What is the Difference Between Nude and Artistic Nude?

[neovolatile]

I am heavily into photo-manipulation, as anyone who has seen my galleries knows, but my subjects are usually lovely unclothed women.

I go up onto One Model Place and I see models advertising that they will do nude or artistic nude poses. Sometimes I see erotic nude and even erotic nude (fetish) checked.

Without getting too graphic (for a photography website), what is your definition(s) of any of these (especially the difference between nude and artistic nude)? Is what I do considered artistic nude? I do not have any idea these days.

Seriously asked,
Ellsworth Weaver
Ars Neovolatile

[clickaway]

I can't define either concisely, but I would say your images were mostly artistic.

To me, an ordinary nude focuses on the persons sexuality quite blatantly. An artistic nude tends to focus on sensuality more and often uses light to heighten the beauty or otherwise of the subject.

Even naked girls at clubs - they are often well taken and provide a great spectacle, but they are not set up with precise lighting, but rely on what is provided in the venue. On balance, I would not define these as artistic nudes, despite the skill the photographers may have.

I hate those pics on here of naked girlfriends sitting on a bed with no artistic flair whatsoever!

Ray

[tuckeruk]

Oh god yeah I just hate those naked girl on beds shots too.

Got a link to them?

[rickl52]

If you google this question you'll come up with an endless list of forum debates on the subject. Clearly it means different things to different people and is heavily influenced by upbringing, culture and one's exposure to and appreciation of art in general.

For myself, there is a difference between nude and artistic nude. It's subjective and cannot be quantified or measured, hence the lack of agreement between people on the subject.

Art nudes, in my opinion, have a few characteristics which differentiate them from naked pics. For one there is generally a significant quality difference. The former is created according to the photographer's goal of creating a specific image with plan for the pose, setting, lighting, equipment, etc. Not uncommonly it's a study of form and light. Sometimes it's intimate portraiture. Some of the most memorable portraits i've seen have been of people partially or completely unclothed. In those images the nudity is purposeful in that it reveals something about the person: their humanity, or lack of pretense. It's intimate in that the person is not ashamed to reveal themselves. When it's done really well the nudity is quite secondary and the viewer is ultimately drawn to the face and character of the person. In this context the physical "perfection" of the person is quite irrelevant. The appeal of the image, for myself, aims more for the intellect or the heart.

Naked pics on the other hand tend to aim below the waist. They are about the nakedness and not uncommonly there is little to create an interest in who the person is at all. Not interesting from a light or form perspective, no story to speak of, and little attention to context or character. Like so many glamor shots that are done to market a pair of shoes, clothing, a car or a lifestyle, the naked pics are more about marketing lust.

Fetish images can fall into either grouping depending on how they are executed and the context. The art form can appeal to one's prurient interest for that can sometimes be the goal. A very well done artistic fetish image will touch something in people beyond pure hormones and I think this frequently frightens some individuals. If they've received strong messages that whatever feelings are inspired are taboo there is a tendency to condemn the image based on that visceral response more so than on the merits of the art. Mapplethorpe was good at that. And he scared people.

Rick

[newtothescenery]

Hahaha tuckeruk, Got Milk?

I think that there is definetely a fine line between artistic, and straight up nude. I agree that lighting intensifies the sensuality of a woman, and it is a technique that has been used repeatedly, with awesome results. Straight nudes are fine too - but there's a different audience for that (pervs, porn fanatics, lonely men & sometimes women, etc..). Ultimately, I believe it is in the eye of the beholder, to say whether or not his/her work is straight nude (porn), or a sect of art. I mean, who is it to say art is art, or art is not? the beholder. My 2c

Oh god yeah I just hate those naked girl on beds shots too.

Got a link to them?

[marklb2]

I don't think there is an agreed difference between 'nude' and 'artistic nude'. The adjective is often used to reduce ambiguity but is really not necessary. However, 'nude' and 'erotic nude' are clearly different: 'erotic nude' has a different aim to 'nude' and 'artistic nude' - to excite sexual interest. 'Glamour' also has an erotic intention but is somewhat wider and nudity is not required.

[ghsmith178613]

Hahaha tuckeruk, Got Milk?

I think that there is definetely a fine line between artistic, and straight up nude. I agree that lighting intensifies the sensuality of a woman, and it is a technique that has been used repeatedly, with awesome results. Straight nudes are fine too - but there's a different audience for that (pervs, porn fanatics, lonely men & sometimes women, etc..). Ultimately, I believe it is in the eye of the beholder, to say whether or not his/her work is straight nude (porn), or a sect of art. I mean, who is it to say art is art, or art is not? the beholder. My 2c

Oh god yeah I just hate those naked girl on beds shots too.

Got a link to them?

tucker... you are so "bad"... do what i did, look for those!:twisted:
if you know of any women that will work like that, let me know. i need some for my private galleryt

a couple of weeks ago, i found my notes from my internship at playboy then i filed them. i will look for them this week. there are DEFINITE RULES between nude, rude, and ugly.

[madsox]

Nothing new to add, but I agree with the poster who compared this debate to the old pornography question. So much is dependent on the viewer's opinions, tastes, values, etc., that it really is "you know it when you see it."

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

[hollybelle]

We work with models and there are 2 answers I've found re-surfacing.

#1: Main reason "artistic nudes" occurs is that the models are being asked out by a GWC - some person that bought a camera to take photos of pretty girls with no clothes on.

#2: Add #1 into this explanation - plus it gives the model wiggle room to refuse if the model doesn't consider the shoot "artistic." (or she thinks the photog is creepy)

From the women I have talked to on modeling sites, it doesnt matter if they are the MUA or the models, they get pelted with guys asking them out. For the most part, it appears to be a buffer b/t the true artists and the guys looking for a date.

Just my opinion of what I've seen lately...

[martinphotography]

Since this is totally subjective, I'll add my 2 cents. The artisitic feel to a well done nude - to me - seems to be the difference between giving/expressing and taking/grabbing. For instance. When I walk by a flower and stop and really look at it and say "wow" that's amazing - that, to me is an artistic expression - an expression of amazement and gratitude. I don't pick the flower so as to own it or posses it. I appreciate it's beauty and gaze at it. I think it can be different for each person when looking at a nude photo or painting for that matter. When does one cross the line from gazing with a sense of wonder and respect - to wanting to posses or "take" from the subject. In countries where nudity and sexuality aren't as taboo as it is here in the U.S. - there seems to be a broader appreciation of the nude figure. Here in the U.S. we tend to grab at things to try and fill some percieved need or to try and fill a void. That's my take on the subject.

[gilp]

as a person that earn a living shooting erotica... the only thing I can say is that "nude" and "artistic nude" are one and the same... one just sounds better!

That being said... the real question is, "why is a nude woman with her legs crossed" considered artistic while the "same woman with her legs open" considered adult....

[ghsmith178613]

i did't want to weigh back in here. this is still about fine art and the human body? right?
the years i worked in the mens magazine business were, without a doubt the most difficult photography i ever worked on. i'll say it again. there are rules for this kind of photography. the slightest slip either way, and you are out of bounds.
the general area is divided into four parts
1.)pin-up and poster
2.)fine art
3.)nude
4.)stuff that even i wont shoot.
an old mentor once told me that the trick is to leave the clothes on the model and make it look like they don't have anything on.

[rant on]
FOR GWC and models that don't know better or refuse to admit it -

the human form, with all its' imperfections is among the most beautiful creations on this planet. creating images of the form carries huge responsiblity. disrespecting the body as art comes under the same category as ripping the bible, the torah , and koran in half at the same time. GWC can - and is - p'ing off the whole world at once... . GWC does not deserve the right to photograph anything except flowers and bugs. maybe not even that. selling a camera to GWC is like selling a hand gun to a mental case.

VERY TRUE -
GWC has no clue about art or how to direct or pose female or male.
GWC is looking for date for his best friend.
GWC is wrecking the art an photography opportunities for the trained and disciplined artists and photographers.
GWC is giving the rest of us a very bad name - again.
GWC needs to be taken behind the barn and taught a few things about 2x4 georgia pine.
GWC isn't totally to blame. "models" need to be taught the right and wrong.

VERY TRUE -
there are big differences between a nude model with legs open and legs closed. it's called SLEEZE. yes, larry flynn made a bunch of money with that shot. hugh hefner refused to publish it for a long time. my friend owns a gentlemens' magazine. he still refuses to publish that shot.
the line that divides the sleeze from fine art is very thin. there is no bubble or wiggle room.

[rant off] for the moment.

if you want to photograph the human, you owe it to yourself and the people you approach, to study the classics - go back to michelangelo, come forward to just past the wwii pin-up era, maybe as far as the early 1980s. go ahead, there is plenty to study.

are you back? ok. let's talk art.
lots of open crotch shots?
ol' bess in the barn - ready for the prize bull from the next farm? (come on, you know the one i mean.) not even at the cotton-tail ranch.
how many of the art prints did you see with eye contact?
are you getting the idea?

it's not just "imho." there are rules for fine art nude photography, and there are rules for adult nude photography.

this is not the arena that it can be taught in.
still not convinced? try becoming an intern to one of the few that actually know how to cover this genre. meanwhile, try to focus on flowers and bugs, and take some cold showers.

[rant off] longer period now.

btw... if you can afford a couple of weeks in belize this summer, i can put you in touch with a guy that does workshops in this genre. he has strict guidelines and is very expensive.

(wow! hope i wasn't too hard on those guys.
yeah, well, when you get 'em trained, they will do ok.
i know. i know. but you know how i feel about this stuff.
yeah.)

[neovolatile]

I went to the gentleman's galleries and there were no photos there. What's up with that? I am a visual person. Wonder where the old dude posts his work? Certainly not here.

Sigh,
Show Me Your Old Farts
whoops, that would be me, too.

Ells

[gilp]

I went to the gentleman's galleries and there were no photos there. What's up with that? I am a visual person. Wonder where the old dude posts his work? Certainly not here.

Sigh,
Show Me Your Old Farts
whoops, that would be me, too.

Ells

hehehe I was thinking the same...."talk the tlak, walk the walk" ! I love loooong disertations on things.... but what about showing me the actual stuff!