Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I specifically challenge the premise that sexualizing nudity is a bad thing. I think it is natural as sex itself. |
I'd say nudity and sexuality are related, but non-conincidental areas for artistic exploration. I'd totally agree with you that there is nothing wrong with the area in which they overlap, but I believe there is value in recognizing the areas in which they don't.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
If the human body is per se beautiful, as the artistic crowd here is saying, then all human bodies are beautiful, no matter the shape or size. |
Hardly - Di Vinci's anatomical studies were all about creating, or understanding, an ideal of beauty; an ideal to which almost no one conformed. Similarly, I think my flower analogy holds true; most flower pics are of flowers at the brief moment of "ideality." Saying that the concept of 'flowerness' contains an ideal of beauty does not imply that every flower, no matter how wilted, represents that ideal. Same for humans.
There exist paintings and photos of dying flowers, but these are generally commenting on the imperminance of the idealized beauty of youth (at a first cut analysis, anyway). So there is an implicit reference to the canon of work that has established (or attempted to) the original ideal.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
And, feeling some level of sexual attraction when one sees an artistic rendering of a beautiful naked body does not render one perverted. It renders one ALIVE!!! |
Here we agree wholeheartedly! You're right to call me out on the 'perv' thing; I was using it tongue in cheek. I completely agree that there is nothing shameful about human sexuality.
The risk is things like this.
Very nice picture BTW:
edited to fix bad html
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 11:30:40. |
