Art and the naked body

I've always shied away from using naked flesh in my art. I've never been a great one for the classic nude. It's not that I'm a prude; it's just that it's often overdone or used gratuitously. I've also been wary of what might be seen as exploitation or even sexism. When does art become porn and vice versa?

Recently though I've begun to think that there are things that can best be expressed by including the naked body or parts thereof in my art. So why now?

Society is sick. We've time warped back to the Victorian era. We live in dark and dangerous times. They are always dangerous when right wing governments exist; at best they are bullies, at worst they are evil, merciless, murderous, oppressive thugs. There is too much that is false about society. Nudity is a great leveller; naked we are equals. The naked body represents for me a purity. A purity that we seem to have lost. Apologies if this sounds a bit pretentious, but I truly believe it.

I don't normally explain my art but Turning the tables is based on a comment I've heard from women on many occasions, about men who instead of making eye contact when holding a conversation stare at their breasts instead. I am often so ashamed to be a man in this man's world that men continue to fuck up. This picture depicts the breasts staring back. A metaphor for how the world should be; a world where we should all equal.

Below is the censored version of Turning the tables. The uncensored version can be found on this site (kept separate so that I can warn people about the 'adult content').

The art of getting one's kit off

As an artist I've never been an admirer of the naked human form as subject matter. I don't think it has anything to do with any repression or hang-ups. I have no fear of the naked human bodily form in any of its shapes and sizes. In fact I'm quite relaxed about it. It's just that so far I've never felt the need to express myself in my art via the nude. Although I'd happily pose nude for another artist or photographer. I suppose it is the paradox of the nude being both liberating and oppressing that disturbs me. I've always been troubled by the possible exploitative nature of it. If you attach the label of 'art' to something, does that make it more respectable than say pornography? And, who determines what is art and what is pornography? I've never understood the true meaning of erotic either. So perhaps it's me? I'm no prude; if people want to take their clothes of let them I say. If there was more nudity about amongst the general populace perhaps we might be less shocked by it and perhaps exploitation might be reduced considerably. Who knows? 

Due to my ambiguous feelings it's rare that I appreciate the art-form that is the nude. There are one or two exceptions however, Tamara de Lempicka's work being an obvious one, but for me one painting that is outstanding for its form, humanity and love is this portrait of Patricia Preece by Stanley Spencer:

I wrote this blog posting in rough form a couple of weeks ago but was inspired to finish it and post it after my creative writing course of last week.