# Censorship, nudity and art



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

I am a member of an art forum and a fellow artist posted some nudes, sketches from a lifedrawing class. The nudes were largely male, and the subject line of the thread was 'neglected ladies' 

Anyway, there is now an uproar because some people found the nudes offensive and are advocating a 'labelling' system so people won't be surprised. 

I just thought it would make for some interesting discussion here. Is nudity offensive in the art world? 
Should it be censored [have a label attached to it?]
What determines the limits to which we will tolerate censorship? 

Personally, I think that censorship is wrong. I believe in freedom of speech and expression no matter what the content. I may abhor something - some of the art I see is downright disturbing to me - but it is someone else's method of expressing themselves and I have to support it's right to exist. I just don't have to like it. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## xorpion (Jul 26, 2002)

nudity is normal where art is concerned. people who are 'offended' by seeing it on a public forum should get a life. 

as if anyone has ever suffered irrevocable damage from seeing a nude image.

even if it does bother you, its your problem and the whole site need not cater to your preferences.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if a similar uproar would have happened if the sketches were mostly of females


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

So someone on an art forum objected to seeing nude life drawings? Unbelievable.

How did this person even study art at all, or did they? The history of western art, is, to a large extent, the history of nude painting and sculpture. A casual walk through any art gallery must be also shocking to this "art lover".

Might I suggest, that you tactfully inform this person that he or she might really benefit from extricating their head from their own butt .


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Let me get this straight.

People are participating in an *art forum*... somebody posts some sketches of nudes - and this comes as a shock and a surprise?

They need to get a grip - and a life!

Somewhat related - A lady was ejected from a Cabbagetown cafeteria for (discreetly) breast-feeding her infant child last week (they later issued a full apology). What is happening around here?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

******WARNING******
*****OFFENSIVE CONTENT*******

Please close eyes (or mind)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't know... some of the digital art forums I frequent tend to have [NUDITY] tagged in the subject line out of simple courtesy for those who care.

It's not moderated, so it doesn't really matter if one does so or not.

I don't see what the problem is -- some folk are okay with nudity (in some form or another) and there are those who are not. To me, labeling a thread is not censorship -- if the moderator removed all imagery (or blocked out the sensitive parts -- no pun intended), then it would be considered as such.... otherwise, it's just courtesy.

There are children on the web that have a keen interest in art... is it so much to ask that they are give some heads-up?

[EDIT: Oops. There's a Michael Jackson joke somewhere in that last line...  ]


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Thats a fair point Manny, but it's still a strange case for an art forum for someone to take offense to a nude portrait.

It's like someone on a Canadian forum saying that hockey sucks and good riddance too it and people getting all offended and stuff.....it just wouldn't happen, would it ?


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

But where do you draw the line? If children are interested in art, then they will be interested in the body. 
My friend's 4 year old son drew all 4 of my male dogs anatomically correct [more or less]. Is this wrong? Should this drawing be labelled if it were posted on a forum? Why? Why not? 

Michelangelo, Davinci all the masters were masters of depicting the human body. Would we deny our children the opportunity to see David in all his glory or would we chisel his penis off before letting our kids see it? or maybe just run outside and grab a leaf to cover him up. 

What about the nudes in an art gallery? In a museum? Should there be labels outside the rooms that are JUST for the nudes?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Thats a fair point Manny, but it's still a strange case for an art forum for someone to take offense to a nude portrait.


Oh, don't get me wrong -- absolutely it's bizarre that people would get all out of sorts over nudity... perhaps it's the subject in which the nudity is presented? I haven't seen the allegid "indecent" art so I can't really say.

There are some folk who are so closed-minded that it rattles their cage to think outside the norm.

If you go to an art gallery, one should be expected to see all things au natural... however, on the web is a different story (for whatever reason). Let's face it -- if I posted artwork of naked children... certain people would immediately label me as some sicko pedophile.

I don't have the answers... except to say that this isn't as much of an issue on the other side of the Atlantic.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

This reminds me of a gentleman in the UK a while back who insisted on walking the length of the British Isles in nothing but his birthday suit. 

If someone wants to walk naked through the freezing Yorkshire Dales, good luck to them I say.....would I be offended seeing a naked man walking down the street ? surprised yes, but not offended. He was actually arrested a few times of public exposure, but why ?...how can it be a criminal act to be naked ?
It sounds so weird to me for some reason. 

Clothing has a lot to answer for  .....damn fashion industry


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

If any art is offensive, it that art made of excriment or decaying meat. 

Nude art certainly is not offensive.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> If any art is offensive, it that art made of excriment or decaying meat.


It may be terribly offensive.. but still has a right to exist and be shown.. right? 

What about that guy in Germany that had a cadaver [sp?] exhibit. I'll look it up and post a link if I can find it. 
THAT was gross.. but beautiful in a creepy sort of way. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.bodyworlds.com 
here ya go.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

People are such prudes. Not nudity on art site. What's next! *sigh* No warning should be necessary for such content.

Now if you're going to exhibit pictures from the plastination exhibit (i.e., preserved cadavers) I can understand giving people some warning. The imagse of corpes with their skin removed can make children and adults uneasy to say the least.

Warning!: one pic. of plastinated human head.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The Bodyworks exhibit is a beautiful example of how artists can learn from the structure of creatures to understand the form and mechanics of the body.

I remember taking art classes in highschool using human skeletons as the basis of the human form (we weren't allowed nudes), but a skeleton with the muscle still intact allows one to see the inner workings of what further gives the body it's form.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I personally have no problem with what many would deem to be gross or indecent when it comes to art. Even if I don't like something I try to understand why it exists. 

What I don't really support is art that is art for money and notoriety sake as opposed to art for art sake. I'm not talking about commissioned pieces or art that is sold. What I really don't like is an exhibition that is designed solely to piss-off as many people as possible thereby garnering lots of media attention. People aren't interested in the "art" in this case. It's like selling obviously offensive t-shirts to drum up business through controversy. Customers aren't flocking in for your wonderful t-shirts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Something about "killing a cat" come to mind?


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

Male nudity is offensive. Now female nudity - that's a different story...

The main problem we have in our country is that directly to our south there is a *huge* number of people that think nudity is a sin. When viewing their television screens, they would much rather have a visual of an axe attack than a pair of breasts {or insert your favourite nude appendage here}.

They think that somehow the breasts will corrupt their children more than the axe attack. This despite the fact that for many children one of their first sights is of their mother's breasts.

You figure out the logic...

Part of the problem lies in the fact that one persons "art" is another persons "smut". If the image of David above is "art", is a nude image of Pamela Anderson also "art" (albeit man-made)? What a about a nude image of Pamela Anderson performing a sex act on a consenting adult? 

I'm not sure what is the best way to regulate it, but I'm glad that Canada doesn't just "blindly" follow our southern cousins.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

No problem here with nudity, be it male or female. 

Despite my arts background & education, I do have a problem with this particular brand of "art" however. We're being had.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Is the BodyWorld exhibit art or science? The link Bopeep posted states it's science. If it's then considered art, it's secondary to it's intention.

I'll never forget my first year Photo Arts classes at Ryerson, we had nude models for design class. My instructor came up to me and said stop looking at your drawing, look at the model --the model being a very attractive young lady, he didn't have to tell me twice. If the models were male, it would't bother me either, but I might spend less time looking at the model and more time looking at my drawing...no matter what my instructor says.  

The human form has been represented artisticaly, in one form or another, ever since we climbed out of the trees. Prudes in 21st century "art" forums should just get over it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When I enter the local pub on a winters day, someone always seems to ask me if it is cold out.

I simply tell them I don't know, as I haven't had it out yet.

But if I did have it out, would it be offensive?

Just asking.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Toronto totally missed the boat on Bodyworks.
The US was humming and hawing about transporting cadavers and Toronto could have grabbed the show and had a ton of tourists.
 

Slow on the switch. I even chatted with Stinton about finding someone to bring it in. Total money maker

my fav


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i would question whether it's worthwhile to continue participating in such a forum that has obviously been invaded by people with no education in or experience with art.

it's impossible to go through art school without taking life drawing, as everyone except the bored housewife from middle america knows.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ironically I'm just watching a surprisingly explicit program on Discovery Channel exploring the Science behind sex.

Good for Discovery......I'm sure THIS isn't on the Bible belt cable.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Male nudity is offensive. Now female nudity ...


I quite disagree... I am a fan of the male body.









From an art perspective, I agree. drawing a LINE in the sand, posting warnings at the entry point of an art forum smacks of censorship. 

Censorship is bad

Abhor the content but believe in it's right to exist. 

Interestingly, the principal member of the forum who was so shocked said she would never open up another post by this artist, has obviously been following the thread, since she posted another comment 3 pages later. 

Some people...

FYI - there WERE female nudes posted and NO there was not a fuss created. I think it was the penis on a fairly emaciated man that upset her. She is a grandmother!!! I guess she made sure the lights were always off. sigh.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure what the social mores are way out east...but here on Salt Spring Island, nudity is not an issue. You see it at any of the islands several lakes on a regular basis during the sumer months. And there are impromptu skinny dipping sessions in the ocean at night. Often near the pubs. Odd about that.

We often have to remind each other to put clothes on before we take a trip to the mainland. Just so's we don't shock the natives over there. Plus it gives us somewhere to stash all of those credit cards when we go shopping. Pockets are wonderful things.  

I won't tell you where or how we stash them when strolling starkers around Ganges Village, here on the island. 

You'll just have to use your imagination for that.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

_Is the BodyWorld exhibit art or science?_

Why distinguish between the two? Art and Science are each at their peak when indistinguishable from each other.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Koestler in "Act of Creation" brilliantly laid out the triptych from mathematics, through science through poetry even through humour as a spectrum.

Goedle Escher and Bach as well.

Just our biology alone determines much of how we look at art or beauty. Music is world wide across cultures and the "beauty" of an equation like E=MC2 all partake of similar underlying dynamics of how our perceptions work...'cuz after all......it's all in our heads.  

and no that's not an eye, and it's not that colour but we LOVE to think both are REAL.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

If people are ashamed of nudity whether in art form or just being nude for the sake of it - then to me, that only goes to show they are ashamed of their own body. Did this start as some sort of religious belief - most likely.

My partner and I had a discussion the other day of why is it offensive for a female to go topless and not a male. Males and females both have breasts. Not all males breasts are flat. Some females are. Is it a religious thing or simply that the female breasts have a sexual connotation to them?

Do you hide in the closet when your partner undresses? Are you ashamed or embarrassed at their nudity. It's all nonsense. It should be a choice.

Nudity in the art form has been around for centuries - this woman is just a prude.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

On a side topic, I'm always amused at the inherent sexism in censorship in TV and movies. Breasts and completely naked women are often totally fine with censors; however, show them a penis and its time to get irrate. It just goes to show who wields too much control still. Also it goes to show there is a latent sense of homophobia especially with US censors.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Jokingly, I use the following to distinguish between art and pornography: if the people who are naked are attractive, it's pornography; if they are unattractive, it's art.









But then I thought about porn and the men are never really attractive in it - I guess because it's aimed at men so who cares what they look like.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hmmm...bopeep has stated that she is a fan of the male body.  

In that case, then she might want to check out the mugshots thread. There are several male bodies on display in that particular thread. And....the humiliating photo that I have promised to post, if ten more ehmaclanders post their mugs, might also tend to fall into this male bod category.  

I took the pic myself, using a full length mirror. I shot it during the period that I lived in Rio de Janeiro for my then Brasilian girlfriend. I was 26...and terribly scrawny at the time. When I finally had to leave Rio for another job...she told me she wanted a "photo of her Canadian hunk" to remember me by. (roughly translated from the original portuguese).

When I look back on this particular photo nowadays, I find myself terribly humiliated. I think I look totally ridiculous posing in front of the mirror and desperately trying to look "hunky", to be quite honest.  

But...if you want to see male "Nudity" (from the waist up)..."Art" (I had the photos developed at a place called 'FotoArt' in Rio de Janeiro)..and "Censorship" (our most level headed moderators here at ehmac will probably want to spare the rest of you, and will likely DELETE this photo, shortly after it first appears. At least I HOPE they will)









If you want to see all of this...then watch the mugshots thread.

Or...better yet...DON"T!


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

_if the people who are naked are attractive, it's pornography; if they are unattractive, it's art._

funny. I've always had exactly the opposite viewpoint.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Why can't pornography be art ?


----------



## xorpion (Jul 26, 2002)

because nobody masturbates to art.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Xorpion, don't be so sure about that. Before magazines, video projectors, vhs, the web, dvd became widely available I imagine many a young male enjoyed his private time with a classical art book.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In my view erotica and art often overlap.....erotica and porn can overlap..... but rarely do art and porn share anything in common. 

"Course as with everything....it's all in our head  

The Victorians covered chair "limbs" not to arouse the salacious thought.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

_Why can't pornography be art ?_

I consider pornography to be a sensational/exploitative display largely devoid of merit. Sometimes "pornographers" may be accused of making art and likewise "artists" successful in making porn. 

The government may try to legislate where the crossover occurs, but the viewer/listener decides which is which (and who is who).


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

I am sure we have all been through the same discussion. "What is art, and what qualifies it?"



> Course as with everything....it's all in our head


I have come to believe that art is what the artist claims it to be. I might not like it all, but art is as art does. eg: I paint, I'm an artist. I dance, I'm an artist. I play music, I'm an artist. I drape buildings in cloth, I'm an artist. I spray canvas with excrement, I'm an artist. And so on.

So it isn't in 'our head' to qualify the art, it is in the artist's head. Many great artist, poets and musicians died pennyless as society at the time deemed there art trivial or unimportant. Does this make them less of an 'artist'? No.

To say that porn and art don't have anything in common means you are disregarding someone's view on their artwork. Let me state that much of the porn out there disqualifies itself from being art, as it is porn for porn's sake, not art for art's sake. (Much like mass produced landscape paintings sold on the side of the road) But there are some porn 'artists' who feel they are expressing themselves through a new medium. Again, it is the intent of the artist that makes 'art'.

To get back on topic: I am against censorship in any form. For someone to be 'offended' to see nudity in an art forum is... Well, sadly ignorant. But with the web being what it is, and people wanting a bit more control over what kids have access to (as there is too much) maybe a small disclaimer wouldn't hurt.

But, don't get me started on parents wanting everything labeled and restricted to protect their children. If you want to know where your child is surfing, then surf with them. Participate and teach. Don't complain and censor.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Thewitt, good points and argument. But I am often compelled to believe the opposite is true: Artists are not artists merely because they proclaim themselves to be artists. And art may not be art just because its creator (or curator) calls it art. Individuals will judge artistic merit for themselves no matter what anyone says. Art is not the exclusive domain of those who make a carreer out of it. A surgeon may be an artist, an engineer may be an artist, a chef, carpenter, pilot... it's the mixture and amount of ability, interest, care, vision, creativity, individuality, and dedication you bring to your work that may (or may not) elevate you to the stature of artist in the eyes fo others. We should all aspire to be artists. Finally, it is enough to prove only to yourself you're an artist and on that point, thewitt, we agree. I think.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Art is personal and subjective. That's the beauty of it and also the frustration of critiquing or defining it. 

When you start to argue porn vs. art there is a blurry line in effect because different moralities come into play. Clearly there are still some people who find nude art or some nude art pornographic. And depending on your definition of art, the artist's intnet may (or may not) come into play.


----------



## xorpion (Jul 26, 2002)

> Xorpion, don't be so sure about that. Before magazines, video projectors, vhs, the web, dvd became widely available I imagine many a young male enjoyed his private time with a classical art book.


good point. but today, art's got to be a last resort. next to imagination, i suppose.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Devolving into hairsplitting and also a bit of colloquial use of "artist".

Calling a surgeon an artist is a colloquial use and really indicates a superior craftsman. Someone at the very top might be a genius as a surgeon. The same level of pianist would be considered a great artist.

Art rises above the mundane into the area of myth, spirit, icon and yes it is culturally subjective but some responses like a baby's to a beautiful face are "built in".

I think you really need buffers like "erotica" to move between concepts like porn and art when considering nudes.

If you took Playboy as an early example - the centrefolds would not be generally considered art tho a sexy Vargas illustration might be.

The vast majority of photos would not be art but some like those of Kirsch and Ansel Adams rise into that realm.

Fuzzy areas are architecture - Falling Water, the Guggenheim COULD fall into the realm of "art".

You get into silly things like what do you call an awful painting.
Bad art, a failed attempt at art, or just a bad painting?

Taste comes into play, as well as context and perhaps "intent" alsol.









Bottom line you likely need "modifiers" to describe the range "art" encompasses.

There are journeymen singers, then along comes Piaf and takes the same song to different level, she's the artist but where is the line between the two.
Stuff that critics and listeners will argue about forever.

Dali was a buffoon, a disgrace to the "art community".......originally.
Now ranked amongst the great artists.

But bringing "body phobias" into an art community discussion is at best juvenile and prudish. Many other less flattering adjectives could apply.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

> because nobody masturbates to art


In Classical Greece, they stopped making the Aphrodite sculptures, shall we say, anatomically correct in the naughty bits below the waste because of male excitement at the site of the sculptures.

Funny - nudity was heroic to the Greeks - leaders commissioned nude statues (well, that was more the Hellenistic but anyway - good ol' Alexander) but the Romans found it reprehensible - making yourself look godlike - this was reserved for gods and goddesses. A statesmen would not show himself this way in the Republic and it wasn't until much later that this was done on occasion during the Empire but usually with an Emperor's obsession with Greeks.









We all use art culturally as a vocabulary and speak a different language. It's quite interesting to understand that language in different cultures.

Now myself, since I have this self loathing for my body - well I don't like to even look in the mirror when I'm trying on pants.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Now myself, since I have this self loathing for my body...


I am reminded of a line from pulp fiction: 

"funny how what is pleasing to the eye and what is pleasing to the touch are seldom the same" in reference to a woman with a pot belly. 

What is it that causes folks to be so disgusted with the sight of the human body?


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

For me, it's that mine just isn't as nice as all those nice bodies we normally see in magazines and on tv. I feel so awful about it when I see say the hot chick who hosts Dog Eat Dog and I recognized how conditioned I am as I don't find chubby male bodies as bad as my yucky female body. I'll probably never get over it - I've always had a body issue.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

On the subject of BodyWorlds and why didn't Toronto host it,
My thinking is that the people that may have been involved and
chose not to be involved may have been thinking back to the
Mark Prent fiasco at the Isaac's Gallery.

Perhaps they felt that Toronto isn't ready for that kind of Hyper
Realism style of sculpture just yet.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-68-300-1602/arts_entertainment/art_censorship/clip5

http://www.puretaos.com/artists/PrentMark/index.shtml 

http://www.roland-collection.com/rolandcollection/section/20/637.htm 

Dave


----------

