Using the questions from page 46 about the female nude, explain the difference between nude and naked. Why are these "art" and not "pornography?"
18 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Nude vs. Naked
I’m not an art buff. At least, not in the physical sense. I know music; so I won’t be embarrassed to say my head tilted a bit when I saw there were paintings that included naked men and women at my school. Growing up I was always aware if my shirts didn’t button up high enough let alone if my underwear would show if I sat down. Even through my Child Development education, it was always, “We don’t want to see the three B’s!” (Boobs, backs, or butts) Then to walk down the hallway and see a painting of a naked man. I never did see the word “hypocrisy” in the school description. What I know now is that the painting was not of a naked man but of a male nude. It is the subject matter that makes a person in a photograph nude or naked. Seeing someone looking at a dirty magazine may make me uncomfortable. I’m not going to lie. But, why would a JCPenny add with pictures of women in bras and panties not? The subject matter. Men and women in dirty magazines tent to wear…or not wear, things to accentuate certain body parts whereas an underwear model wears things to conceal such areas. Granted, it’s a bit of a stretch for an example but I feel it serves its purpose. The difference between nude and naked is the subject matter of the photo. It is what a person gets out of or from the painting.
There is a great differnce between naked and nude. You see when it comes to nude, it's showing the body for what it is with a certain degree of modesty. With naked, as in pornography type pictures, the body is not shown with any degree of modesty. A girl lying there with her legs all open is not natural. I mean, who lays in their bed like that? Nude is showing the body in a more natural form.
Until now I always thought that statues, photos, art pieces, etc. were of naked people. As I read this chapter I realized that I have been mistaken. Nude is essentially ‘subject matter’ coming to life. Naked is actual presentations of the human body, such as photographs. I believe now that ‘nude’ is a work of art made and/or perceived by a person. Examples of this could be statues, paintings, models of the human body, etc. Anything that is ‘our own’ representation of the view that we have on the human body for that specific art piece.
It would seem to me that the biggest difference in a picture with nudity and one with nakedness, is that in most cases, the intention of the artist is completely different, and is noticeable in their work. With nudity, the main purpose (as with most of the pictures in the book) is to heighten appreciation for the beauty of the body, in this case the female body. In stark contrast, as with pornography, you see nakedness. The whole purpose of this type of photo is not the above mentioned, but rather it is to arouse the passions. Afterall, I've never heard of a someone being addicted to statues of nude art or paintings by the Rennaisance greats! It would seem to me that this is the biggest difference: the way that the content is displayed and what the intent is.
When I first glanced at the art pieces of the nude women in the text books, I was a in a sense embarrassed, I look at the pictures before I start reading the chapter, so I know what they are talking about as I read. As a nurse, I am not embarrassed by the human body, but that they were “naked” in the picture. Privacy was what first came through my mind. As I read the chapter and educated myself on nude vs naked, I looked at the paintings differently. This is what I find is the main difference; how we look at being nude or being naked. Nude in a sense portrays the body as natural; it sounds beautiful, such as the body is. Naked, in my opinion, is looked at in this society as sex. It is somehow suppose to be dirty. Naked is observes certain body parts, and not the body as a whole. Also the nude paintings such as Giorgione’s “Sleeping Venus” or Valadon’s “Reclining Nude” show those women as they are flaws and all. Where as today, naked pictures show flawlessness; what a “perfect” body should look like.
Before reading this chapter I knew there was a different between nude and naked, but I really didn't know what the difference was. After reading this chapter I realize what the difference is. I think that the main thing is the intent at which it is being shown or made. With "nude" the intent is pure. It is more looking beyond what is being shown, not just looking at the picture. It shows the human body in a natural and innocent way. As for with the "naked" it is fully natural or innocent. With nakedness people don't see beyond the portrait, all they see is the "naked body" that is in front of them. Nakedness also usually isn't produced for a good intent; it is more produced purely for pleasure and enjoyment for some people.
After reading through the chapter, and viewing the pictures of nude women, I can really see a difference between naked and nude. When I think of the word 'naked' for example, a sense of embarrassment and shame comes over me. (It could be those nightmares of arriving at school half naked that does it...I don't know). On the other hand, when I think of the word nude, I instantly think of the statue of 'David'. It brings forth ideas of modesty and intellectual perception, something far from the idea of pornography. I feel as if 'nude' is a way to peer into the beauty of the human body, and pornography is a way to abominate the human body.
While reading this chapter, it was hard for me to think in a different way when looking at these paintings. However, after I read the paragraph about subject matter and content, it convinced me to look at the paintings as an art because “they are powerful interpretations of their subject matter, not just presentations of the human body as in pornography”. This comment helped me to realize the difference between naked and nude.
While looking at these paintings and after reading the chapter, I think that it is apparent which artists are women and which artists are men. Anyone else have that same realization? Some of the principal differences of the treatment of the nude figures on the part of these painters, I think, include that the female artists paint the subject matter in a different way that says to me that not all women are flawless. As in Neel’s painting, this painting surprised me! It is different than any of the others because the subject matter is showing “an aspect of femaleness that the men usually ignore – pregnancy”. I found that to be a very interesting point!
Although I don't think I would ever have nude artwork displayed in my home, I can say for certain that I will never hang a "centerfold" in the living room! (or in any other rooms, for that matter!) As my wife and I discussed this chapter, we talked about some of the criteria the book uses to separate art from what is just a picture. One of the things we use to identify art is if it draws the viewer into the piece, which is called participation. In comparing naked to nude, I made the comment to her that a naked picture will draw the participation of its viewer particularly if it is a male viewing the picture. But that doesn’t make it art. In that case, the author of the picture is captivating the attention of a viewer by emphasizing features of the subject that capitalize on one of a man’s basic weaknesses, known as lust. It may cause participation, but it doesn’t fit the rest of the criteria. A nude, on the other hand, seeks to portray the subject without playing on the senses of the viewer to invite participation. They may still emphasize certain features, but not for the purpose of arousing lustful desires. There is definitely a distinct difference between nude and naked, but I will still probably always be uncomfortable viewing either.
Art isn’t really my thing and I don’t really get it, I look at a picture and don’t see it the way others do. My first experience with art that really meant something to me which I never thought about until now was my sophomore year at NDSU. I was in Campus Crusade for Christ and we went to my leader’s house. She lived with a family that took her in as an exchange student through there church. She had her house mother do the lesson for us that night. She was making a mosaic art circle with broken glass and cement. The way she made it and her thinking really changed my life. She grew up in a broken home and never knew Christ until about 25 years before this time when she met her husband. She showed us how to make them. First she broke the painted plate which symbolized her life before Jesus came into it. Then she would make cement circle and put the pieces into it and that symbolized the pieces of her life being put back together after she started her relationship with Jesus. When they are dry she puts them in her garden surrounding her house for everyone to see and for them to ask the story which is her way of telling others about our Lord. I left that night in tears for my mosaic art had just begun. Now I look back and I guess that really was a great piece of art.
To answer the questions on page 46 of the text regarding which nude is most clearly idealized? I believe this would be the oil painting of the Sleeping Venus. The nude is set apart form the rest of the picture. She is draped upon fine cloth, one that looks as if was designed for royalty, not what a common woman would have. She looks at peace, her legs are elegantly crossed and her arm cradles her head. The angles are gentle and soothing. Definitely what I would consider nude not naked. Figure 2-23 Reclining nude seems most aware of being seen. This awareness is displayed in her pose. Her awareness makes her look somewhat uncomfortable with her body. The expression on her face is blank almost as if stunned. This piece of art I believe is still a nude but I wonder if the person in the portrait if not fictional felt naked? In the case of the Odalisque, I would gather from the picture that she is in preparation for becoming a wife. She looks as though she has been groomed and pampered. She is not wearing the robes of a slave but she is draped with elegance. She is comfortable with her appearance and her beauty. As far as the nude descending the staircase, I’m not sure I understand the meaning of the painting. To me it looks as though she is stumbling down a staircase. It does not portray beauty of the human body. The paintings done by the female artists are quite different. Their nudes are not portrayed as objects of natural beauty. One, as discussed earlier looks as though she is uncomfortable with her body and the other portrays a woman how is about to give birth, a time where we are told that women are beautiful however she is almost expressionless. Their work does not surprise me. I believe that women perceive their body differently then the way men do. Men portray the female body as a work of beauty and the form is reverenced and women tend to see themselves as function, we are not able to grasp the effect the beauty of the human body has on the male and capture that in our art. As far as the difference between nude and naked? I believe nude displays the human body in its created form, beautiful and innocent. Naked in contrast displays the human body in an exposed form, the content has lost its innocence.
After looking at the art you know that it is not pornography as it is women being natural that it is art when being nude. Like the one painter did of the pregnant women that is definately naturl nude art not something you would see a man enjoying looking in one of porn books. I do see where people not knowing much about art that to them nude and naked are the same thing but they are not. Nude is natural and naked is not. Naked is what you would see in a Playboy not art.
When I started reading the chapter, I didnt understand a word of it! I have never realy been interested in art, mostly because i dont understand the meaning of it or what the artist is trying to portray. After reading the entire chapter, I feel i still dont understand what they were saying. When it came to the difference between nude and naked, I wasn't sure there was one? After looking at the pictures I came to realize that there is a big difference. When i looked at the pictures in the book I didnt feel embarassed as i would looking at a porn magazine. Instead i wanted to really look and understand them, the woman looked like they were doing to most ordinary, everyday things whereas porn shows woman wearing and doing things to promote arousal. The pictures done by men show the woman looking very peaceful and natural, and the pictures done by woman show the woman looking more scared and ashamed that they are naked.
Like a few other people, I am not really knowledgeable about art in the sense of paintings and sculptures. I like going to art museums but can only stay for about an hour because I find them overwhelming, but in a good way. Participation is easy for me, and artistic form can be realized, but my issue is that I try to read too much into it instead of just letting it come to me. For instance, the Sleeping Venus seems relaxed. Her long leg lines mesh evenly with the long sheet parallel to her body, as do the hills that seem to roll in the background. However, the Large Odalisque is confusing because I keep wondering why the background is so dark. Was it just used as an accent part to make the girl stand out? Was it to highlight her skin tone? Also, this didn't seem like a familiar style of nude paintings which usually show the breasts of long leg lines. Either way, I think all of these painting were captured nude, not naked. To me, naked feels sleezy or less tasteful when it comes to art. Nude always seemed more dignified, as if to express beauty and serenity. Either way, I hope I get the hang of all of this because it took me forever to get through this chapter!
I personally think that the human body is a form of god. I don't necessarily agree on people showing too much out in the streets but I do think that nudity in a sculpture or in a picture is a beautiful type of art and should be seen as that. On the other hand, nakedness such as in magazines shows somewhat of a sensual, sexual part. Weather it is Nudity or Nakedness it should be observed as a form of expression, well I do have to admit some nakedness is inappropriate sometimes. Nudity is art and therefore should not be seen with morbidity, it should simply be appreciated.
In reference to Heidi's last post. Heidi, you made several good points in you post when answering the several questions. I would have to agree with you in that your interpretion seemed to follow much of the same course as mine. I am still amazed at all of the different inteterprtitions and emotions that can be conveyed in a piece of art.
As a child I was always taught that nudity or nakedness was inappropriate and that it was exploiting and degrading. It was always mandatory to have our bodies concealed. I remember when we had hot summer days as a child I'd get stuck in a bigger bulky tee shirt while my friends were allowed to wear tank tops. The same with swimming suits it was always demanded that I wore a one piece when my friends were allowed the 2 pieces. Now as an adult and having been able to explore my individuality and all that it implies I discovered that there's not a whole lot wrong with showing a little skin now and again. I loved the Neel's painting of the pregnant woman, there's just something about pregnancy that just has that appeal to it, and I think the piece is beautiful. I also love Ingres's painting the woman in the photograph looks a bit mysterious and a bit of a temptress and I get a sense of sex appeal that comes forth from the painting. I always thought that nude and naked meant the same thing but I never realized that they have different meaning when it comes to art. I agree with mschimek post when it was mentioned about catalog ads and pornography. I’m not a fan of Pornography, I feel that it is a very degrading business towards women and I just prefer not to look at it, But I can watch the Victoria Secret’s winter fashion show and think nothing bad about it and they are both exploiting their bodies but with Victoria Secret’s they are trying to sell us their lingerie not their bodies so I view it differently. But our culture has become obsessed with sexuality and nudity that it’s almost everywhere we turn there is always something to imply a message about it.
Nude. Nude is beauty it is sophisticated art, where you see the beauty in a persons body and almost see their soul through their outsides. Naked I believe is showing your body because you think that your body is good looking and people care to see it not through your heart but just becuase your outside is nice.
18 comments:
Nude vs. Naked
I’m not an art buff. At least, not in the physical sense. I know music; so I won’t be embarrassed to say my head tilted a bit when I saw there were paintings that included naked men and women at my school. Growing up I was always aware if my shirts didn’t button up high enough let alone if my underwear would show if I sat down. Even through my Child Development education, it was always, “We don’t want to see the three B’s!” (Boobs, backs, or butts) Then to walk down the hallway and see a painting of a naked man. I never did see the word “hypocrisy” in the school description. What I know now is that the painting was not of a naked man but of a male nude. It is the subject matter that makes a person in a photograph nude or naked.
Seeing someone looking at a dirty magazine may make me uncomfortable. I’m not going to lie. But, why would a JCPenny add with pictures of women in bras and panties not? The subject matter. Men and women in dirty magazines tent to wear…or not wear, things to accentuate certain body parts whereas an underwear model wears things to conceal such areas. Granted, it’s a bit of a stretch for an example but I feel it serves its purpose.
The difference between nude and naked is the subject matter of the photo. It is what a person gets out of or from the painting.
There is a great differnce between naked and nude. You see when it comes to nude, it's showing the body for what it is with a certain degree of modesty. With naked, as in pornography type pictures, the body is not shown with any degree of modesty. A girl lying there with her legs all open is not natural. I mean, who lays in their bed like that? Nude is showing the body in a more natural form.
Difference between Naked and Nude
Until now I always thought that statues, photos, art pieces, etc. were of naked people. As I read this chapter I realized that I have been mistaken. Nude is essentially ‘subject matter’ coming to life. Naked is actual presentations of the human body, such as photographs. I believe now that ‘nude’ is a work of art made and/or perceived by a person. Examples of this could be statues, paintings, models of the human body, etc. Anything that is ‘our own’ representation of the view that we have on the human body for that specific art piece.
Nude? Naked?
It would seem to me that the biggest difference in a picture with nudity and one with nakedness, is that in most cases, the intention of the artist is completely different, and is noticeable in their work. With nudity, the main purpose (as with most of the pictures in the book) is to heighten appreciation for the beauty of the body, in this case the female body. In stark contrast, as with pornography, you see nakedness. The whole purpose of this type of photo is not the above mentioned, but rather it is to arouse the passions. Afterall, I've never heard of a someone being addicted to statues of nude art or paintings by the Rennaisance greats! It would seem to me that this is the biggest difference: the way that the content is displayed and what the intent is.
When I first glanced at the art pieces of the nude women in the text books, I was a in a sense embarrassed, I look at the pictures before I start reading the chapter, so I know what they are talking about as I read. As a nurse, I am not embarrassed by the human body, but that they were “naked” in the picture. Privacy was what first came through my mind. As I read the chapter and educated myself on nude vs naked, I looked at the paintings differently. This is what I find is the main difference; how we look at being nude or being naked. Nude in a sense portrays the body as natural; it sounds beautiful, such as the body is. Naked, in my opinion, is looked at in this society as sex. It is somehow suppose to be dirty. Naked is observes certain body parts, and not the body as a whole. Also the nude paintings such as Giorgione’s “Sleeping Venus” or Valadon’s “Reclining Nude” show those women as they are flaws and all. Where as today, naked pictures show flawlessness; what a “perfect” body should look like.
Before reading this chapter I knew there was a different between nude and naked, but I really didn't know what the difference was. After reading this chapter I realize what the difference is. I think that the main thing is the intent at which it is being shown or made. With "nude" the intent is pure. It is more looking beyond what is being shown, not just looking at the picture. It shows the human body in a natural and innocent way. As for with the "naked" it is fully natural or innocent. With nakedness people don't see beyond the portrait, all they see is the "naked body" that is in front of them. Nakedness also usually isn't produced for a good intent; it is more produced purely for pleasure and enjoyment for some people.
After reading through the chapter, and viewing the pictures of nude women, I can really see a difference between naked and nude.
When I think of the word 'naked' for example, a sense of embarrassment and shame comes over me. (It could be those nightmares of arriving at school half naked that does it...I don't know).
On the other hand, when I think of the word nude, I instantly think of the statue of 'David'. It brings forth ideas of modesty and intellectual perception, something far from the idea of pornography.
I feel as if 'nude' is a way to peer into the beauty of the human body, and pornography is a way to abominate the human body.
Nude or naked?
While reading this chapter, it was hard for me to think in a different way when looking at these paintings. However, after I read the paragraph about subject matter and content, it convinced me to look at the paintings as an art because “they are powerful interpretations of their subject matter, not just presentations of the human body as in pornography”. This comment helped me to realize the difference between naked and nude.
While looking at these paintings and after reading the chapter, I think that it is apparent which artists are women and which artists are men. Anyone else have that same realization? Some of the principal differences of the treatment of the nude figures on the part of these painters, I think, include that the female artists paint the subject matter in a different way that says to me that not all women are flawless. As in Neel’s painting, this painting surprised me! It is different than any of the others because the subject matter is showing “an aspect of femaleness that the men usually ignore – pregnancy”. I found that to be a very interesting point!
Although I don't think I would ever have nude artwork displayed in my home, I can say for certain that I will never hang a "centerfold" in the living room! (or in any other rooms, for that matter!) As my wife and I discussed this chapter, we talked about some of the criteria the book uses to separate art from what is just a picture. One of the things we use to identify art is if it draws the viewer into the piece, which is called participation. In comparing naked to nude, I made the comment to her that a naked picture will draw the participation of its viewer particularly if it is a male viewing the picture. But that doesn’t make it art. In that case, the author of the picture is captivating the attention of a viewer by emphasizing features of the subject that capitalize on one of a man’s basic weaknesses, known as lust. It may cause participation, but it doesn’t fit the rest of the criteria. A nude, on the other hand, seeks to portray the subject without playing on the senses of the viewer to invite participation. They may still emphasize certain features, but not for the purpose of arousing lustful desires. There is definitely a distinct difference between nude and naked, but I will still probably always be uncomfortable viewing either.
Dan J.
Art isn’t really my thing and I don’t really get it, I look at a picture and don’t see it the way others do. My first experience with art that really meant something to me which I never thought about until now was my sophomore year at NDSU. I was in Campus Crusade for Christ and we went to my leader’s house. She lived with a family that took her in as an exchange student through there church. She had her house mother do the lesson for us that night. She was making a mosaic art circle with broken glass and cement. The way she made it and her thinking really changed my life. She grew up in a broken home and never knew Christ until about 25 years before this time when she met her husband. She showed us how to make them. First she broke the painted plate which symbolized her life before Jesus came into it. Then she would make cement circle and put the pieces into it and that symbolized the pieces of her life being put back together after she started her relationship with Jesus. When they are dry she puts them in her garden surrounding her house for everyone to see and for them to ask the story which is her way of telling others about our Lord. I left that night in tears for my mosaic art had just begun.
Now I look back and I guess that really was a great piece of art.
To answer the questions on page 46 of the text regarding which nude is most clearly idealized? I believe this would be the oil painting of the Sleeping Venus. The nude is set apart form the rest of the picture. She is draped upon fine cloth, one that looks as if was designed for royalty, not what a common woman would have. She looks at peace, her legs are elegantly crossed and her arm cradles her head. The angles are gentle and soothing. Definitely what I would consider nude not naked. Figure 2-23 Reclining nude seems most aware of being seen. This awareness is displayed in her pose. Her awareness makes her look somewhat uncomfortable with her body. The expression on her face is blank almost as if stunned. This piece of art I believe is still a nude but I wonder if the person in the portrait if not fictional felt naked? In the case of the Odalisque, I would gather from the picture that she is in preparation for becoming a wife. She looks as though she has been groomed and pampered. She is not wearing the robes of a slave but she is draped with elegance. She is comfortable with her appearance and her beauty. As far as the nude descending the staircase, I’m not sure I understand the meaning of the painting. To me it looks as though she is stumbling down a staircase. It does not portray beauty of the human body. The paintings done by the female artists are quite different. Their nudes are not portrayed as objects of natural beauty. One, as discussed earlier looks as though she is uncomfortable with her body and the other portrays a woman how is about to give birth, a time where we are told that women are beautiful however she is almost expressionless. Their work does not surprise me. I believe that women perceive their body differently then the way men do. Men portray the female body as a work of beauty and the form is reverenced and women tend to see themselves as function, we are not able to grasp the effect the beauty of the human body has on the male and capture that in our art. As far as the difference between nude and naked? I believe nude displays the human body in its created form, beautiful and innocent. Naked in contrast displays the human body in an exposed form, the content has lost its innocence.
After looking at the art you know that it is not pornography as it is women being natural that it is art when being nude. Like the one painter did of the pregnant women that is definately naturl nude art not something you would see a man enjoying looking in one of porn books.
I do see where people not knowing much about art that to them nude and naked are the same thing but they are not. Nude is natural and naked is not. Naked is what you would see in a Playboy not art.
When I started reading the chapter, I didnt understand a word of it! I have never realy been interested in art, mostly because i dont understand the meaning of it or what the artist is trying to portray. After reading the entire chapter, I feel i still dont understand what they were saying.
When it came to the difference between nude and naked, I wasn't sure there was one? After looking at the pictures I came to realize that there is a big difference. When i looked at the pictures in the book I didnt feel embarassed as i would looking at a porn magazine. Instead i wanted to really look and understand them, the woman looked like they were doing to most ordinary, everyday things whereas porn shows woman wearing and doing things to promote arousal.
The pictures done by men show the woman looking very peaceful and natural, and the pictures done by woman show the woman looking more scared and ashamed that they are naked.
Like a few other people, I am not really knowledgeable about art in the sense of paintings and sculptures. I like going to art museums but can only stay for about an hour because I find them overwhelming, but in a good way. Participation is easy for me, and artistic form can be realized, but my issue is that I try to read too much into it instead of just letting it come to me. For instance, the Sleeping Venus seems relaxed. Her long leg lines mesh evenly with the long sheet parallel to her body, as do the hills that seem to roll in the background. However, the Large Odalisque is confusing because I keep wondering why the background is so dark. Was it just used as an accent part to make the girl stand out? Was it to highlight her skin tone? Also, this didn't seem like a familiar style of nude paintings which usually show the breasts of long leg lines. Either way, I think all of these painting were captured nude, not naked. To me, naked feels sleezy or less tasteful when it comes to art. Nude always seemed more dignified, as if to express beauty and serenity. Either way, I hope I get the hang of all of this because it took me forever to get through this chapter!
Nude/Naked
I personally think that the human body is a form of god. I don't necessarily agree on people showing too much out in the streets but I do think that nudity in a sculpture or in a picture is a beautiful type of art and should be seen as that. On the other hand, nakedness such as in magazines shows somewhat of a sensual, sexual part. Weather it is Nudity or Nakedness it should be observed as a form of expression, well I do have to admit some nakedness is inappropriate sometimes. Nudity is art and therefore should not be seen with morbidity, it should simply be appreciated.
In reference to Heidi's last post.
Heidi, you made several good points in you post when answering the several questions. I would have to agree with you in that your interpretion seemed to follow much of the same course as mine. I am still amazed at all of the different inteterprtitions and emotions that can be conveyed in a piece of art.
As a child I was always taught that nudity or nakedness was inappropriate and that it was exploiting and degrading. It was always mandatory to have our bodies concealed. I remember when we had hot summer days as a child I'd get stuck in a bigger bulky tee shirt while my friends were allowed to wear tank tops. The same with swimming suits it was always demanded that I wore a one piece when my friends were allowed the 2 pieces.
Now as an adult and having been able to explore my individuality and all that it implies I discovered that there's not a whole lot wrong with showing a little skin now and again. I loved the Neel's painting of the pregnant woman, there's just something about pregnancy that just has that appeal to it, and I think the piece is beautiful. I also love Ingres's painting the woman in the photograph looks a bit mysterious and a bit of a temptress and I get a sense of sex appeal that comes forth from the painting.
I always thought that nude and naked meant the same thing but I never realized that they have different meaning when it comes to art. I agree with mschimek post when it was mentioned about catalog ads and pornography. I’m not a fan of Pornography, I feel that it is a very degrading business towards women and I just prefer not to look at it, But I can watch the Victoria Secret’s winter fashion show and think nothing bad about it and they are both exploiting their bodies but with Victoria Secret’s they are trying to sell us their lingerie not their bodies so I view it differently. But our culture has become obsessed with sexuality and nudity that it’s almost everywhere we turn there is always something to imply a message about it.
Nude. Nude is beauty it is sophisticated art, where you see the beauty in a persons body and almost see their soul through their outsides. Naked I believe is showing your body because you think that your body is good looking and people care to see it not through your heart but just becuase your outside is nice.
Post a Comment