 |
| Playboy's Miss June 1984 Liz Stewart |
An interesting debate that I've run across on
Model Mayhem and other sites is the definitions of fine art nude modeling and glamour nude modeling. One of the many criteria is the presence of pubic hair on the model; some fine art purists (not all) insist that a fine art model must not complete shave her pubic hair.
 |
| Playboy Model Carlotta Champagne |
Being a male of a certain age, I grew up admiring and loving pubic
hair.
Playboy magazine set the trend for pubic hair fashion, and my
favorite Playmates of the late 1970's and the 1980's all sported full
bush.
As an artist, I've found that I rarely draw full frontal nudes anymore; however, I am still drawn to those women who prefer to grow some hair in their pubic area. As noted by the examples listed here, these are some favorite pieces of art that feature the models with some form of pubic hair. Is it less than fine art? Is it pornographic? Our cultures definitions of beauty have changed immensely in the past generation, from the full hourglass figure personified by
Marilyn Monroe to the slim, but full busted and shaved models of today.
 |
| Client Commission of "Amber" |
However, I've received commissions such as this one of "Amber" who are full shaven (I was directed by her husband,; she wore a bikini in the original reference photo). She is a very fit woman, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with her lack of pubic hair. It would have made no difference to me if she did have hair, but what I've discovered over the years that, like breast enhancement, some women look good with pubes and some don't--it all depends on her shape, and a lot of times, how she wears it, which is confidence.
Pubic hair in art has been come and gone, according to this article in
Wikipedia. Perhaps the fact that it hasn't been shown in early Western art is like early animators creating only 4 fingers instead of five--it was just easier.
What are your thoughts? Do you like to see art of nude females with or without pubic hair?
