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.
Some good questions, Vincent. I've seen them debated since I started modeling almost seven years ago (this July!), but I've never heard any definitive answers, probably because there aren't any. Categories strike most of us as artificial, and as you say there are lots of gray areas. It is what you say it is, in most cases.
ReplyDeleteI think some people get too anal about fine art nude. When a photographer worries that you had a pedicure and have nail polish on your toes, I can understand why, but to me it seems silly. Art should come out of the moment and the subject should be who he or she is really, in essence, and the photographer should create as he or she feels that moment.
Thank you for the link and for this post. I think you should create your art as you see it, want it, and feel it. And critics be damned. Rules are for breaking.
I definitely agree with about fine artists being anal about fine art nudes---there is a certain 'baseline,' shall we say, for them. But, is it any less fine if the female subject is posed provocatively? Is she any less beautiful? Your images are the perfect blend of fine art/erotica/glamour.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it should be more 'in the moment.' Obviously, since I use photo references, I am not getting caught up in the modeling session as you and the photographer would, but I still try to bring the best out of every image I create--there is always something I can change to make the lady on my drawing board more desirable, and that's what I aim for.