his painting 'A MAN TRICKED BY GYPSIES.' He painted five elderly people, showing every bit of loose skin and wrinkle, but the painting had a certain elegance about it as well.
In response to Dan
I agree were you say that naked is more exposed but also i agree that naked is what we see in magazines so they do make adjustments to the bodies of the models. Nude is art and should be perfect and the definition of perfect should not only be "without flaws" but it should be as we we're born, after all that is how our body was made.
Granted most would not want to see the truth as far as wrinkles, warts, etc. But i think that it would put another twist to art as we would see life as it is rather then what the artist thinks we should see in a nude picture.
The art teachers comment saying naked is the super models art and naked is a person in it's natural form. I agree with the other comments that she has an oppposite outlook then most of us.
That's a neat way to look at but it's true and of the famous painting of people all looke flawless. I never realized that til now, I mean they never look gorgeous, gorgeousl; But at their time I'm guessing they could have been.
In response to Mckensie:
I think your point is very interesting. There was a period in time, I want to say Elizabethan Era, where women were seen as beautiful when they were curvy. By today's standards they would be seen as fat but in those portraits, they were naked, white and beautiful. When looking at paintings, taking into account what was seen as beauty at the time really determines whether the people are naked or nude.
Post a Comment