I'm posting this paper to spice things up, its been a while since I've splattered my nonsense all over the place. LOL.
The Redefinition of Nude
Take a moment and imagine yourself nude. A flush of embarrassment may color your cheeks, or perhaps a feeling of eroticism stirs in your loins. Maybe you are filled with a deep reverence for the divine beauty nature has bestowed upon our human race. Whatever the emotion that fills you, it is intense and goes beyond its mere dictionary definition, holding its origin in our society, culture, and personal opinions.
The term nude should not be taken at face value to mean without clothes, but contains a more apposite meaning in its relation to fine art. A classic example from the Italian Renaissance is Michelangelos David. This 14-foot testament to the beauty of the nude male is an image easily conjured up in the minds of almost every member of Western civilization that has attended grade school or turned on a television. Its magnificence begs for a redefinition of the value of nudeness. Fineartnude.com states it beautifully, saying nude art is a devotion to the mutual appreciation of the human form as a work of art across cultural, international, and intellectual boundaries (FAN). Nude is not simply to be naked, but a veneration of the unclothed human body through artistic expression.
Truly, the nude has been omnipresent in human culture since cave painting in the Paleolithic Era (Paleolithic). This idolization of the human body continued on through Greek Civilization, but was eventually squelched by the rise of Christianity in the 3rd century AD. The virtue and truth of the naked human form was replaced by the morality proclaiming it shameful. If the nude figure proclaims love of the human body, Id like to refute this Christian misconception with the definition of love as proposed by Socrates. In his dialogue, Phaedrus, Plato quotes Socrates as saying, If Love is a god, or at any rate a being with something divine about him, as he certainly is, he cannot be evil (Plato 44). Though the Christians could equate nakedness with innocence, it was believed that once Adam and Eve violated the laws of God, lust pervaded their thoughts. Because sex was associated with shame, thus the naked body became as well (Marshall). With this ruling mentality in the Christian Middle Ages, the art of nude all but disappeared from our history, replaced with images of the robed Christ and crucifixion. We see a reemergence of naked images in Christian art to depict sin in the 13th century. The affects of these Christian ideals has become very deeply ingrained within the beliefs of Western Civilization (Turner 23: 290). These circumstances are very much an influence on the red cheeks you may have experienced thinking of yourself in the nude.
There are religions that lovingly embrace nudeness. One such modern religion is that of Pagans or Wiccans. These groups occasionally choose to practice their rituals skyclad, or nude. Their reasoning holds no basis in sex, but in their basic religious needs. In some traditions, the clothing blocks necessary energy vital to certain rituals. Their nudeness is also representative of freedom and equality. With the shedding of their clothes they abandon their status and rank. Also, they hold the belief that our spirits are what matter and clothing makes no difference to the Gods (Weiss). If you wish to reach into the annals of history, allow me to cite the ancient Hindu texts containing references to the naked saints and sannyaasins. These highly revered religious figures represented an ultimate form of renunciation, needing no worldly possessions, including clothing. These concepts applied to its followers as well, making nakedness a common part of life. It is thought that even Gautama the Buddha remained nude for the entirety of his life. In the modern Indian city of Banaras, inhabitants can continue to walk the streets nude and unnoticed (Magee). These are modern and ancient proofs that there are societal influences behind our personal definitions of nude.
Another injustice done against the term nude comes from the idea that an unclothed woman normally exists for the enjoyment of the voyeuristic male. Margaret Miles in her book Carnal Knowing tells us, Like men, women will need the commitment and self-discipline requisite to learning a new response -- in the face of an inadequate response that has become habitual -- if we are to look at a representation of a naked woman not with an appraising patriarchal eye, but with an eye that identifies with the person represented. This identification is a necessary preliminary step toward noticing and understanding the visual clues that make that person's interior life accessible (Morse). When viewing the naked body, we are seeing a person in the most intimate of ways and should rightly show respect and rejoice for such a deeply moving concept. It has become almost unacceptable to see the human body or its depiction as natural. Our feelings for the human body are, in fact, so natural that they are instinctual. We can equate these feelings with those we hold for the people we love, such as in the womb of our mother or the suckling of her breasts as an infant. Photographer Ruth Bernhard states, We say nakedness is natural, but have we begun to think through all that means? It is so basic. A human being is an innocent part of nature. Our civilization has distorted this universal quality that allows us to feel at home in our skin. Other animals have coats that they accept, but the human race has yet to come to terms with being nude (Nature).
Perhaps the most compelling argument stems from genus under which our society has unfortunately placed the term nude. This is amongst such words as erotica, or, the more controversial, pornography. Many would be quick to equate nude art or photography with pornography, but the definitions of these two terms come close to being exact opposites. While nude is considered a tasteful art form, Princeton Universitys WordNet defines pornography as creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. The concerns of nude art are those of love, realism and excellence (Smith 31). In his highly controversial book, Erotic By Nature, David Steinburg tells us, Because pornography has monopolized the sexual marketplace for so long, it has become easy to believe that direct and powerful sexual/erotic material is inherently pornographic. erotic work can be sexy, powerful, and provocative without being stale, without manipulating men's and women's sexual frustrations and fears, without depicting sex as an arena for men's dominance over women, without denying the full erotic subjectivity of all human beings. [Nude art] offers an alternative to pornography, one that encourages us all to be fully erotic, fully sexual beings without alienating ourselves, our deepest human values, or the people with whom we are most intimately involved (1). Pornography reflects desires, while nude images show a uniqueness of the subject, not his or her graphic exploitation (Marshall). Even the term erotica, though more of a grey area, can be easily differentiated from both nude and pornography. Erotica suggests art depicting sexual situations, as opposed to the simple, naked human form (Turner 10: 472). It differs from pornography in the sense that it is for the sake of art and not arousal. Simply stated, nude is genuine expression, while pornography is abusive exploitation (Smith 31).
Lucien Clergue says in the book, Practical Nude Photography, The body is such an important part of what we are, and yet in most cultures it's something to be ashamed of. It's always hidden under clothing and yet it's the ultimate curiosity. Because we have lost a lot of our naturalness about the body, many of our responses are artificial. We seem to forget that it's all right to look at bodies; it's all right to enjoy another figure. We are embarrassed about what we should be proud of. Instead, our interest in looking at the body, in admiring the body, should be expressed with an openness and joy (Morse). Our concept of the term nude is very seriously flawed. What once was seen as beautiful and worthy of worship is now widely viewed as obscene by our Christian-driven society. To be nude is to stand as a work of art representing truth, beauty, and goodness, the highest values established in the Socratic age that have lived on throughout civilization. To devalue or demean our bodies, as within the negative connotations of the term nude, is a travesty to these fundamental beliefs.
The Redefinition of Nude
Take a moment and imagine yourself nude. A flush of embarrassment may color your cheeks, or perhaps a feeling of eroticism stirs in your loins. Maybe you are filled with a deep reverence for the divine beauty nature has bestowed upon our human race. Whatever the emotion that fills you, it is intense and goes beyond its mere dictionary definition, holding its origin in our society, culture, and personal opinions.
The term nude should not be taken at face value to mean without clothes, but contains a more apposite meaning in its relation to fine art. A classic example from the Italian Renaissance is Michelangelos David. This 14-foot testament to the beauty of the nude male is an image easily conjured up in the minds of almost every member of Western civilization that has attended grade school or turned on a television. Its magnificence begs for a redefinition of the value of nudeness. Fineartnude.com states it beautifully, saying nude art is a devotion to the mutual appreciation of the human form as a work of art across cultural, international, and intellectual boundaries (FAN). Nude is not simply to be naked, but a veneration of the unclothed human body through artistic expression.
Truly, the nude has been omnipresent in human culture since cave painting in the Paleolithic Era (Paleolithic). This idolization of the human body continued on through Greek Civilization, but was eventually squelched by the rise of Christianity in the 3rd century AD. The virtue and truth of the naked human form was replaced by the morality proclaiming it shameful. If the nude figure proclaims love of the human body, Id like to refute this Christian misconception with the definition of love as proposed by Socrates. In his dialogue, Phaedrus, Plato quotes Socrates as saying, If Love is a god, or at any rate a being with something divine about him, as he certainly is, he cannot be evil (Plato 44). Though the Christians could equate nakedness with innocence, it was believed that once Adam and Eve violated the laws of God, lust pervaded their thoughts. Because sex was associated with shame, thus the naked body became as well (Marshall). With this ruling mentality in the Christian Middle Ages, the art of nude all but disappeared from our history, replaced with images of the robed Christ and crucifixion. We see a reemergence of naked images in Christian art to depict sin in the 13th century. The affects of these Christian ideals has become very deeply ingrained within the beliefs of Western Civilization (Turner 23: 290). These circumstances are very much an influence on the red cheeks you may have experienced thinking of yourself in the nude.
There are religions that lovingly embrace nudeness. One such modern religion is that of Pagans or Wiccans. These groups occasionally choose to practice their rituals skyclad, or nude. Their reasoning holds no basis in sex, but in their basic religious needs. In some traditions, the clothing blocks necessary energy vital to certain rituals. Their nudeness is also representative of freedom and equality. With the shedding of their clothes they abandon their status and rank. Also, they hold the belief that our spirits are what matter and clothing makes no difference to the Gods (Weiss). If you wish to reach into the annals of history, allow me to cite the ancient Hindu texts containing references to the naked saints and sannyaasins. These highly revered religious figures represented an ultimate form of renunciation, needing no worldly possessions, including clothing. These concepts applied to its followers as well, making nakedness a common part of life. It is thought that even Gautama the Buddha remained nude for the entirety of his life. In the modern Indian city of Banaras, inhabitants can continue to walk the streets nude and unnoticed (Magee). These are modern and ancient proofs that there are societal influences behind our personal definitions of nude.
Another injustice done against the term nude comes from the idea that an unclothed woman normally exists for the enjoyment of the voyeuristic male. Margaret Miles in her book Carnal Knowing tells us, Like men, women will need the commitment and self-discipline requisite to learning a new response -- in the face of an inadequate response that has become habitual -- if we are to look at a representation of a naked woman not with an appraising patriarchal eye, but with an eye that identifies with the person represented. This identification is a necessary preliminary step toward noticing and understanding the visual clues that make that person's interior life accessible (Morse). When viewing the naked body, we are seeing a person in the most intimate of ways and should rightly show respect and rejoice for such a deeply moving concept. It has become almost unacceptable to see the human body or its depiction as natural. Our feelings for the human body are, in fact, so natural that they are instinctual. We can equate these feelings with those we hold for the people we love, such as in the womb of our mother or the suckling of her breasts as an infant. Photographer Ruth Bernhard states, We say nakedness is natural, but have we begun to think through all that means? It is so basic. A human being is an innocent part of nature. Our civilization has distorted this universal quality that allows us to feel at home in our skin. Other animals have coats that they accept, but the human race has yet to come to terms with being nude (Nature).
Perhaps the most compelling argument stems from genus under which our society has unfortunately placed the term nude. This is amongst such words as erotica, or, the more controversial, pornography. Many would be quick to equate nude art or photography with pornography, but the definitions of these two terms come close to being exact opposites. While nude is considered a tasteful art form, Princeton Universitys WordNet defines pornography as creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. The concerns of nude art are those of love, realism and excellence (Smith 31). In his highly controversial book, Erotic By Nature, David Steinburg tells us, Because pornography has monopolized the sexual marketplace for so long, it has become easy to believe that direct and powerful sexual/erotic material is inherently pornographic. erotic work can be sexy, powerful, and provocative without being stale, without manipulating men's and women's sexual frustrations and fears, without depicting sex as an arena for men's dominance over women, without denying the full erotic subjectivity of all human beings. [Nude art] offers an alternative to pornography, one that encourages us all to be fully erotic, fully sexual beings without alienating ourselves, our deepest human values, or the people with whom we are most intimately involved (1). Pornography reflects desires, while nude images show a uniqueness of the subject, not his or her graphic exploitation (Marshall). Even the term erotica, though more of a grey area, can be easily differentiated from both nude and pornography. Erotica suggests art depicting sexual situations, as opposed to the simple, naked human form (Turner 10: 472). It differs from pornography in the sense that it is for the sake of art and not arousal. Simply stated, nude is genuine expression, while pornography is abusive exploitation (Smith 31).
Lucien Clergue says in the book, Practical Nude Photography, The body is such an important part of what we are, and yet in most cultures it's something to be ashamed of. It's always hidden under clothing and yet it's the ultimate curiosity. Because we have lost a lot of our naturalness about the body, many of our responses are artificial. We seem to forget that it's all right to look at bodies; it's all right to enjoy another figure. We are embarrassed about what we should be proud of. Instead, our interest in looking at the body, in admiring the body, should be expressed with an openness and joy (Morse). Our concept of the term nude is very seriously flawed. What once was seen as beautiful and worthy of worship is now widely viewed as obscene by our Christian-driven society. To be nude is to stand as a work of art representing truth, beauty, and goodness, the highest values established in the Socratic age that have lived on throughout civilization. To devalue or demean our bodies, as within the negative connotations of the term nude, is a travesty to these fundamental beliefs.
i couldnt handle that many piercings in my back either..although claire tells me it wasnt as bad as she imagined it would be.