 |
| 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?
Vince, I know you've already heard my POV on pubic hair - I believe in its God given purpose. For me, a woman completely devoid of pubic hair appears to be emulating a child. I have to see this preference for what suggests pedophilia really does bother me.
ReplyDeleteI understand the reasons some women prefer to be shaved and would not judge their preferences. When it comes to art, though, I really don't want to see a grown woman's exposed genitalia. As I've said before, if I had, I would become a gynecologist.
I KNEW you'd say that, and I think for us, it may be generational. I first discovered Playboys right after they started shooting pubic hair, and some of my favorite Playmates are from the 70's. there is a mystery to it, and an aesthetic balance, I believe.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm with you, I wouldn't judge any woman for having it or not having it. and I really believe it will swing back as a fashion statement for some models.
I think "mystery" is the right word. That part of the anatomy is also the source of life and thus is sacred. When it is exposed, the connotation becomes clinical, scientific, an exposure to scrutiny that jars me.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of some of my favorite Playmates, I'm always drawn to their pubic areas, and the long hair that they had. Again, I think it is generational--but the one thin I alwasy liked was, as stated, the mystery of what's there.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'm a bit sick of shaved