Talk:Depictions of nudity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Page creation
Page created because nudity is heavy with arts info.
I'm following (roughly) idea/concept model of Angel/Angels in art, Plastics in art, Bridges in art et cetera.
There are also already subcategories of this discussion already including List of album covers containing nudity, Nude scene, Nudity in American television, Nudity in science-fiction literature and Nudity in The Simpsons. Dandelion1 03:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Is that last photo really neccesary?
[edit] "Two copies of the same picture"
Isn't the idea that it has ever been commonplace to have two copies of the same picture, for display depending on the visitors, more than a little fanciful?
- Frankly, it's absurd. I just added 'citation needed' to each of the three statements there. As far as I remember, Goya's two paintings were the first such experiment, copied afterwards.
As far as it goes, it would be more logical to have two different paintings, not necessarily one of a model vested and another of one nude, as there would be no question to why a painting of a woman not of the family was presented on the walls there.
[edit] Page lay-out
The page is quite messy at 1280×1024 with all the images aligned with overlaying float tags... perhaps it could be re-styled? Jeroen Stout 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] tatoo section
I remmoved this section because it is talking about nudity as art and not nudity in art. Also, this article is referring to more history of depictions of nudity, not modern practices. Find me a painting of a tattooed person and that would make much more sense. Otherwise, that information and the unrealted information about nude dancing don't belong here, espeicially due to the definition at the top of what nudity in art is. pschemp | talk 14:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current Cultural Reference Removed
I supplied a few sentences plus a link to a 2006 panel discussion held at the Art Students League in NYC about the art of the nude, called, quite appropriately, "Why the Nude?" The panel of artists, teachers and curators discussed censorship of artists, pressures on artists for self censorship, hostility and denigration regarding the art of the nude, especially male nudes and especially in the US. The artists shared a common thread of working exclusively or predominately in the art of the nude. So they had experience and authority. The author of the article wrote the article because even though there was so much excitement about it that tickets for the event ran out, no newspapers covered this discussion. On the wiki entry, there was a link to the website entry on which this panel discussion was posted but the entry and the link were removed and the post reverted to the previous entry, complete with misspelling.
My question is this -- was this removed because it was external and it would be better to copy the article (or make a sub-entry on this subject) or because this venue and topic is controlled by people with an agenda and attitude and new-comers are not welcome? Or, was it yet another reason? I believe that this is important and relevant information which should be included in any discusssion of the nude in art today, and yet I am finding a roadblock in the one location which I thought it would be welcome.Art Lister 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tattoo section is very out of place
Using the skin as a canvas has absolutely nothing to do with the depiction of a nude. The art nude might fit in the vernacular section or in the nudity of the minor section slightly. This article is already too long in my opinion. I am severely brain damaged and have a neurological imbalance because of an acquired brain injury. This entire article appears to me to ramble. I do not delete anything or add anything to an article anymore unless asked to. I could clean this one up, but it would take several days work. It would be extremely interesting to watch. I am extremely blunt because of my acquired brain injury. CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merges
There's a proposal to merge Nude photography into this article. Since Nude photography is a type of Fine art photography, I think it should remain a separate article. Other photographic genres have their own articles (for example, Still life photography has its own article, distinct from the Still life article), and I see no reason why nude photography should be any different. Klausness (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV killing grammar?
Under the heading "Children", the phrase "whom some consider controversial" looks like grammar and/or logic being mangled for the sake of NPOV. Surely an artist is either controversial or he isn't. If only some consider him controversial, then it is by definition controversial as to whether he is controversial! Lee M (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
