Tasteful, classic nudes only
 

So is titled the Nude forum. Klimt and Schiele are just two artists who come to mind (there are hundreds of others) who would not be able to post their work on this forum. How is this in the interests of Art?

Good question. My take on it is that since this is a private forum for a professional website business, the artists abide by the rules of the owner.

And I fully intend abiding by those rules but that does not mean that the wisdom of them cannot be questioned and discussed given the importance of the nude and eroticism in art.

If you are deliberately trying to be distasteful, I will assure you it will be removed. If you doubt the motives, test them. BUT keep in mind this is a classical portrait forum. In the whole digital world there are many fora that will happily view and coach with less restrictions.

I have been witness to so many wars about free speech online and so many of the speakers forget that none of this is free. The owner of the site is shelling out dough to provide us the opportunity to meet here. In so many cases, the posters desire to change the format to fit their needs.

Among the participants there are plenty of opportunities to email correspondence and have private discussions. Online there are more classical groups, more illustrative groups, more technical groups, and I am quite sure there are more "tasteless" groups that have no such structure. Not a judgment call, just a euphemism.

Opening the doors to this concession (nudes) is actually pretty liberal! I regret that they closed the Animal Portrait section but understand why! I have found a good little group, not so high on the broader professionalism scale, but very productive and suitable to my own needs.

Cynthia has put out many fires and kept it civil here, The conversation among personalities that you recognize online make a much more worthwhile give and take, but the single thrust of this forum make it easily managed and much more useful to its goal.

If a less than tasteful nude portrait was commissioned, that would be a whole other matter.....

Amusing but hardly relevant.

On the contrary, Peter, I think Debra's post was highly relevant. Especially this part: It has been the decision of Cynthia Daniel, the owner of this Forum, to keep to what in her opinion are "tasteful, classic nudes". That doesn't include what you refer to as "eroticism". There are plenty of other places on the internet for that.

Posts that cross the line have created firestorms of controvery, which the moderators (myself included) got tired of putting out.

There may well be practical arguments limiting what style of nudes are posted but it is a limitation that cuts off a good deal of what is real and conversely includes much that may be superficial and that is a real issue. It is probably more than 20 years since I have painted a nude so it is not a burning posting issue with me but when you consider Degas, Renoir, Klimt and Shiele all of whom produced their greatest nudes in less than classic poses I do wonder what we might be missing in the work of artists here. What is the reason for the limitation - practical or misplaced morality - I would like to understand?

Portraiture.

Primarily because it is a portrait site, dedicated to portraiture first, and figurative works - nude or otherwise - second. Thus, the desire to not create a large category of work that would take the focus of the forum off portraiture.

That may or may not be an argument for having a Nude section in the first place but since it is there........

I can think of very good examples of Klimt's work as well as of Shiele that pass muster as portraits better than many of the 'classical pose' nudes in the section here but would not be accepted because they are not classical poses. I suspect that prudishness is at the root of this rather than what is relevant to a portrait site and if so then that is a shame.

I, for one, am extremely grateful that Cynthia has created this Forum, expending considerable time and money to do so, and allows us to use it at no charge. Because of that, I don't insult her taste.

Peter, have you tried wetcanvas? They have a lot of figurative and classical and historical discussions, all interesting, and all they ask is if you post, put the icon of warning of content up. It is a big site, but you can discuss pretty loudly and thoroughly anything you want.

Like Michele and Michael, it is here for us to use as presented.

Funny, you call it prudish. Somehow that is supposed to make us cringe, yet sensationalism is a completely worthy point of view? Figure study as a strong basis for anatomy in any sort of portrait is always a good thing. I have found this site to be a great place for aspirants - as you have mentioned in your bio - to rub digital elbows with the pros. I have participated heavily in sites where theories, ideas, concepts, rumors and philosophies prevailed. Acting as the nearsighted as leader to the blind, I got some use out of them, but without fail, when a professional shares their EXPERIENCE, the resulting advice is going to help me on my way. EVEN if I personally disagree, I can not argue with the results: professional advice.

This is an opportunity, not a blog. One can come in and proclaim and see how their ideas are received or they can do the work and show the progress.

To agitate and shock is of little use to most of us. Challenging ideas is a good thing if there has been a proven track record of results, but I will say, in this economy, I am trying to keep paying my bills from my art. The opportunity to have my questions answered by a working portrait painter overwhelms EVERY instance I can think of to engage in a debate over the masters. Erotic, shocking, tasteful or dull. These are boots on the ground opportunities that one may not have room to absorb while carrying a heavy attitude.

Peter, as a newcomer here, perhaps you do not understand the purpose and nature of this Forum. First of all, though it has become over time somewhat of an entity unto itself, it was originally created to provide a place for practicing portrait painters who do commissioned work to share discussions related to their career - it is not a general art forum. The main site existed long before this forum and its focus is traditional commissioned portraiture. The intent was and is for this forum to stay aligned with that focus. There are other forums that are wider in scope.

I have been reading posts here for more than 2 years so I believe I do understand the purpose and scope of this forum. You are of course perfectly free to establish the parameters where you want and that is not in question. My point concerns the wisdom from an artistic point of view saying that certain 'classic' poses are tasteful and that non-classic poses are not but also I question the value of the term tasteful given its moralistic tone. I personally find non'classic nudes by Degas, Klimt or Shiele (and countless others) more human and profound than the artificial poses found in Bouguereau and others and I think it is a shame to say to artists here that they can ape B but keep away from Klimt or others.

Have a Nude section or not, that is your right but if you have one why censor it and potentially deprive us of great work? Again I repeat that I have no nudes to post and have no plans at present (or the space) to paint one so this is not me bitching out of personal interest or desire to shock.

Every human tribe has its god, its high priests to point accusing fingers and its rottweillers to attack the heretics.

Your replies are high on aggression but low on relevance from an artistic point of view.

I too have seen the dynamics on a number of forums over 10 years or so. They operate as in-groups which means that when an 'outie' questions something we immediately get someone who steps up and says that the owner of the site can manage the site as they wish. This is perfectly true but usually irrelevant to the question since their right is not being put into question merely the wisdom of certain decisions. Then the rottweillers line up to savage the heretic and the heretic either lies on their back and recants or leaves. Conformity is restored until the next heretic stumbles in.

In practice this is a rather wide church ranging from Marvin to Thomasin passing via Debra and Ilaria. Many different styles responding to very different aesthetics and that is the way it should be with artists challenging and stimulating each other. Trying to quash discussion by chanting 'traditional portrait site' is pointless.

pushups
 

Hmmm, that's interesting. I never thought of the Portrait Artist Forum as being fascist.

Huh :?

Of course no such claim has been made - reductio ad absurdum David.

Perhaps the lack of wisdom was in bending to the wishes of a very few members of the forum who requested a nude section to begin with. Originally, there was not one.

Per the dictionary: in good taste - satisfying generally accepted social or esthetic standards

Of course, what is "good taste" will always be somewhat subjective, but notice the definition says "generaly accepted." Since the majority of paying portrait clientele seek clothed portraits, keeping the focus on clothed portraiture aligns with the focus of the main site. I'm more than happy to take the nudes section down.

And, yes, I do make judgments of what I want on my forum. And personally, I don't care to have erotic art on my forum or have spread open vaginas or erect penises staring me in the face - no matter how well painted they may be. If that is prudish, then so be it - but, some who may be prudish in public can be quite the opposite in private - so your judgments may be based only on superficial social data.

This is not a general art forum - it is a forum intended to serve the artists who do commissioned portraits - and the great majority of those are clothed.

MY!.. but I am flattered to be visible here......

Have you raised any specific artistic points?

This is one of those arguments, that seems to come up to test the right to argue. Have you really been stopped from posting anything yet? Can you show us the Rottie scars? It seems you are dancing around two issues. Either you do have something so say and are laying the groundwork for indignation if it is not welcomed with open arms.....or simply agitating for the sake of agitation.

Tasteful - ON THIS SITE - will be judged by the owner. In other fora I have likened it to being invited to a persons home for tea and popping a Bud, stripping to your shorts and putting your feet on the table to watch football. We are all guests.

It is sort of presumptuous of you to assume things will be censored before you speak them. If I am aggressive, by simply reading the contract I signed when I joined the site and answering the questions I hear you asking, then I will honestly give you an opinion: (based on the evidence I see in the site) this looks a wee bit paranoiac. Nothing personal, but what is the stink? You seem to be speaking up a storm, and quite freely, you have not been denied this ability. You have neither posted or even linked to these impending abominations - what is the actual problem?

I am extremely resistant to rottie attacks Debra.

I asked a question and I had my reply. Artists have generally found appeals based on the taste of the majority unconvincing and in fact under logical fallacies these appeals are called argumentum ad populum and carry no weight at all but....Cynthia is free to base rules on whatever she likes.

Are we there yet?

I think it is the word "tasteful" that causes ire. Its message is somewhat suggestive that one person's taste is better or finer than another person's. There is a fear that one's intentions may be misunderstood and judged by someone who is unaware of those intentions. However, this forum is in general an exclusive forum and judgment is a major aspect to its existence. Exclusivity is - as much as overtly sexual imagery is - I think a product of human nature, and if it can be articulately and strongly defended, it can earn its right to exist.