Quote Originally Posted by CurtisNeeley View Post
The fact that you interacted with the model does not mean that there must be interaction with the viewer of the photo.

Erotica is NOT bad at all. It is just not found in figurenudes. Sensual, perhaps, but not intentionally erotic.

Just as a 'landscape' may appeal to your senses of beauty, a figurenude should as well.

Not all fine art nudes are figurenudes. Few art nudes actually are. They are not superior to another nude. They are just different.

Bob, I disagree that disrobing is inherently erotic. Depending on whether you accept the Bible or not, humans were created nude. The first 'blood sacrifice' for human sin was integrated in clothing them. Animals lost their skins. Fig leaves just didn't cut it. This was the very first foreshadowing of Jesus' perfect innocent sacrifice. He could have just made them have coats of fur. He instead left them able to disrobe and enjoy what I feel is His greatest work of art. I believe there are many cultures in warmer climates where varying degrees of nudity is normal?

I always say, " If God had ever wished a woman's figure to be presented nude, He would have done it first Himself." ...Try to overlook my ignoring of the male nude, They can be done very well. Just not by me.
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.

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.