I notice A LOT of ppl here like to do nude women in their art. It actualy got me thinking. What is it about a nude that fasinates ppl so much? Granted I am as attracted to women as much as the next guy. But when you see a nude what are your thoughts? I seem to have 2 ways of looking at it. One way is from an artistic stand point. I see the curves of a woman and skin and all and think of the mood the artist tried to portray. Rarely ever do I get aroused. But it seemes there are times a pic can be done sooo well, and give off a certain air of sensuality. If it is tastefull and well done, then even looking at it from an artist point of vew I can't help but be aroused. Those are the pics that are GREAT! If they can actualy arouse me as an artist, then they have done a fine job on giving off the proper mood.

I grew up in a house with an artist that studied abroad..in spain and south america. I was always tought that there was a difference between nude and vulgar. consequently I see nothing wrong with most nudes. and I tend to do them simply because they are just facinating..either in the simply way the body moves....and the lay of the curves and valleies..or because of the shape of the particular body. the way the body reacts to certain things...such as the slight nude with perhaps a corset the exagerated nip of the waist in contrast to the rest of the bodys soft form...the contrast is facinating...the different tones and colors that the human form comes in...the way light plays off the flesh each unique to each person or form...just the beautiful way it is made...the dip of the back...the curve of the hip as it nips to the waist....the gentle curve of a calf.....It is beautiful. and in Poser you have sooooooooooooooooo many possibilities you just dont have normally. try and get a nude model to stand for days in one place and well...... or try to actually find that lovely breast plate for said model....not going to happen in most peoples price ranges. also you can do combinations you just cant do in life. as you can see it is a favored subject...:)

Yes that is exactly how I feel about the subject. The human body is amazing to me. In one inch of a persons skin there are so many veryations (bad speller) of skin tone that it prolly cant be counted. Another thing I notice is that there are no perfect bodies. Each person is unique. But if you can capture the inner beast, that vulnerability, the streangth, the very charecter of a person, you have done great. I have yet to find a pic that demonstrates how unique we all are other than in a nude. Whats more is that in the form of a nude you can see that we are all vulnerable. That feeling alone is one of the strongest values of the nude.

Without nude women in art there would be no Venus de Milo. :-) Nudity has been along in art since the first guy or girl picked up a piece of charcoal from the fire and started to squibble on the cave wall. In fact, some of the most important cave paintings can only be classified in terms of wishful (or boastful) x-rated images. Sexuality, and sensuality, is an important aspect of art, and since art deals with people it would be strange if that side of us wasn't explored.

Frankly, it's getting to be a bore. Poser makes it so easy, y'know? -- slap open a Vicky, grab a texture, put it in a pose, hit "render" -- and voila! instant "art"! No muss, no fuss, results guaranteed in 10 minutes or double your money back. There are some really good Poser artists out there, folks who really push the program to see where it can go. But there's also way far more who're content to be sloppy and lazy with this thing.

Well, I'm not attracted to women at all, so that's not why I use them in my images, and I've been using nudes in my pictures long before I started doing digital art or using Poser, so it's not the easy availability of Naked Vicki that encourages me. I tend to see the human body as an object of art, actually. Perhaps this is because I studied fine art and you see so many nudes it becomes a non-issue. I am certainly aware that there's a sexual element to many nude figures, but I just see that as part of the art. Sexuality is part of life, part of who we are. Of course, there's no reason that nudity has to necessarily be equated with sex. There are many situations in which a person might be naked or partially naked, but most of those situations don't automatically lead to sex. So, well, nudity is nudity. Most of the time my reaction is along the lines of "big deal, what else you got?" meaning, interesting lighting, good postwork, something beside Yet Another Naked Vicki to get my interest. bonni

Yes JoeyAristophanes and thats what makes it so GREAT, to me the point isn't "everyone can make art ;o(."..the point is "EVERYONE CAN MAKE ART :o) :o) ;o) :o) ;o)"....Another way to explain myself, if a guy/gal builds a pile of bricks and then says "This is my expression of the flaws of humanity" is he a great artist, not in my opinion, to me he just has the gift of the gab.....if a guy/gal creates a very basic poser render and says something like "Wow, i love poser i've been wanting to do naked woman in a temple pics for years" then he is a great artist, the pic may not be great but he has managed to express something that has been withing for a long time...i think if we could look at the images we see here while in the company of the artist we'd thing very different about the art....As for why folks do nude woman art, well coz women look great nude, why complicate things :o)......Steve

Roll a couple of thoughts around in your head... 1 - What is the function of art? 2 - Does "art" really exist? My own answers are: 1 - Communication of ideas. That means any ideas, no matter how crude, simplistic, complex or outrageous. From the first day Uggo decided to scrawl on his cave wall with a burnt stick to the present day, we have been driven to represent our thoughts in non-verbal ways. It's part of human desire to get the pictures out of our head and into some other form. 2 - No. At least, not by the current definition, which is elitist and restrictive. People love labels, so they like to categorise and subdivide something that was once straightforward. So now we have "Great Art", "Outsider Art", "NVIT" and so forth. Maybe, just maybe, the people who turn out NVIT pics etc have a better handle on their reality than the rest of us. After all, what could be more straightforward than a direct expression of "Hey, I just love naked women"? It may not be particularly original, but it sure is true to human nature, as stated by TH and steveshanks.

I think of it as a left brain/right brain thing. Our left brain has verbal language, our right brain is visual. The interesting thing about 'art' is that we can combine the two. A verbal thought expressed non-verbally. However I think the most powerful art does not have a verbal counterpart. And when the verbal part is too obvious, often the 'art' becomes trite.

{What is it about a nude that fasinates ppl so much?} The easy answer: People, especially newbies, don't know how to conform clothing correctly in Poser. So, rather than try... here's a nude image! The deeper answer: Since we look at clothed people all day, unclothed people are seen as almost "forbidden", ie: "you don't see that everyday". And seeing something "forbidden" excites us. Nudes have been in art for hundreds and hundreds of years... and censors have been around almost as long to "protect" people from seeing the "forbibben" naked bodies.

the point is "EVERYONE CAN MAKE ART :o) And face it, Steve: that's a scary thought. :)

"Sexuality, and sensuality, is an important aspect of art, and since art deals with people it would be strange if that side of us wasn't explored. " also beauty is totally biological- we're humans (well some of us) our form has to be attractive to us. someone from antaries with 6 tenicals would see there own forms as beautiful. even in more open societies nudes are made. also, some of us take great joy in the creation of pinups- the skill involved to make skin glow, the smoothness of form. Nudes are just as valid as NVITWS or chirst hanging on the cross. same tools, different output! then there also is the more pragmatic, cloths are hard to make work and are too character specific yet, and limited in types and expensive. the technology has a LONG ways to go yet. most ppl's systems just grone when large scenes the lots of props and characters(remember cloths are characters) are used. thank god the the net is so big to accodomate all of us. I hate goth, but I don't put it down everytime some one says something about it. or how many more stone walls and door ways surounded by plants do we need. then there is the type of art. some ppl are story telling (NVITWS) and some are making eye candy (pinups). both have a place!

Everyone can make graphics. Not everyone can create art. Everyone can slap a naked Vicky in a temple. Very few Vickys in the temple are worth looking at. Nudes are predictable, easy, guaranteed hits. Doing something creative, original, challenging, and risk losing views is what artists do. I may not be an artist, but I know art stops me in my tracks and demands me to look at it. Most of the naked Vickys are a yawn and a passing click on to something more interesting. Non-artists will take the easy path to getting attention. Real artists create because they can't help it, even if there's no audience. But of course most people will do their temple dance around the naked Vicky and pretend they are doing something original. There's nothing wrong with copying what everyone else does...but don't call it art. That's just paint by numbers in a different container.

Norman Rockwell allways thought of himself as a failure cause ppl like you dialyn were allways dissing him. Not calling what he did art!!! sure there is lots and lots of bad pictures around- thats not there problem- it's yours- to find the needle in the haystack.

I just wish for more nude men:) I would help out but I'm so unsure about the TOS. A lot of (for me) natural things are just forbidden here...

ok no not all nudes are newbies that dont know how to conform clothing right. I have done nudes since I was in my teens and still prefer them in my work off line. My best selling work are my nudes.{particuarly the nudes dont in sepia tones on golden parchment paper with a touch of ageing to make them appear almost antique} two-it is not as easy as slaping on a texture to vicky posing and POOF nude art. {anyone that has seen what some of those joints can look like when not done right know this as they look like something out of a mad scientist movie, or seen those renders with the deformed huge breast that make you go ACK OMG OMGOOOOMG not because they are naked but because they are inhumanly huge} three-why whyyyyyyyyyy is nude seen as something wrong? agian the term "do the people that have a problem with nudes take a shower with their cloths on?" Art is an expression of each persons ideas. be it the beauty of nudes..the glory of the sky at sunset..the blood splatter from an ax...the multiplying swirls and patterns of a fractal dancing in colors.... art is expression. I agree yes everyone can make ""art"" but not everyone can make are that makes a person "feel" that -thing- when you see a piece that makes you blink and go ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that -thing- that when you see an emotional piece your heart reaches for it and you can "feel" it the expression of it the feelings captured the almost breath of life in it. THAT is different. I know I am still reaching for that brass ring. the human form is something that no two are alike..they are wonderfully unigue the tones of flesh from rich mahogany that shimmers with the sheen of the exotic to the ivory rose kissed cheeks of those from norther isles..to the wonderfully golden hues tinged with honey lights. Nude is not dirty {though it can be vulgar} the human body in its basic form is not dirty.{unless you havent bathed}

ack huge ugly scroll bar at the bottom now!! did I do that?

I think the "problem" with Poser nudes is that it's actually harder to put clothes on the figure, (and make it look good) than it is to simply texture a nude figure and add props, hence NVIATWS Personally I like naked women, though somewhat peversely I find I now prefer to look at "fake" naked women rather than the real thing. Seems to me that on the 'net your average nude is more (sub) penthouse than playboy, The images can be very aggressive, which gets tiring after a while. Whereas the TOS here seems to foster a more moderate form of pinup. Which is both familiar, (as most of them still look like Vicky) and comforting, it's interesting to see what she'll get up to next sort of thing, continuity, always good :) But yeah, I'm definately in the "10 second artist" camp, I'm not an artist, I a fiddler, "what does this dial do...?" etc. This is software, not a paintbrush. later jb

Well, shucky darn, I don't consider nudes in the galleries any different from any other piece. To me there is no difference. Is that weird? Some stuff is good, some incredible, other yawny. Doesn't matter whether there are nudes or not.

LOL!

i really like to look at nude art. the key word here is art though... i'm not so big on porn, but the body is beautiful and should be represented in artwork. in fact i paint nudes on occassion and nobody seems to have a problem with it.

I like your selective NudeGlasses. I noticed that the gorgeeous looking female OUTSIDE the shop was affected, whereas the "normal" one inside the shop wasn't ;o) Wheeew I am glad I do NOT have such glasses. Would make political meetings even more nauseating than it is at present LOL

In fact, some of the most important cave paintings can only be classified in terms of wishful (or boastful) x-rated images. Sorry, but I gotta ask for documentation of that. The cave paintings weren't fantasy but ritual drawings of the hunt and, on rare occurance, the Earth Mother. But that's about it, because what we know of the paintings suggests a very set purpose, not some errant sketchpad. If there's something I've missed somewhere, let's see the link, but I really have to call you on this.

I think the type of cave paintings reffered to are some similar to this bronze age stone carving (dated approx 2000 BC) They could certainly be considered to be agains the TOS. Not sure though since it's historical and all that, so I am taking a chance and posting it anyway...

ernyoka1; I think the glass window cancelled out my prescription somehow. Gonna have the doc check on that for me 8p Also under certain lighting conditions they see All The Way Through! For a moment I thought I Saw Dead People! =80

Why do I make nude art? Hmmm... Because the image of the "ideal" man makes me horny... No, really, the reason I love to do nude art is because of the body structure, but not just the carnal, lustful part of it (though that's there, guaranteed) it's because of the shapes. The ridges and valleys and hidden spots that you don't see until the light hits it just right. I mean, I can't be the only one who sees the microcosm/macrocosm relation in human beings. The entire human body, male or female, is a vast world of mountains and valleys. A landscape of fields and open plains. Ahhh... I love it. I've tried to put clothes on poser men before, honestly, but as I keep going they just end up nekkid again! Long live the artistic nude!

I have ridges and valleys and hidden spots in my Bryce terrains. Does that count? ;-)

People do nudes for a number of reason, from sexual titilation to a basic love of the human form. The simplest, most recognizable curve is the first one most of us see, out mother's breast. It's basic human nature to recognize and associate shapes as pleasing to us that we're the most familiar with, and to try to see those shapes in other objects. The Dome of St Peter's puts Madonna's C-cup to shame. Pattern recognition to sexual desire to feelings of safety and family. There are so may reasons people find the nude attractive, male or female. Even the best clothed figures are the ones that accentuate or bring attention to what they cover. The soft material of a t-shirt stretched over hard pecs and biceps or the stiff brocade around the bodice. Everything comes back to the human form. That concludes my lecture for Art 201 today. Please read pages 103 to 122 for the next class. And don't forget the midterm next week. Now I'm going to watch some porn.

Attached Link: http://home.earthlink.net/~exonews/xtra/french_cave.htm

Well if you want to do your art in the nude I suppose that's really no one else's business. ;-)

"Well if you want to do your art in the nude I suppose that's really no one else's business. ;-)" I wear an apron because I tend to throw the paint around.

~giggles maddly and pleads the fifth~

http://home.earthlink.net/~exonews/xtra/french_cave.htm Well, I found two things: a side reference to "female erotica" and "voluptuous females". Both suggest not erotica but images of Gaia, like I said above. There are thousands of examples of fetish sculptures of an Earth Mother type figure with large breasts and wide hips, but there's not much to support the notion that they were erotic in nature. Symbols of fertility, yes. Erotic, no. But hey, anything to get on the evening news, I guess.

It was the archeologists who used the term "erotic," not me. But, I suppose they can't tell the difference and their opinions are just as subject to preconceptons and ingrained attitudes as the rest of us.

I always figured there are as many nude Vicki images as there are simply because people are too cheap to buy her some damn clothes.

LOL I didn't know there was an art theory forum. Sry for posting in the wrong place.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=186538&Start=19&Artist=EricofSD&ByArtist=Yes

eric- thats an entire other subject- renderositys contest requirements me bites tongue now- hard

renderoswity runs the site, if someone doesn't like the rules, go to another site and enter their contest, or, set up your own. Web space is cheap, so there ain't any excuses anymore. Otherwise, Eric's got it right.

"...it will be art and not "who can make the biggest boobie morph"." What's the maximum cup size one can portray and still be considered "art?"

Guess there is a differance between studying abroad and studying a cultured woman. Have seen nudes in art magazines that are the bare essence of a person. Would like to see more symbolic and less explict nudes. Also would like to see some nudes in fancy and detailed backgrounds too. Please go look at some traditional artwork and see how they handle their nudes. It is very possible to make a detailed background that does not take focus from the nude figure.

"Guess there is a differance between studying abroad and studying a cultured woman." You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.

Love this thread. Boobie or not boobie - that is the question...

Is a titillating thread.

Have we descended to puns? I have nothing against the nude in art. I do have something against the nude in poser art. Mostly because it seems a simple rule of thumb, most nudes are poorly done and most poorly done work has boobies. So by boycotting boobies I would have to wade through quite a lot less poor art to get to the decent stuff. I also have mild aesthetic objections. Perhaps because of early bottle training or something I find large boobs repellant, not attractive. I'd sooner look at sea cucumbers. Mostly, tho, it is a "teachers" objection. Ever watch a kid trying to play piano? The less skilled the are, the louder they play. They are using the sheer visceral impact...all that lovely noise...as a replacement for the subtler charms of music. Not to say pounding on the piano doesn't have its place! But I think the poser nude has the same effect on the growing artist; they get enthralled by all that glowing flesh and the urge to do art, to learn, to improve becomes of non-importance. When I take the longer view, I see that dispite the impression that Rend and the Poser community in general is sinking in a tide of poorly-done boobies, new artists are being trained and the level of expertise in the 3d community in general is ever growing. So in the long run it probably doesn't matter. Still, I want to say the same thing to half the images I see here; "Put some clothes on her. It will be a better image, and you will become a better artist."

It has been said that everyone has a novel in them waiting to be written. I think the same thing could be said for a song, a move or a painting. Many people lack the skill or the determination the time or the iclination to do even one or two of those and in a way, that is a loss both to them and to us. Poser, by allowing people to go beyond the stick figures we drew as children in creating the images in our minds is a wonderful thing. For those who would prefer to dismiss many of those ideas and their expression as beneath their concept of are, well, that's their loss. But, as the late Frank Sinatra repuredly said, "It doesn't matter if it's God or Jack Daniels, as long as it get's you to sleep at noght." If you wake up screaming from as nightmare of pendulous Poser pulcritude, have another drink say another Hail Mary, whatever does it for you.

Are you actually saying "Be satisfied with the hill before you....don't bother with the mountains?" Are you saying is better to get drunk then to have dreams? The ability to appreciate Van Gogh does not pre-suppose an inability to enjoy the fingerpainting of a kindergarden class. Indeed, I think your experience of that becomes richer as well. Paraphrasing (as I can not find the exact quote; "There is nothing wrong with being average. There is even less wrong with being excellent."

I think what I'm saying is that your excellence may be someone else's mediocrity and vice versa. To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "Infinite diversity in infinite combination is the ultimate source of truth and beauty." Your perfectly manicured Japanese garden may indeed be a thing of beauty but that does not make pink plastic lawn flamingos a thing of ugly, especially for those who love them.

So somehow I have been angled around until I am supposed to be arguing in favor of only one style and school....aka dead white males, particularly if they painted during the Rennaisance? Do I truly appear that shallow? Does the sum of my arguments and posts here lead to that conclusion? What leads you to believe that I said or would say "If it isn't Ruebens, it isn't art?"