Curtis, your “figurenude” concept is wrong on many levels. As several previous posters have said, all art engages the viewer - if it doesn’t engage the viewer then it’s not art, it’s a just a record. And all artists engage with their subject – if they’re not engaging with their subject then they’re not making art, they’re just making a record. It doesn't matter whether the subject is a person or a landscape or a collection of things - engagement must be there or it just doesn't work.
Originally Posted by CurtisNeeley
You have misappropriated a common phrase, figure nude, and are trying to re-define it into something which is illogical and artistically sterile. Adding a layer of pseudo-religious claptrap doesn’t make it alright. Your nonsense is still nonsense. And your “rules” are without merit. Whether a nude model is looking at the viewer or not is irrelevant. Whether the artist intends the work to celebrate, sexually stimulate or shock is irrelevant. Whether the viewer sees the work as beautiful, erotic, or disgusting is irrelevant. Whether the work is in two or three dimensions is irrelevant. Whether we evolved from apes or were created by God is irrelevant.
There are no rules that govern nudes: there are just the emotions, creative impulses and the creativity of artists and models. And there are no rules about how viewers react to nudes: there are just their emotions, taste and opinions. There are nudes I have made, nudes I want to and will make, and nudes I don't want to make. But I will decide what I do and do not make - I'll be damned if I'll let a linguistic mountebank try to define what is or is not acceptable for me to do with my work.