Why artist consider the human body an art?

[gizz72]

Greetings,

Yep, the human body in all it's glory. Most artist consider it an art. From the beginning of time, man has sculpt figures of it, do paitings of them, gosh the internet has literally trillions of terra bytes loaded into it. Even if we tend to ignore, it still so fascinating.

Then, in the early years of film, there are several shorts about it. It's still an art. only in the late 60's??? when such images became more uhh 'daring'. Until it was labeled 'pornography' due to lewd sexual conduct and mostly, now that is offending.

On the other hand, posing naked is art. As long as it tells a story, I beleive. Even on advertisments, it's very powerful medium to attract buyers. Like the time I was driving along, then I saw a billboard of a young woman naked, back expose, but not the lower part. Sometimes I can't help still look at it, eventhough I've seen it many times.

In some cultures, nakedness is something like a taboo thing. Unlike in some, as long as there are no sexual act, still tends to be art. Still facinating.

Regards,

Gizz

[PMC]

IMHO Art is one of those things like religion and politics - everyone has their own individual take.

The human body can be considered art, especially when you see the lengths people go to decorate and enhance their bodies.  Human imagery is also artistic - but there's a difference between the Venus de Milo and the legs-behind-the-ears imagery on certain top shelf publications.

[that_punk_guy]

I think art is about an idea or a concept. What you then produce from that is not in fact art, just an impression of it.

[KennyR]

These days the French have a habit of making porn films, calling it art, then selling it as a mainstream art movie. Porn actors, porn storylines, porn music. The label 'art' is just to take the porn to a wider audience.

Sometimes they can even make snuff movies - as long as the violence isn't real, but the sex is. Blaise Moi falls into that catagory. I'm insulted that they call this an art film. Give me back the days were French films were three hours of two people talking about sexual obsession in a darkened room! :-P

[blobrana]

Hum,
intersting, so the `mona lisa` is just a bit of canvas with some paint on it...
The real art was the sitter...?

[PMC]

@KennyR

O/T, there was a recent mainstream film released about a couple's relationship and how it changes over time where the actors actually had full sex.  

Not surprisingly it generated a great deal of controversy upon release, but I'm not sure if the "real sex" thing was a marketing ploy for the film or was deemed necessary for the story.  Either way it raises some uncomfortable questions about the audience's motives for watching it.

No, I haven't seen it!

Art can contain sexual images and I suppose some pornography could be classed as art.  The problem is the line where the two meet is difficult to define because each indvidual will interpret it differently.

That's the beauty of art, everyone has their own interpretations of it.

[PMC]

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
intersting, so the `mona lisa` is just a bit of canvas with some paint on it...
The real art was the sitter...?

I was always led to believe that it was the emotions the image stirred that defined the art...  

I see literature as art because of the way the language is used to convey emotion and paint a picture, not necessarily because of the story itself.  

[KennyR]

@PMC

Actors having real sex in mainstream films is becoming more common and might even become the norm. At least, for crap films and actors who want to destroy their careers.

IMO, in films, only characters need to have sex, not actors. I don't see why actually doing it should be more artistic than not. Leave porn to the porn industry. Isn't art often more about portraying the illusion of something rather than presenting? What's next, people really getting killed in movies to try to get the shock value back again when films like Blaise Moi become commonplace?

These days art is more often about this shock value. It's a sham, controlled by a few very rich pretentious morons whose whole life experience can be summed up in the word 'valium'. They ran out of ideas a long time ago and can only try to grab an audience by using the worst taste possible.

[whabang]

It's a sham, controlled by a few very rich pretentious morons whose whole life experience can be summed up in the word 'valium'.

:roflmao: So true!

[PMC]

KennyR wrote:
@PMC

These days art is more often about this shock value. It's a sham, controlled by a few very rich pretentious morons whose whole life experience can be summed up in the word 'valium'. They ran out of ideas a long time ago and can only try to grab an audience by using the worst taste possible.

Right on dude!

Find new ways to shock and titillate the audience rather than telling a new story...

It's telling that not even porn shocks any more, so where do they go from here?

[cecilia]

wow! this concept is SO complex, i don't know where to begin! and, really, i don't have the ability to explain it, anyway. i'll just make a few observations.

certainly, babies are born with the ability to recognize the human face - so we feel a resonance with mommie's face and body.

but, i know when i look at either one of those "Greek statues", a painting, or picture, or beautiful live human male, it makes me feel all warm and calm inside.

and i can look for hours and never be bored. sure, it's sexual, but (unlike those puritain losers), i don't see that as a bad thing. i do think we have an innate sense of what is really beautiful - one of the few times I can really be Platonic - and we are naturally drawn to it.

when I make an image, no matter what it is - even if there are NO humans in it - I am trying to create, in some way, what I see as "perfect" or beautiful.
and, even if the subject is "ugly", there can be a kind of beauty in uglyness. strange as that may sound.

[Wain]

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
intersting, so the `mona lisa` is just a bit of canvas with some paint on it...
The real art was the sitter...?

I have yet to meet a visual artist who thinks even remotely highly of the Mona Lisa from an "artistic" standpoint, excepting those that believe that it's actually a self portrait by Da Vinci.  

It's important mainly because of its usage of technique (Sfumato and Chiaroscuro specifically) and the fact that she's smiling and no-one knows for certain who she is(oooh big mystery)  :-o   :-P






"now this is a nice looking painting of a broad on a couch"

[Wain]

I can't see anything wrong with using sculpture, paint, or any other medium to express the beauty(or lackthereof) one may find in the human body.

[whabang]

Wain wrote:

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
intersting, so the `mona lisa` is just a bit of canvas with some paint on it...
The real art was the sitter...?

I have yet to meet a visual artist who thinks even remotely highly of the Mona Lisa from an "artistic" standpoint, excepting those that believe that it's actually a self portrait by Da Vinci.  

It's important mainly because of its usage of technique (Sfumato and Chiaroscuro specifically) and the fact that she's smiling and no-one knows for certain who she is(oooh big mystery)  :-o   :-P






"now this is a nice looking painting of a broad on a couch"

It got me wondering.
Mona Lisa really did look very alike Leo himself. Did he ever get any daughters? That could explain a few things.
I mean, Mona Lisa wasn't a rich woman. IIRC, she is belived to have been a servant for some nobles in Florens. Maybe old Leo couldn't keep control of his lil' David. ;-)

[Wain]

These days art is more often about this shock value. It's a sham, controlled by a few very rich pretentious morons whose whole life experience can be summed up in the word 'valium'. They ran out of ideas a long time ago and can only try to grab an audience by using the worst taste possible.

From the renaissance and onward a large portion of art has always been about shock value, the whole point of 'Art' is communication, and it is often used to challenge people's sense of self, decency, morality, philosophy, politics, and anything else.  It is important that it be protected even if you find it stupid, insulting, degrading, pandering, and pathetic.  

There will always be a large quotient of schlock-art following the two or three people that are really doing something inventive and serious with their medium, and you will find people who are interested in making art even in pornography if you look hard enough (I used to work at a porn store).  

The hope is that the people who are just interested in pandering for cash will fall by the wayside over time, which usually does happen as their work is simply not memorable.