Re: Is Being a Nude Art Model Dirty?

On Feb 24, 10:48 am, Anna <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The psycho-sexual aspect must be considered by almost all nude
> > models.  Some will be uncomfortable with it and do their best to
> > suppress it but for others it may be the main reason why they are life
> > models.
>
> But all she is doing is simple nudity. So if there is a psycho-sexual
> aspect to that then there is a psycho-sexual aspect to all simple
> nudity.

I guess after thinking about it I want to take that statement back.
Just because in case of nude art modeling although people think it's
possible for it to be nonsexual it isn't (well at least this author
who has been a nude art model claims) it doesn't necessary follows
that it isn't possible for nudism to be nonsexual because a key
difference between nude art modeling and nudism is that the nude art
model is the only one nude.  Many nudists who might feel very
comfortable being nude among a likeminded group of nude people would
be very uncomfortable being the only one naked as is the case with
nude art modeling.


> A "good" article can through subtle techniques sexify a  picture. That
> is why one has to be so careful of art photographs of children
> (clothed or nude).  The way the child (usually a girl) glances, her
> facial gestures, or how she holds her posture can turn a "simple
> nudity" photograph quickly into something so wrong. Some pervert
> artists love to ever so slightly cross the line and plays upon the
> uncomfortable uncertainty that such photos project to the audience.

I guess I should say  skilled.  That is why I really don't care if an
Artist is "skilled'. Skilled porn is still porn and the fact that the
person is skilled means that the artist is better able to turn
something into something that is sexualized. So the fact that the
person is a good artist gives weight to the claim that the work is
intentionally sexualized.