The reason that I'm posting this here and not in the glamour section is because I want to be challenged, and I won't be challenged if I'm preaching to the choir.
I wrote this tonight and I'd like to know your thoughts. If you think that I'm wrong, tell me why.
-----
1. The body is beautiful
The body can be very beautiful, in a chaste way. Consider the lines created by a skilled ballet dancer, the geometry of an inexperienced model who copies poses, the curves of a man’s V-shaped torso and a woman’s hourglass-shaped torso, the shadows that outline muscles, and the texture and color of skin.
2. They show the beauty of the model, not her clothing designer.
It’s the model who receives praise for both her natural and achieved beauty, rather than the clothing designer; clothing results in stolen glory.
“What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?”
-- Michelangelo
4. They (can) promote a realistic view of the body
Since the advent of art, we’ve been able to create unrealistic images of the body. In our day, photoshop has made it possible to take this to an extreme. In still imagery, it seems that we rarely see exposed bodies that haven’t been made unrealistically perfect. If portraits would be shared without first undergoing heavy editing, we’d learn what we can realistically expect not only in a potential partner, but also from ourselves; hopefully, we’d stop being ashamed that our bodies aren’t like the bodies of digitally-rendered models.
3. They strip pretense
Clothing is used as a status marker; it can show superiority, inferiority, or that one is a common man. Interestingly, all of these categories alienate – even the commoner’s attire. They render you unapproachable to those whose status isn’t equal to your own. Nudity gives a form of universality; by default, skin offers no status marker.
And skin never really goes out of style; we’ve always worn it, unlike the outfits we donned in our youth which we now look back upon with embarrassment. Thus, nude portraits are timeless.
4. They can create a unique Edenic effect
When executed well, nude portraits can seem Edenic: pure, calm, and good. It’s not possible to achieve the same effect with clothing, although close to the same effect can—with much difficulty—be produced.
However, consider that near-nudity tends to be quite contrary. Panties either look childish or sexually-suggestive. Jeans are rough and unnatural. Shorts are bland and unfit for the task. Not all clothing is a mismatch, however; for example, some sarongs or other gentle, flowing fabrics may match a scene very well.
5. They offer more variety
A model may indeed find a gentle, flowing outfit which complements her surroundings and appears to be one-with-nature, rather than pretentious. However, some difficulties remain.
First, her portraits will seem very repetitive and boring if she only wears that outfit – especially if she does so across portrait sessions. Second, she’ll likely find it difficult to conceive a plurality of such outfits; and if she does, she may find their attainment to be costly. Third, the photographer may find it difficult to match her clothing to the scene; perhaps he isn’t aware of a scene which matches her outfit, or perhaps he doesn’t know how to match her outfit to a given scene. Skin is simple: it’s light or dark and has a few options of tint. However, clothing has an infinite variety of texture, color, pattern, shade, and combination. By combination, I mean: pairing jeans with a white T-shirt on one instance, and a plaid sweater on the next.
6. They desexualize our response to the body
It’s often argued that the naked body is evil because it produces prurient desire, but this doesn’t seem to be true. Rather, by hiding the body we make it an exciting taboo – and because it’s exposed mostly in sexual contexts (sex, pornography), we nurture inappropriate responses. Artistic exposure may help to counter this deviation.
