deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
Shop Similar Prints
This Print Not Available
more ▶

More from ~Laurion

Featured in Groups:

Details

May 13, 2005
110 KB
1024×768
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 2,138
Favourites: 691 [who?]

Views: 91,876 (0 today)
Downloads: 24,720 (0 today)
[x]
:iconlaurion:
Okay ... I've now been caught in the crossfire of the culture wars. For a year now I've been submitting deviations on and off here at DA, and generally enjoying a quietly pleasant and encouraging cameraderie with a small handful of friends and other deviants. Then ~IT~ happened ... I submitted a deviation (this one here: [link] ) and suddenly some strangers jumped out of nowhere, complaining that it is a piece of pornographic crap. Well, needless to say this really surprised me, and it also hurt my feelings a little, since I would never in a million years want to be associated with pornography. So I went and looked through the forums, and sure enough, there seems to be a running and raging culture wars debate here on DA, concerning four issues:

1.) Is the nude human figure a legitimate subject of art?
2.) What subtle quality differentiates between a picture/painting/drawing of a naked person and an artistic nude?
3.) Should nude art be allowed on DA?
3.) Should nude art be encouraged and recognized, such as through Daily Deviations?

By way of example, take a look at this sticky thread touching on these topics: [link]

My take on all this is that most of the heat and smoke is caused by a loose coalition of self-righteous trolls with too much time on their hands, and evangelical pseudo-Christian holy warriors who feel obliged to fight the culture wars. Both are the sort of people that I consider to be time-wasters, so I merely ignored them. But there remained some legitimate questions about nude art and its meaning in the age of the cheap digi-cam. This wallpaper is an attempt to articulate the state of the debate, as I see it, in visual terms.

Note: The visual irony in this deviation is intentional, and I had to search long and hard for the ~perfect~ stock photo to articulate that sense of irony. I do not have the answers to the questions I ask.

A closing thought, which is particularly aimed at the so-called Christian holy warriors: I just read in today's paper that Pope Benedict has fast-tracked the sanctification case of Pope John Paul II. Remember that JPII wrote this about artistic nudity: "Because God created it the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve its splendour and its beauty." Santo Subito.

For more cool wallpapers, be sure to look in my gallery, here:
~Laurion

Stock Photo Credits:

BrokenArts, at [link]

Attention Wallpaper Lovers:

Wallpapers get a lot of downloads, but they seldom get very many comments. If you like a wallpaper (by me or anyone else), please please please give it a fave, and leave a comment saying why you like it! And if you don't like it, tell us why! This is very important to those of us who make the wallpapers you download, and not just for reasons of ego-gratification. Some people think of wallpapers as so-much eye-candy ... but they are so much more also. Since you download it onto your desktop, a wallpaper can be a very personal choice, as it is something that stares back at you from your monitor everytime you start your computer. The production of decent wallpapers, like any other kind of art, requires feedback, comments and criticism! So much for my rant ... enjoy the wallpapers, and say something, damnit!!!

Attention Digital Artists:

Have you thought about posting some of your work as wallpapers? The DA community is very much about exploring avenues for creating digital art that is more than "just" eye-candy. But, sometimes, it's fun to remember that art can be as much about function as form, and one of the most traditional ~practical~ uses of digital art is as wallpapers. You might enjoy making and sharing wallpapers that, hopefully, look good and yet make the viewer stop and think for a second, or at the very least do a double-take. You might appreciate the challenge of creating a personal system of syntagmatics that successfully presents complex issues in a "pop-art" medium that tends to be highly iconic in nature. Finally, you might feel a sense of mission in working in a DA genre that really hasn't fully evolved beyond the representation of eye-candy as art. Anyways, think about it ...
Add a Comment:
 

Daily Deviation

Given 2005-06-25
Expose Yourself to Art by ~Laurion Perhaps an important lesson for those who fight over what is and isn't art. Can you answer the questions? More importantly will everyone's response be the same? There's a border here, what side are you standing on because after all does it matter? ( Suggested by !baby221 and Featured by !Subversive-imaginati )
:iconmakarovjac:
1.) Is the nude human figure a legitimate subject of art?

A/ Not necessarily. Would you consider the effects of Ebola, or flesh-eating desease, on the body as artistic? It has colours, and textures, and stuff, after all. Isn't it?

2.) What subtle quality differentiates between a picture/painting/drawing of a naked person and an artistic nude?

A/ To begin with, the intention (creativity). It's not the same a pic to show off because fuck it, than wanting to portray body language, detailed anatomy, varied poses, etc. Then, execution (skill). It's not the same a mirror/arm pic, than a carefully taken photography (by carefully I refer to angle, illumination, etc.)

3.) Should nude art be allowed on DA?

A/ Heck, why not? What it should be prohibited are all photographies withouth any degree of effort, quality, and/or meaning. Again, it's not the same a naked guy posing with a sword, than this shit: [link]

3.) Should nude art be encouraged and recognized, such as through Daily Deviations?

A/ Going back to 1 through 3. A picture like the current one above couldn't be precisely described as art. It's a common image amongst facebook (just wearing a bra or something), and internet porn. It has no effort into it, other than having the guts to flash your tits online, so why should we praise something any other Average Jane can do without any effort?
Reply
:iconwarlockmockalock:
I think a lot of deviant artists are always jumping back to "there is nudity art" rather than explaining what their picture is suppose to represent, or illustrate. Not bashing or anything, but I did like the 80s soft effect.
Reply
:iconwarlockmockalock:
Does look pornographic. Mainly because of -setting- and potentially pose. Depends on your age as well, I'm guessing you're 18. I wouldn't consider a nude photograph in a bathroom a piece of art. If it was painted, or something then I'd consider it just that. Photos not so much. It's simply that, a photo, or screenshot. Art is suppose to express something in general, not focus linear on one thing, that you know is captivating to the new age, which generally will now always fall back to 'porn'.

Everyone can mask their true thoughts with 'kind comments' just to encourage (manipulate/chance) you to put out more, but you can't really tell a pervert or whatever from the flock, -especially- on the internet.
Reply
:icontheewraithgod:
So much knowledge and moral standards to learn. Yes!
Reply
:iconvincentvalentinegirl:
~VincentValentineGirl Oct 27, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Perhaps now would be a good time to explain to those trolls--WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE LIFE DRAWING IN ART COLLEGES?!

The human body is a beautiful and fascinating subject! If they are so biased about nude bodies, then they really don't know the slightest bit about art! There is a MAJOR difference between nude art and pornography!

Some people need to be slapped. Upside the head. With a frying pan. Seriously.
Reply
:iconwormyish:
~wormyish Oct 24, 2012  Student General Artist
Nice tits, just saying.
Reply
:iconsexypervysage:
~SEXYPERVYSAGE Jul 27, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
The only thing that might look pornish in the image you linked to might have been the quality. I don't know much about photography (and I realize you did it for an 80's feel) but the image with the girl in the shower kind of looks like a still from a porno from the 70s. Shame on me for saying it, I know but that's what I think of when I see it. That and a really old Polaroid picture.
There's nothing wrong with this old look at all but I think that people might have made the same association I did. They are used to seeing "artistic" nudes that utilize lighting and shadow while the one with the girl in the shower looks very "regular" and maybe unprofessional?
I've seen a bunch of images on DA that aren't artistic at all. I've seen a blurry image of some girl's boobs (it looked like it was taken from the Internet) and a woman licking jello shots while at a fetish club. She got a lot of views because she has F sized boobs. Both images got a lot of hate, which I understand because there was no thought process behind either of them. And it was really obvious that these people didn't want to present the nude form or send a message (like this piece does).
As for your other piece titled "My Towel Please" it doesn't seem like she is even asking for a towel. People probably bitched about it because of what I said above or because they are just prudes who need to comment on EVERY SINGLE THING they don't like.
Sorry for the long ass comment. ^.^
I really like the message here in this piece and I'm totally faving it. :D
Reply
:iconsimonhogg:
~SimonHogg Jan 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Personally i think artistic nudes should portray nudity, with out explicitly showing nudity, for example using the light to highlight the female/male form without having to show them as nude.
Reply
:iconunconventionalsenshi:
I Support nude body form. And human body is art when it's worked on. And genitals are beautiful too :)
Reply
:iconchsehed41:
Anyone can take a photo of a nude body, and most of them look like crap. To handle the vision of a nude woman and not make it porn it must be done with sensitivity. Erotic, yes. Porn, no. Lighting, shading, attitude of the photographer and model with a common goal in mind contribute to the difference in the genres. And I guess that porn would have to be considered a genre, albeit one that definitely doesn't belong in DA. If anyone can find anything offensive about those beautiful boobies, National Geographic awaits!
Reply
Add a Comment: