My objection to nude models is that it reinforces a very prevalent popular notion among both the general public and unfortunately among the members of the art community itself that the nude female body in certain coy poses is a signifier of 'Art'. The last figure drawing class I took was in the Continuing Studies program at Stanford and the course description said that there would be both male and female nude models, singly and in groups. Well, the females were a pair of dancers totally nude who spent the class period entwining themselves like that Ingres painting of a Turkish harem in the bath. The only male was the sole model that night and--guess what?--he had a codpiece. Ya think this is a double standard?
. ---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:37:20 -0400
>From: "Jen Ellis" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: [teacherartexchange] peter panse
>To: "TeacherArtExchange Discussion Group" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Is there anyone from outside the US that could comment on this? I
>would be curious of your feedback and how those in your country view
>the nude in the younger classrooms.
>As for a generation difference, people in my generation (that don't
>pursue art) still don't understand why drawing nudes is so important.
>(18-35). When asked about drawing nudes they walk away giggling like
>some young kids. "So they were REALLY naked?" "Were they cute?" "Did
>she have big boobs?" Urg. I wish I could say that this problem will
>go away in time, maybe in 50 years, doubtful in 20.
>Personally I think the media is a big part of the problem. It's hard
>for me to think of how nudity has been represented in a non-sexual
>Wendy-Can you post the Austin myspace controversy to another thread? I
>don't know what you are talking about....maybe because I am fairly
>Interactive Multimedia Artist
>Continuing Medical Education
>Cleveland Clinic, Ohio
>To unsubscribe go to