Public Nudity

[osho]

Hm…..When we are passionate about something, we don’t talk about it but we just do it. Passion involves feelings that energize our actions.

I don’t think that it is a problem with nudity. Some people may love it and other don’t. But we can’t expect that others will accept our choices and we have to be prepared to be judged or criticized. The problem is when we want to impose our likes or dislikes upon others, expecting them to accept or even behave the same way. We are talking about control then.

BTW…… I would have a big problem with nudity……. if I was living in Alaska.

You are true. Here on this forum all we do is express and do not impose. We must be prepared to hear criticism or else how can we understand our flaws. I stick with what I said nonetheless.

[ftil]

You are true. Here on this forum all we do is express and do not impose. We must be prepared to hear criticism or else how can we understand our flaws. I stick with what I said nonetheless.

Hm…... I would argue that by hearing criticism we can understand our flaws. Yes, constructive criticism helps us to look deeper at our issues. But people may criticize and judge us because they can’t accept differences and may have a rigid belief system. I wouldn’t take seriously that kind of criticism.

[osho]

Hm…... I would argue that by hearing criticism we can understand our flaws. Yes, constructive criticism helps us to look deeper at our issues. But people may criticize and judge us because they can’t accept differences and may have a rigid belief system. I wouldn’t take seriously that kind of criticism.

Had I taken their criticism and even their inflexibility seriously I never would have proceeded further. I would have shrunk back. I love criticisms of all sort and the tablets are indeed bitter for a while but the aftereffects of them is like antidotes.

I have bluntly said I like nudity, stark nudes and it sounds rather horrid and offensive to some sensitive and cultured people. I respect their sentiments. I am regardless of what I sound totally aesthetic. This is somewhat unpalatable but the lens I look from was designed in a different world from others.

[ftil]

Had I taken their criticism and even their inflexibility seriously I never would have proceeded further. I would have shrunk back. I love criticisms of all sort and the tablets are indeed bitter for a while but the aftereffects of them is like antidotes.

I have bluntly said I like nudity, stark nudes and it sounds rather horrid and offensive to some sensitive and cultured people. I respect their sentiments. I am regardless of what I sound totally aesthetic. This is somewhat unpalatable but the lens I look from was designed in a different world from others.

I love only constructive criticism as it doesn’t involve negative energy. World would be better place to live if people become tolerant. There are people who get hurt by insensitive criticism or judgment. Sadly, many of those who criticize others judge themselves without mercy.

I agree that by facing criticism again and again we strengthen our immunity to intolerance and can laugh freely.

[stlukesguild]

Not only religions even people, society, parents, seniors cannot impose their faiths on others.

When I have in public at least on this forum that ensures the freedom of express to some extent articulated my passion for nudity. Some people can jeer at me and I argued dauntlessly putting my convection forward. My beliefs and ideas however have nothing to do with my practice. These are not the same zones of thought. We are free to think the way we like but when speak or write our thoughts there is some censure. I am bolder here since I have faked ( derogative?) my real name here and if I speak the same thing in the same tone and force in society I get a lot of reproaches.

Everybody censors something that pops up in his mind prior to putting forth them into words in society. I always like a nude person and I do not see the figure as something ugly; nothing of her or him is ugly. If anything is ugly it is our conditioned, occupied mind. I unload all my preoccupation, fixations, affectations and stand before the nude figure the way the rest of wild animals do, some in apathy and others in awe and still others in attractiveness and love. I may sound like a renegade or somebody who is in defiance of some cultural riches. I do it without malice but with total aestheticism.

No... William Blake was a renegade. Today it is perhaps impossible to fathom just how outrageous and revolutionary some of his ideas were considering the time and place:

From The Marriage of Heaven and Hell:

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors:

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.


Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling. And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.

Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.

He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.

The nakedness of woman is the work of God.

The cistern contains: the fountain overflows.

You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.

Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.

I'll return to a classic quote from Sir Kenneth Clark's iconic art history text, the Nude in which he confronted the question of the representation of nudity in art:

"The human body is rich in associations, and when it is turned into art these associations are not entirely lost... It is ourselves and arouses memories of all the things we wish to do with ourselves; and first of all we wish to perpetuate ourselves.

This is an aspect of the (nude) that is so obvious that I barely need to dwell on it; and yet some wise men have tried to close their eyes to it. "If the nude," says Professor Alexander, "is so treated that it raises in the spectator ideas or desires appropriate to the material subject, it is false art and bad morals." This high-minded theory is contrary to experience. In the mixture of memories and sensations aroused by Ruben's Andromeda...



(or his St. Sebastian for that matter



or Renoir's Bathers...



... are many that are "appropriate to the material subject". And since these words of a famous philosopher are often quoted, it is necessary to labor the obvious and say that no nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse, in the spectator, some vestige of erotic feeling, even though it be only the faintest shadow- and if it does not do so, it is bad art and false morals. The desire to grasp and be united with another human body is so fundamental a part of our nature that our judgment of what is known as "pure form" is inevitably influenced by it... The amount of erotic content a work of art can hold... is very high. The temple sculptures of tenth-century India are an undisguised exaltation of physical desire; yet they are great works of art.



I don't think that we can come up with a clear line of demarcation... a line defining "Art" on this side and 'Pornography" on the other. What is or is not "pornographic" seems dependent upon the audience and not the subject matter... and one might even argue that pornography and art are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As Sir Kenneth Clark suggests, sexuality is such a fundamental aspect of human existence and so powerfully linked with some of our most intense physical and emotional experiences that to ignore or even banish the portrayal of sex seems itself almost obscene.

Some suggest that the intent between pornography and erotic art is inherently different... but I question this as well. As Kenneth Clark notes, the Indian temple sculptures include unabashed and undisguised exaltation of sex. The same is true of any number of Japanese Ukiyo-e prints... especially of a sub-genre known as the Shunga. The Ukiyo-e prints are virtually a case-study of shifting perspectives... and how it impacts our definition of "art" or "pornography":

The Japanese Ukiyo-e prints were considered at the time of their production a low-class art form in comparison to the high-minded screen paintings. The Ukiyo-e prints focused upon famous scenes around and in Tokyo, images of actors and actresses, images of pretty girls, courtesans, geisha, illustrations of popular fiction, and images of sexual activities. In many ways, the Ukiyo-e prints were an equivalent of the time for our travel postcards, celebrity posters and magazines, pin-ups and centerfolds, comic books, and pornography. None of these genre are immediately thought of by us as being with "high art"... but with the passage of time, as a result of the brilliant originality... the dynamic compositions, the play of pattern and elegant line, the subtle use of colors and layering of inks... the Ukiyo-e print artists have been recognized as some of the greatest masters of Japanese art... to the extent that the names of Hokusai, Hiroshige, Utamaro, etc... are far more recognized than the names of most the "fine art" painters. Among the finest examples of these works are a good many "Shunga" prints.

The sexually explicit imagery of the Shunga were intended for people who because of their limited means could not afford to frequent the "pleasure quarters" where the illicit sex trade of a flourishing, rapidly growing, and increasingly liberal Tokyo was centered. Such prints also illustrated racy popular fiction such as one particular satire of a high-ranking government official that resulted in one of the most famous Ukiyo-e artist, Utamaro's imprisonment. Arguably, the Shunga have little in terms of intention that differentiates them from today's pin-up or pornography... except aesthetic merit... and here I think of William Gass' suggestion that eroticism... "true sexuality in literature... sex as a positive aesthetic quality... lies not in any scene or subject, nor in the mere appearance of a 'vulgar' word, but in the
consequences on the page of love well made---made to the medium which is the writer's own."

Utamaro brought as exquisite a sensibility to his Shunga work as he did to the rest of his oeuvre. He employed surprising points of view, made dramatic compositional uses of flat areas of color and black, added metallic pigments to the inks creating unique effects, intentionally allowed colors to fade out suggesting atmospheric effects, and drew upon the most sophisticated sense of color, pattern, and elegant line. He also brought a keen eye to his subject matter, capturing subtle gestures and facial expressions. He picked up upon the manner in which a woman clutched her lover, the way her toes curled up during lovemaking, the hints at vanity as a woman looks at herself in the mirror while making love, and the swirls and play of fabrics that at once conceal and reveal the naked bodies.

Any number of these elements can be seen here in a pair of less explicit Shunga prints by Utamaro:





Utamaro's intentions were clear not at all different from that of the pin-up artist or the Playboy photographer. On the other hand, his works were the result of a high level of artistry and can be appreciated for formal elements of design, line, point of view, etc... But are we then to assume than no pin-up or Playboy (or other nude photograph intended to arouse) ever achieves high level of artistry?

It would seem to me that ultimately whether something is art is always defined by the audience. The medieval monk laboring away on an illuminated manuscript never thought of himself as an "artist" or what he did as "art". He was merely a dutiful servant attempting to praise God by beautifying a sacred text. The resulting works, however, are "art" because those whose opinions matter... art critics, art historians, museum curators, art collectors, artists, and art lovers... have deemed the work art. Utamaro's Shunga prints, are "art" because for the same reason. It would seem then that the same logic must be applied to pin-ups, nude photography intended to arouse... even porno films. Are not classic pin-ups from the 40s and 50s by "artists" such as Alberto Vargas, Bill Ward, and Gil Elvgren coveted and collected... by museums as well as private collectors? Isn't the same true of pin-up photographs of Betty Grable, Betty Page... and even Dita von Teese? How good or bad such art is may be open to debate no less than how good of bad R.Crumb or Damien Hirst is... but it would seem to me there can be no debate that such imagery is indeed ART.

The Feminist critic, Wendy Steiner, suggested that the notion of the dichotomy between ART ... even erotic ART on one hand, and pornography on the other may be all wrong. Pornography is but a genre... like landscape or still life. There is no debate that a painting can be a landscape or a still life and also good or great ART. Steiner suggests that pornography is the same. There is no divide between pornography and art. All pornography is ART just as all landscapes are ART. Of course the majority of landscape paintings are bad... cliche... hackneyed. The same is true of most pornography.

Here I return to Kenneth Clark's claim, "the human body is rich in associations, and when it is turned into art these associations are not entirely lost... It is ourselves and arouses memories of all the things we wish to do with ourselves; and first of all we wish to perpetuate ourselves." Surely this suggests a certain hypocrisy... or Puritanism... or self-denial involved in the abhorrence of the naked body. Our appreciation of the naked body... even those "dirty bits" is an essential part of our sexual experiences... and sexuality is certainly a central aspect of our humanity to the point that Yeats was only slightly exaggerating when he proclaimed that "Sex and Death are the only topics worthy of contemplation by the serious mind".

Obviously I don't think that Yeats intended to suggest that only copulation and the act of dying were worthy subjects for art. But is does seem clear that he is simply reiterating the old twins: Eros et Mort. How is it that we can accept artists exploring all the aspects of Mort/Death (war, mortality, disease, destruction, collapse, fragility, killing, death itself... as well as questions of what exists beyond death... spirituality) while those physical aspects of Eros that we so embrace in our real life... in our sexual experiences... can be dismissed as "ugly", "pornographic", "dirty", etc... when contemplated in art?

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild:
As Sir Kenneth Clark suggests, sexuality is such a fundamental aspect of human existence and so powerfully linked with some of our most intense physical and emotional experiences that to ignore or even banish the portrayal of sex seems itself almost obscene.

I had good laughter reading his quote. Well, if he spoke on his behalf, I wouldn’t have a problem. Everybody is unique with own desires and needs…..that are fulfilled or not. But if he attempted to speak on behalf all of us, I have a big problem.

I will quote Alexander Lowen, the founder of Bioenergetics, as I couldn’t say it better.

Joy is an extraordinary feeling for adults whose lives revolve around ordinary activities and ordinary things. The main reason for the lack of joy in ordinary activates is that we are ego-directed and controlled. When one’s body is more alive, a person is more sensitive to others and to their feelings. Of course, when one is more alive one is more capable of love and of joy.

Passion denotes an intensity of feeling which move an individual to transcend the boundaries of the self. When it happens in a sexual orgasm which embraces the whole body, it is the experience of transcendence par excellence. It doesn’t happen much in our culture because sex and sexuality have been removed from the realm of the sacred to that of the ordinary and secular. Sex is something one does to relax or to relieve a tension, not an expression of passion.

Spirituality is not a way of acting or thinking; it is the life of the spirit which is expressed in the spontaneous and involuntary movements of the body in actions which are not ego directed or controlled. It is a spirit in us that moves us to love, to tears, to dance, to sing. It is a spirit in man that cries out for justice, fights for freedom and rejoice in the beauty of all nature. The strengths of a person’s spirit is reflected in the intensity of his feelings.

Reducing life, love, and sex to physiological process ignores the emotional side of the body- activities which make them expressions of the body’s spirit.

I love art but life is much more than art. Art feeds our souls with its beauty as well as evokes our feelings. Love , beauty, truth, freedom, and dignity with activities of the spirit give rise to strong feelings or passions. Putting the emphasis on sexual experience rather than on feeling of passion, joy, and spirit takes away all what life is worth living for. But to feel passion and joy we need to have vibrant bodies full of feelings that change from one minute to another. And when we feel, we don’t need to intellectualize about it. It is a pure delight to be around passionate people.

[osho]

In fact the nudity in us or the beauty of it we secretly approve of is explicit through art and sculptors and when we look at them in an aesthetic perspective it is beauty and when we observe them in an everyday humdrum it is ugly, repulsive. Imagine when a young man sees a young girl bathing in a river, her nudity raises a plethora of thought and it convulses his mind and body. We can observe this phenomenon totally aesthetically or we as an artist can give the ugly side of it. I as an artist choose the former. Our covers are our conceits and we become superfluous covering up our real selves. When we unmask our real nude selves we become fully manifest in our real natures. Our civilization has deadened our natural instincts.

[ftil]

In fact the nudity in us or the beauty of it we secretly approve of is explicit through art and sculptors and when we look at them in an aesthetic perspective it is beauty and when we observe them in an everyday humdrum it is ugly, repulsive. Imagine when a young man sees a young girl bathing in a river, her nudity raises a plethora of thought and it convulses his mind and body. We can observe this phenomenon totally aesthetically or we as an artist can give the ugly side of it. I as an artist choose the former. Our covers are our conceits and we become superfluous covering up our real selves. When we unmask our real nude selves we become fully manifest in our real natures. Our civilization has deadened our natural instincts.

Why did you say that we secretly approve the beauty of our bodies? I don’t secretly appreciate the beauty of human body. But it doesn’t mean that we have to walk naked. It would be jumping from one extreme to another and any extreme behavior is not healthy. It is very different to enjoy the freedom of swimming naked and go to the office naked. Show me a boss who would be happy seeing his employees being busy thinking about sex rather than solving company’s problem.

I would argue that our cover conceal our real selves. We are humans who have body and mind. It would be very sad to limit humans to the body that is run by instincts. I would mean no place for feelings, passions, creativity, and individuality. It would mean having empty mind. No thanks no.

[Paulclem]

People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs who want to voy (?) other nice looking people forgetting the fact that many/ most are unsightly flabbers who really don't wish to be voyed at all. Nor do the beautiful ones ether - not when they can make a career of not engaging in public nudity, but merely suggesting it for good rewards from the advertising industry.

Anyway there are many phones now. Who wants to end up on youtube flapping and wobbling around. (Sorry - i've been on the smarties again).

[OrphanPip]

In fact the nudity in us or the beauty of it we secretly approve of is explicit through art and sculptors and when we look at them in an aesthetic perspective it is beauty and when we observe them in an everyday humdrum it is ugly, repulsive. Imagine when a young man sees a young girl bathing in a river, her nudity raises a plethora of thought and it convulses his mind and body.

I don't normally react with convulsions when I see a nude person. Also, there are a number of people I've seen nude that were far from ugly and repulsive. What a way to view human sexuality .

[Vonny]

I don't normally react with convulsions when I see a nude person. Also, there are a number of people I've seen nude that were far from ugly and repulsive. What a way to view human sexuality .

But maybe a person who grew up in a different part of the world has a different view.

My parents never censored anything for me or my brother when we were children. I remember my mother once fighting with cinema staff for not letting me into a 16 and over movie when I was 12. Then again, I read a lot of violent, filthy stuff as a kid that I probably shouldn't have, ha. (I'm also from Quebec and grew up with soft core porn on standard cable after 10 pm.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleu_Nuit

A person who's seen it all his entire life has been conditioned differently.

Why did you say that we secretly approve the beauty of our bodies? I don’t secretly appreciate the beauty of human body. But it doesn’t mean that we have to walk naked. It would be jumping from one extreme to another and any extreme behavior is not healthy. It is very different to enjoy the freedom of swimming naked and go to the office naked. Show me a boss who would be happy seeing his employees being busy thinking about sex rather than solving company’s problem.

I would argue that our cover conceal our real selves. We are humans who have body and mind. It would be very sad to limit humans to the body that is run by instincts. I would mean no place for feelings, passions, creativity, and individuality. It would mean having empty mind. No thanks no.

I agree

[osho]

But maybe a person who grew up in a different part of the world has a different view.




A person who's seen it all his entire life has been conditioned differently.



I agree

Vonny, you come up with answers full of wisdom. I agree that it is always conditioning, programming and we are in fact hard wired to sets of ideals, patterns of thoughts and value systems and assertions. It is along with that a little bit of the kind education we have got and the thoughts and philosophy born of it.Today we have accesses to different schools of thoughts and we receive certain ideas and reject others and assimilate dome some of them.

In my case I grew up in a very strict social setup wherein even looking at a beautiful lady was tabooed though I secretly liked to look at and admire a thing of beauty whether it is a rose, a water-body, a growing girl. I always like to behold, touch and feel when I see anything beauty. My society wanted me to be aloof and my elders insisted that one should live an austere life. I became a keen observer and latter on discovered that some so called pundits, gurus, monks have promiscuous lives behind closed doors or behind the curtains of society. They are indeed good people, and live with a lot of sacrifice and renunciation. The only thing that may subject them to their fall is sex. They desperately want it.I have once seen a monk reading a book with nude figures though he was in his saintly garbs.

Then I thought sex, nudity and romance are some of the most vitals in life and I have since then a positive view on nude figures and I smile when I come across such things whether in person or in pictures.

I don't normally react with convulsions when I see a nude person. Also, there are a number of people I've seen nude that were far from ugly and repulsive. What a way to view human sexuality .

This is wide-heartedness of you and I rather than reacting with convulsion I do with admiration and wonder and it rejuvenates the youth inside me and I become cheered up and may write beautiful in praise of the thing I have seen. This is not ugly and repulsive. It is divine and sacred.

[86.5parker]

Well public nudity is bad thing for minor but for us it is a good thing haha

[osho]

Well public nudity is bad thing for minor but for us it is a good thing haha

Nudity is bad for minors because he was told to hate a nude person and was forced to cover his body. Though a naked body is much more beautiful thing looked at from an aesthetic eye we are old to refrain from doing so. I as a child have seen a stark naked figure when a couple were taking bath in a fountain and their sparkling bodies were very striking and yet the preoccupation had power over me and I ran away from the spot. Today I am a bit more educated and I use my education to unlearn some of the preoccupations and prejudices born of my social codes.

[ftil]

Hm….I have never heard from anybody that he or she was taught to hate a nude person. My parents thought me what behavior was appropriate or not. I wasn’t raised to hate people. My mom loved to get a suntan being naked. In my town, we have had a place designed for women who enjoyed a full suntan. That place was always full when it was a sunny day.lol The bottom line is the fact that not everywhere nakedness is appropriate. It is as simple as that. It has nothing with hate or condemnation. Yes, some people maybe shamed but they have to resolve this issue by themselves. We can’t assume that everybody caries the same unresolved issues.

But the discussion here moved from nudity to sexuality. So, it is not about nudity.
But if we want to connect nudity with sexuality, let me express my point of view as a female. It is not uncommon that women have been raped. The offenders justify their actions saying that women provoked them. Well, if women would walk naked, the rates of raped would rise. We are only human, aren’t we? But what rapists would say? They couldn’t justify their action in an old way. They would have to say that women were naked and they wanted to be raped. The oppression of women would be complete. Have you ever thought about the pain and trauma that victims of abuse suffered? It doesn’t agree with love and compassion, doesn’t it?

Do we want to create that kind of world? We already have so many unresolved problems that affect us. Do we want to create more problems? I don’t! Let put this tread at a well deserved rest.

Finally, I have heard here about romance, sexuality, celebration of life but I haven’t heard about love, deep emotional intimacy, deep and fulfilling relationships. Sad, indeed.

Alan Watts said it all.
“Insecure society are the most intolerant….So unsure of the validity of their game rules. Everybody must play the rule. We become more conformist………..Everybody is equally inferior”.

Everybody must be naked?????

Alan Watts on Hermits and Outcasts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK5RaHpI4M8