Recent blogs by my friend Unbearable Lightness, as well as threads at Model Mayhem, have touched on the differences between of fine art nudes and glamour nudes.
Fine art nude is usually determined to be free of any sexual references whatsoever; the human figure is shown in a complete naturalism, warts and all. Models normally do not gaze back to the camera or viewer.
Glamour nude, however, tries to elicit a sexual response from the viewer. The model will often look back to the camera or viewer, usually suggestively, and almost always in full make-up and wearing high heels (heels make the legs look even longer).
These are not hard and fast rules, of course, and there is some blurring of the lines. And the definition really depends on the viewer. But, when you show full frontal nudity (genitalia), does that become offensive to more people than hiding the pubic area? Is it okay to do so when it is 'strictly' a fine art piece, rather than glamour?
The image to the left of Playboy Special Editions model Dan Dicillo is a typical glamour nude, of course; I wouldn't pretend that she is a fine art piece. But, being that it is a completely full frontal nude, is this something that you, as a viewer, prefer not to look upon, much less display in your home? If she looked away, would this suddenly transform into a fine art piece?
I ask questions like this because, in my growth as an artist, I wonder sometimes if I create too many 'glamour' nudes, and not enough 'fine art' nudes. Listen, I love women....I think they are God's greatest creation, and I love to illustrate them. Do I objectify my models with my art. More importantly, is it wrong to objectify women in art? I have my views, but I'd like to hear from others about this.
Playboy Cyber Girl Dana Dicillo |
Glamour nude, however, tries to elicit a sexual response from the viewer. The model will often look back to the camera or viewer, usually suggestively, and almost always in full make-up and wearing high heels (heels make the legs look even longer).
These are not hard and fast rules, of course, and there is some blurring of the lines. And the definition really depends on the viewer. But, when you show full frontal nudity (genitalia), does that become offensive to more people than hiding the pubic area? Is it okay to do so when it is 'strictly' a fine art piece, rather than glamour?
The image to the left of Playboy Special Editions model Dan Dicillo is a typical glamour nude, of course; I wouldn't pretend that she is a fine art piece. But, being that it is a completely full frontal nude, is this something that you, as a viewer, prefer not to look upon, much less display in your home? If she looked away, would this suddenly transform into a fine art piece?
I ask questions like this because, in my growth as an artist, I wonder sometimes if I create too many 'glamour' nudes, and not enough 'fine art' nudes. Listen, I love women....I think they are God's greatest creation, and I love to illustrate them. Do I objectify my models with my art. More importantly, is it wrong to objectify women in art? I have my views, but I'd like to hear from others about this.
NOTE: While I rebuild my website at www.erotic-pinups.com, I've uploaded most of my art on Deviant Art. Please check it out. Also, you may sign up for my emails at Fine Art America. they are less frequent than my posts here, and always of a different subject.