This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Mildly Adult
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is nude art offensive?

I joined an Art website a long time ago. Obviously, an Art website will contain many various art topics. And the topic of nudity will be involved, for sure. I checked out some of the nude art pictures, and there are quite many comments from the viewer (mostly women) claim that they are feeling offended because of the nudity. And they think that it is a form of sexual harassment or indirectly sexual assault, because, well, the artist was mostly male. Honestly, I really enjoy any kind of art because it is art. And art has no right or wrong. Sadly, this world is now destroying the beauty of the art.

Since when art becomes a kind of offensive of sexual abuse? I feel bad for those male artists though. They just want to express their passion through art, and those people criticize them.

Here is one of the nude art that cause women offended. Let me know what do you think about this?

[image]
The name of this artwork is "Lost control".
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Lensman2000 · 56-60, M
Art, like poetry, has been defined since Wordsworth as "emotion recollected in tranquility". Many years ago I visited NYC and saw John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" for the first time. It was disgusting, hilarious, and like nothing I'd ever seen before. Watching it, I had a visceral (emotional) reaction. Because of my response to what, I believe, was the director's intention, I consider this art. I'll explain:

On the same trip I visited New York's Museum of Modern Art. There, among many modern masters, I saw a huge orange canvas, apparently painted with a roller (as you would a wall) framed, undoubtedly purchased for a large sum of money and given further legitimacy by being hung with this collection. I was outraged.

Some wealthy dillettante wanting to showcase their hipness to rich friends with the art fad de jour had actually bought this thing. That's fine, but some MOMA curator was stupid enough to hang it beside "real" art!

I thought about that for days...then thought about my reaction to the revolting John Waters film. It was a revelation. If That orange canvas could provoke such a visceral response in me; then it, by definition, was art. The guy who painted that thing left me with an indelible feeling. His ridiculous piece evoked emotion I feel to this day. Wordsworth's sentiment is equally valid applied to erotic creations, as well.

Every gut-churning, disturbing image certainly isn't art. But, taking the artist's intent into account, images, words, performances, (beautiful or disgusting), that elicit a visceral response from the viewer should be seen as legitimate art. If the artist wanted you to be enraptured, if the artist wanted you to get sexually aroused or even recoil screaming; if you felt that: they were successful.