Tasteful Nudity?

**Man1c M0g** · 12-29-2005

As many of you know, we here at BioRUST run on a PG-13 rating system. This generally means that all images with adult or excessively violent content are removed without warning. An exception is made, however, to what we consider to be 'tasteful' or 'artistic' nudity (i.e. MichaelAngelo's David may be a naked statue, but its accepted fully in an artistic context, and is hardly considered by sensible people to be pornographic). A recent incident in the gallery, however, has got me thinking about things...

My question for the audience of BioRUST is simple - What do you consider to be 'tasteful'/'artistic' nudity, and where does the barrier lie between what is acceptable and what is obscene? Its a grey area here in my own culture, so I'd be interested in hearing what people from all over the world think about this subject. All opinions are welcome!

Silent Walker · 12-29-2005

It dosen't bother me any.

bedlam123 · 12-29-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man1c M0g

As many of you know, we here at BioRUST run on a PG-13 rating system. This generally means that all images with adult or excessively violent content are removed without warning. An exception is made, however, to what we consider to be 'tasteful' or 'artistic' nudity (i.e. MichaelAngelo's David may be a naked statue, but its accepted fully in an artistic context, and is hardly considered by sensible people to be pornographic). A recent incident in the gallery, however, has got me thinking about things...

My question for the audience of BioRUST is simple - What do you consider to be 'tasteful'/'artistic' nudity, and where does the barrier lie between what is acceptable and what is obscene? Its a grey area here in my own culture, so I'd be interested in hearing what people from all over the world think about this subject. All opinions are welcome!

M0g,

What a question, our governments are still having trouble determining that. Is it inherent in the 'presentation', 'form', or 'format'. I think each case must be viewed individually. Additionally, what I consider inappropriate might be just fine for someone else.

Perhaps we should suggest that particular questions should be answered prior to exhibition. Such as, "Is the nudity presented in a manner demeaning to that sex?"; "Is there a need for the presentation of the nudity, is it gratuitous?"; "Would I want my under 13-year old child looking at this?".

Good luck in determining this. In all honesty I have not been offended by anything placed in the gallery to date. However, I hasten to add that it did not necessarily represent a particular art form either.

It could be that the answer is "None", and let another web site handle the problem.

Speak up users.

Silent Walker · 12-29-2005

I don't believe any type of nudity is wrong for anyone at any age, it's completely natural. And as you said bedlam, something I think is right may be wrong for someone else, which is true in anything.

Deadly_Uranium · 12-29-2005

Personally I am agaisnt all forms of censorship, and if parents want to censor their children it is their job, not the government.

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated multiple times that simple nudity (i.e., representations of the nude body in a non-sexualized manner) is constitutionally protected expression. (see cases below, as well as Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), No. 88-5986., Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 66 (1981) (quoting Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 161 (1974)); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 224 (1990) (plurality opinion); id., at 238, n. 1 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932-933 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557-558 (1975); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 118 (1972).)

Source: http://www.ncac.org/artlaw/top-nude.html

Cpalmer76 · 12-29-2005

how can you say your against censorship? There are very deprived people in
our world that like some sick things(use your imagination). Free have the freedom to create but I believe Artistic talents and expression is privilege not a right.

Furthermore, Using nudity to prove a point, might backfired if not done tastefully. And you must consider your audience because that is who you are
creating for.

**Bub** · 12-29-2005

Wow, that title definately got my attention!

As for the artistic nudity, I believe any posing image would be legit for all ages especially if it's digital or painted. Photography can be a little different. That's where the gray area is for me. In most posing situations, photography would be alright, but sexual activity in a photograph is just porn to me.

Also, I agree with Deadly_Uranium. If parents don't want their kids to see any nudity, that shouldn't be allowed on the internet without supervision.

Silent Walker · 12-30-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cpalmer76

how can you say your against censorship? There are very deprived people in
our world that like some sick things(use your imagination). Free have the freedom to create but I believe Artistic talents and expression is privilege not a right.

Furthermore, Using nudity to prove a point, might backfired if not done tastefully. And you must consider your audience because that is who you are
creating for.

Censorship ruins everything. If you think like Ed Gein, that's your problem and no one should stop you. PERIOD.

ozgeorge · 12-30-2005

Here's my 2 bob's worth.

I have to agree with some of the comments here.

1. It is up to parents to check on what their children are viewing on the net, although we can't be there for every second they are online.

2. We all come from different cultures where one thing I may find distasteful is quite the norm for someone else.

I for one can handle viewing Rubens' Voluptuous Women as art, therefore tasteful nudity, but the centrefold of playboy to me wouldn't be classed as art at all, but to some it may fall in the category of "erotic art", and be quite acceptable.

The way I see it is, if I choose to look and find it not to my liking, then I don't go back and look again and again just so I can complain about it.

The net has opened up a whole world of information for me and like watching television, if I don't like something I just change channels.

Like I said, my two bob's worth.

Paradise.Engine · 12-30-2005

Personally. I have no trouble with "tasteful nudity" or any other sort of nudity in art. I don't whine about it nor do I complain that people whine. It's up to everyone to decide what they think is acceptable. If you don't like it go away and make your own. Find your place.

Xsavior · 12-30-2005

I have an image that i am planning on posting here. It contains one of my good friends, and also great model, topless, with here lower half covered in a sheet. She is contemplating her hand, upon which rests a fairy, that is actually her self, in miniature with some very basic wings that I added in, in addition to a glowing effect.
I would like to post it, to get comments and reactions, but I do not wish to offend anyone. I could post it with the "Black Bars" and then see what you all think, to see if i should remove them. Her nudity is not inherent to the art of the piece, but i think, in the manner of the human body being beautiful, that is makes for a good composition.

If I shouldn't even think of posting it, I’ll abide by a "majority rules" situation with responses... and of course I will bow to the wishes of the administrators.

Order · 12-30-2005

Really, I feel that morality is not a legal issue, nor one of rating. Some people may find something offensive that others are fine with. I feel that if a photo of nudity is taken, as long as it is not a sexual reference, it is indeed art. As m0ggy said, David is a statue of a naked dude, yet is considered art, why.. nothing remotely sexual.

My point is the most natural form of human is being naked, I am not saying everyone should walk around naked, just that you weren't born with clothes on, and yes.. quite a few people have probably seen each of us nude in our youth....

I say as long as the image is not overly suggestive, it is deemed artistic.

ozgeorge · 12-31-2005

Hi Xsavior,

From the description you have just given it sounds very much like a work of art and a lot of work on your part to produce the image. I am very interested in seeing your creation and reading the previous comments in this topic it seems to me that noone else would have a problem with it either. I'll admit though, it was the mention of the fairy that got me...even at my age I love anything to do with fairies.

I hope we get to see your creation very soon.

Cheers

Georgie

ecntrc · 12-31-2005

Personally I dont care to be honest. Well maybe. Being that I am bisexual, I love a womens body.. Although I dont like the site of a mans body.. yes I am married dont ask me how to explain that one but.. As for artistic means, Id be bothered if it was art like porn type.. if its fully viewable that it was artistically drawn or photo manipulative on that side then I think its alright. I noticed a couple things that were posted in the gallery, I didnt look I just saw it and said ah whatever.. didnt think anything of it because it didnt look disturbing or anything like that. So as for me I think that I wouldnt be bothered.. as long as its not like a sick porn shot, teen and little children.. or an old woman or man you know..

ParaSnake · 12-31-2005

It wont be a problem if you let them stay,they are art,i think we just need some note for kids.