Nude women in the media

[fantome profane]

I got into a discussion with a fellow worker at the theater I volunteer at about Playboy magazine's decision to bring back pictures of nude women. He contends that depictions of nude women in an artistic medium are just as bad as actual photos. Forgetting about his evaluation of "bad," do you think depictions of nude women and photos of nude women are comparable?

Why or why not?


.

um, photos are an artistic medium.

But there is no ethical difference between a photograph of a naked woman and a painting, sculpture or drawing of a naked woman. Each medium can depict women in a way that is respectful, and each medium can depict women in a way that is disrespectful.

 

[Skwim]

.

um, photos are an artistic medium.

Film can be, but it seldom is.


.

 

[metis]

Psychologists tell us that the more we try to hide something, the more of an obsession it tends to create. I've been on beaches in Europe whereas toplessness and full nudity are allowed, and after a while you hardly pay attention. However, if I were to go nude, I would soon have the beach to myself.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I can much agree to that. Having taken Life Drawing courses, the nudity becomes just another fact of life.

 

[SomeRandom]

Nudity can be artistic or gratuitous.
As for objectifying women however.... Eh, the local art museum probably has more boobs on display than the average playboy.

 

[metis]

I can much agree to that. Having taken Life Drawing courses, the nudity becomes just another fact of life.

A friend of mine who took art courses said much the same. Frankly, I think most people look better and sexier with some clothes on than all clothes off.

 

[BSM1]

But that's only the case if one somehow only sees nudes in a sexual manner. The problem is not with the art work, but it may be with some viewing the art work and thinking "sex".

Shoot! I have been known to get all tingly just staring at the naked truth...just sayin'.

 

[Glaurung]

Not at all-- context is important. Heck many of the art works in the Vatican have nudes.

It's called artistic licence.

 

[Skwim]

It's called artistic licence.

I always thought it was the power of the papacy. The popes had a thing for naked people. If they didn't they would have revoked the artistic licenses of the artists they employed.


.

 

[Glaurung]

I always thought it was the power of the papacy. The popes had a thing for naked people.

We're no puritans, Catholics enjoy beautiful things. In fact, we're often decried for it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think its disrespectful and dehumanizes women using them as sex objects.

Oh...I see. Whereas the nude statue of David by Michelangelo in the most important square of Florence, doesn't dehumanize and objectify men, right? It's impossible not to see it, if you have a walk there.

Spoiler: David statue in Florence

https://cosafarea.it/wp-content/uploads/firenze/David-di-Michelangelo-5.jpg http://www.regioni-italiane.com/immagini/david3.jpg

I assure you that lots of women have very dirty sexual thoughts when they see that.
But I guess that your discourse is meant to demonize the aesthetic celebration of the female body....whereas the male body gets a free pass.

Answering the OP's question, I think the human body is not supposed to be demonized.

 

[metis]

About 40 some years ago, I caught an interview of a Christian pastor who also was a "naturalist", and when asked how he can reconcile the two he responded that if anyone has ever spent time at a nudist colony they would know that it really is not a sexy place.

 

[Valjean]

Naturalist or Naturist?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

When you portray a man or woman in such a way that your only goal is to sexually titillate your audience, you almost always reduce them to sex objects in the process.

I don't think that's disrespectful, myself. Finding something sexually stimulating doesn't mean you necessarily lose sight of the fact that they're a complete human being.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think that's disrespectful, myself. Finding something sexually stimulating doesn't mean you necessarily lose sight of the fact that they're a complete human being.

When the only goal of a work's creator is to titillate an audience, it's a pretty good sign that the work will reduce its subject to a sex object.

 

[Skwim]

When the only goal of a work's creator is to titillate an audience, it's a pretty good sign that the work will reduce its subject to a sex object.

To rouse feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia in others it isn't uncommon to reduce a person to an object of extreme sentimentality. To induce one's sense of patriotism people have reduced others to objects of xenophobia. To raise money for various causes people often play on one's empathy by reducing others to needy creatures. In none of these cases are any of the other characteristics of a person considered, and with good reason. They could well detract from the goal at hand: Inducing sentimentality, xenophobia, empathetic need, and titillation.

So, the question can be asked, does such focusing reduce people to sentimental objects, xenophobic objects, or emphatic objects any less than sex objects? Moreover, is titillation bad? If not, then what's wrong with focusing on those human elements that give rise to it?

That said, I do recognize that those of Homo troglodytie are unable to, or choose not to, discern the difference between fantasy and real life and make sexual objectification their modus operandi.


.



.

 

[LukeS]

IMO woman are sex objects, under one aspect, because we are a sexual species. Not mere objects, but they tend to arouse attention especially if you have erotic category goals ("look at the boobs" etc). So the "objectification" argument sounds kinda gnostic to me - like the docetics (a branch of Christian gnostics IIRC) claimed that Jesus was too pure to be material, therefore he was a spiritual apparition rather than a actual flesh and blood human being.

 

[HonestJoe]

Forgetting about his evaluation of "bad," do you think depictions of nude women and photos of nude women are comparable?

I’d suggest that as a rule the medium won’t automatically make a difference, especially given how much digital manipulation of photographs blurs the line between them and the “direct” mediums.

I suspect the basis of your colleagues concern is the depiction of a real person and how they’ll be associated with the art. Photographs are more likely to be a recognisable and accurate representation of a model than other arts, even when they make use of live models themselves. That said, a photograph could have elements distancing the model from the depiction and other arts can be directly life-like depictions of their models.

The other concern would be the connections between the art and wider groups, notably in the context “sexualisation of women” of course. Theoretically, there is again no distinction between mediums in this but socially and historically, the ways and contexts in which different mediums are used inevitably influence the viewers perception of them. How and where the images are being viewed will be relevant as well and that has historic tendencies. Paintings and statues tend to be viewed in public as groups while photographs are more commonly individual and private but I think the actual context is (and should be) more important. A painting in an art gallery is different to the same painting hanging on the ceiling above your bed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Qualities brought about by nudity clearly vary.

Sure I'll howl at the moon and salivate over photos and depictions of nude people.

There's another aspect though, for which the nude body, especially in fine art photography, painting, and sculpture, project strength, design, and sexuality in ways apart from eroticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I got into a discussion with a fellow worker at the theater I volunteer at about Playboy magazine's decision to bring back pictures of nude women. He contends that depictions of nude women in an artistic medium are just as bad as actual photos. Forgetting about his evaluation of "bad," do you think depictions of nude women and photos of nude women are comparable?

Why or why not?


.

Comparable, since both feature nude women.
It's moral if they're good look'n & willing.