Michelangelo
First of all, it isn’t my intent to start hitting you guys up with shocking images and controversial art. But rather, we want to take a moment to acknowledge that as serious students of art we will be exposed to nudity – Michelangelo’s David does not wear a speedo. But we also need to recognise that just because we are artists, the traditional taboos of decency don’t change for us. David is a nude, whereas a snapshot of someone topless on the beach in a Tabloid is naked, but where exactly is the line drawn?
The following article from the St. Petersburg Times, Sunday April 20, 2008. It deals with the First Lady of France’s nude photographs (takens 15 years before her marriage to the French president) by artist Michel Comti. It deals with the difference between these two terms, and how even for a single piece of art that term can change.
There are a number of interesting points to consider and develop an opinion on as you read through the article. The victimized feeling of the president and first lady as these old images suddenly remerged and proliferated on the internet, the sudden increase in the status of the artist based on his subject’s new fame, the value of the work changing, and so on. Your response can be to any of these things, but if no opinions form, if no inspiration strikes, then you can still answer the question, what is the difference between naked and nude?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article462065.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment