Art and About: Art or Pornography?

Early in my career, when I first started painting and selling my artwork, an art dealer suggested that I try painting nudes. Not knowing much about figure drawing at the time, I bought a couple of Playboy magazines and began creating watercolor paintings from the photographs.

To my surprise, the paintings sold quickly, to both men and women. But when my mother and father discovered what I was doing, they had a fit. Their reaction was so severe that the conflict eventually contributed to my ending up in a psychiatric ward. Needless to say, I stopped painting nudes for quite some time.

Years later, when I attended college, I was introduced to the traditional practice of life drawing. We studied the human figure using live nude models, learning anatomy, proportion, posture, movement, light and shadow. When I traveled to Florence, Italy, for my study abroad program, figure drawing was once again an important part of my artistic education. I enjoyed the practice so much that I continued studying with my instructor even after graduating.

But this raised a question that has stayed with me throughout my career: Why should we be ashamed of the human body?

At first, I assumed my parents' objections were religious. But that explanation didn't entirely make sense to me. Italy, particularly Rome and the Vatican, is filled with magnificent examples of nude figures in paintings and sculptures. Some of the greatest works of Renaissance and Baroque art were commissioned by the Catholic Church itself.

Consider Michelangelo's David or the expressive sculptures of Gian Lorenzo Bernini. These artists celebrated the human body as a subject worthy of extraordinary artistic attention. Why should their nudes be considered masterpieces while other depictions of nudity are condemned?

Even today, when I post my life drawings on social media, I sometimes receive criticism from friends, particularly women. Some feminists argue that nude imagery, especially of women, can contribute to sexual objectification. I understand that concern, but I also question whether every nude image should be interpreted that way. After all, male figures have been portrayed nude throughout art history as well.

So where do we draw the line between art and pornography?

Pornography is generally understood as visual or written material intended primarily to produce sexual arousal. Life drawing, on the other hand, is an artistic exercise involving the observation and representation of the human figure, often using a nude model.

This practice has been fundamental to artistic education since the Renaissance. Learning to draw the nude helps artists understand anatomy, proportion, balance, movement and the relationship between different parts of the body. It even improves our ability to draw people wearing clothing because we understand the underlying structure.

In fact, mastering the human figure is one of the most demanding exercises in representational art. The accuracy, observation and discipline required can improve an artist's ability to draw almost anything from life.

But does artistic technique alone determine whether an image is fine art?

What about those early watercolors I painted from Playboy photographs? I was studying the human figure, experimenting with watercolor techniques and creating paintings that people wanted to buy. Yet the original photographs were intended to be sexually provocative.

Does that make my paintings pornography? Or does the act of transforming a photograph into a watercolor give it a different artistic purpose?

Perhaps the distinction isn't as clear as we would like to believe. An artwork can be beautiful, technically accomplished and sexually suggestive at the same time. The artist's intentions, the viewer's interpretation and the cultural environment all play a role in how the work is understood.

To me, the human body is one of the most fascinating subjects an artist can study. I don't believe nudity alone should determine whether something is considered offensive, pornographic or fine art.

And I certainly don't believe artists should be ashamed of studying the human figure.

So which is art? A classical nude sculpture by Michelangelo or Bernini, or a watercolor recreation of a beautiful nude woman from a magazine?

Maybe both. Maybe the difference lies in the intention. Or perhaps the distinction is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

I'll let you decide.

by Dan and Bonkers

SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS TODAY!!!