madshutterbug (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
madshutterbug) wrote2009-06-11 09:24 am
madshutterbug) wrote2009-06-11 09:24 am
Entry tags:
Discussion
Two quotes Quotes (from a posting thread on Flickr):
'An artist friend of mine told me years ago that no matter what you portray in a nude, the face is what makes it beautiful, sensual, erotic or interesting. Without the face there is no reference of pleasure, sadness, pain, or feeling. A nude needs a face.'
And in response: '...I agree. Most nudes tend to be either academic or pornographic without a face.' (name is redacted with the ellipsis)
Comments?
'An artist friend of mine told me years ago that no matter what you portray in a nude, the face is what makes it beautiful, sensual, erotic or interesting. Without the face there is no reference of pleasure, sadness, pain, or feeling. A nude needs a face.'
And in response: '...I agree. Most nudes tend to be either academic or pornographic without a face.' (name is redacted with the ellipsis)
Comments?
no subject
And your points are some of the things I thought about when reading the 'response' comment in the Flickr, in particular. Stipulating one of my applied definitions to determine Art vs Not-Art, if there is an evocation of an emotion we open the door to Art.
Given that premise, I may see where inclusion/exclusion of a face may make a difference between erotic art/pornography, it still does not make an argument about inclusion/exclusion making it art/not-art.