|
|
Post by Bytor on Jan 9, 2009 13:52:29 GMT -8
Here is a thread that I hope will help the collectors and the artist get to know one another better. I know sometimes I have questions that I would love to ask collectors. This thread is also for collectors that would like to ask artist questions too, not just for artist to ask the questions.
My first questions as an artist I would like to know if you as a collector tend to stay away from purchasing nudes or does it matter at all to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by highbrow on Jan 9, 2009 14:05:16 GMT -8
Personally I do not tend to stay away from nudes personally, however I work with Al Rockoff and have a number of his images hanging in my home and they tend to be very graphic in nature so it doesnt effect me, however we do not have a great deal of people over and at a recent small party we had a few people were offended by it. My parents have a large collection and they hang none of the nude works they have for what reason i do not know but will now ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by masao626 on Jan 9, 2009 14:52:16 GMT -8
i tend to stay away from nudity. i have a handful of pieces and originals that depict it in some measure, but it speaks more to how much i love the art that it made it's way into my home, regardless of an errant breast here or there.
sometimes the nudity is so raw and in your face that it makes my skin crawl - for my personal collection, if it's going to appear, it's the soft and subtle and not the focal point of the piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jan 9, 2009 15:52:30 GMT -8
I don't avoid nudity, although I don't have much of it in my collection. The way most "lowbrow" nudes are painted doesn't appeal to me much, I guess. There are many historical nude paintings which I adore, and I love nude photography as well. It's just that most painters in this genre seem to view nudity purely as a way to convey sensuality, vulnerability or degradation... and I guess that seems a little facile to me. There are a lot of other ways to live in your skin which are more complex and interesting, in my opinion.
I do, however, avoid nude pictures of children or childlike women, which just kind of creep me out. If the intention is clear, I don't have a problem with depicting children without their clothes – for instance, the photographs of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are challenging and beautiful – but I don't feel we do that sort of thing well in this little corner of the art world. That's probably because the intention of the artist is expressly to shock or titillate... but to me, it just feels wrong. I can appreciate that perhaps my view of this is a little unsophisticated, but I'll just go with my gut on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on Jan 9, 2009 16:00:39 GMT -8
I generally stay away but have a few pieces with nudes in them, not a central figures. One big Robt. Williams serigraph has a nude woman "Queen of Atlantis" as a central figure. It used to raise a lot of eyebrows, go figure. I moved it to the bed room to free up some wall space downstairs.
We have lot of art books with nudes. A few times I found my kids and their friends flipping through the books or art mags saying things like "eeew there are naked ladies in this book". I would have to try and explain that they are art books.
After that I forbid them to look at art books when their friends come over. I worried that they would run off telling people that they saw naked ladies our books, imagining people thinking that I let my kids look at porn when it was actually Titian, Hopper or Schiele.
|
|
|
|
Post by A. Andrew Gonzalez on Jan 9, 2009 22:28:09 GMT -8
Hi everyone,... (new here) I've been following discussions for a couple of months. I love the genre ... any form of surrealism or amazing figurative work in contemporary art interest me.... and i plan to collect my favorites soon. As a painter of nudes, I felt I should add a few thoughts I sell very well to collectors who love nude work and to those who are a bit sensitive to having nudity displayed in their home. I grew up with an artist father who painted nudes so it was never a big deal. I have no problem displaying even graphic nudity in my home... but as for my work, I'm really sensitive to the visual power it can take away from your creative ideas. So I try to keep the nudity subdued and balance with the overall symbolic imagery. In my work, I try not to make it the center of attention. I'm trying to bring a somewhat classical ideal of nudity towards a contemporary ideal (with universal humanistic/spiritual overtones) I've alway felt the nude figure in my work to be more eternal or timeless and whenever I think about clothing I think more of historical time and place. I do plan to play around with extending my designs to create something like a hyper-decorative covering/clothing over my figures (imbedded designs that cover and extend from the body) ... but I want to make sure it doesn't come off as too futuristic scifi (though that may look cool) Anyway,... just a few thoughts Andrew www.sublimatrix.com |
|
brobt
Full Member
Posts: 154
|
Post by brobt on Jan 10, 2009 0:01:21 GMT -8
That's funny, I also own a Robert Williams "Queen of Atlantis". I now have it hanging at a place my brother & I own. One of my favorite pieces of Robt. William. My name on this forum, Brobt is actually short for Bernard Robert. A little nod to the artist whom I really started with.
I also use to own the Mark Ryden print "Snow White", which raised weird looks more often than the Williams print ever did. I loved it, such an incredible image.
I do think about the 2 or 3 nudes that Viner did for his last exhibit at Jonathan Levine Gallery when considering the question. Those nudes actually had no appeal whats so ever for me, despite being a huge fan of his work.
I guess it just depends on each piece for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jan 10, 2009 1:15:53 GMT -8
I don't mind nudes, and also own a few prints/originals that feature nudity. Some of the artists/masterpieces that got me into art to begin with centered in nudity. Schiele, Botticelli's Venus and so on.
But, I think it depends on the piece, and what the purpose of the nude is? There is no doubt that the human body can be a work of art in itself, and a skilled artist can immortalize that beauty. But if it's nudity just for nudities sake, then I think it's unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Jan 10, 2009 9:26:52 GMT -8
This is a question that has come up at my gallery before...I have no problem showing nudes...but I've noticed (male and female) collectors will buy female "nudes" if it it topless only and then only sparingly (I have a few single guy collectors be interested in a piece but say "I already have several paintings of nude women- I don't want my female friends thinking I'm a pervert" - and I understand that!) But male nudes- forget it. In fact- it's infinitely harder to sell a painting with just a (human) guy in it vs a female. Interesting.
BTW- Hi Andrew!- everyone should check out his lovely work!
|
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Jan 10, 2009 11:39:14 GMT -8
I agree with Miss. Roq la Rue 100%. Collectors will purchase more topless than the full nude and forget selling male nudes. Have sold my share of Michael Parkes, Olivia, Vargas and Sorayama since the 80's. (Sorayama can be rather harsh) Michael Parkes has been the exception with more women purchasing his works. (very tasteful) Michael Parkes "Rain"  Alberto Vargas  Hajime Sorayama  |
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jan 10, 2009 11:53:12 GMT -8
I have noticed the enthusiasm change in my figure drawing classes when a male model walks in. The same students that labored over every detail in the female model will just "disregard" areas of the male model. Well, the more academic students will not, but those are few and far between. I think it depends how the male nude is painted. As far as collecting, I wouldn't mind owning this piece by Egon Schiele. It also looks like James Jean has sold quite a lot of work that features male nudes, and full female nudes in his show at Jonathan Levine. So the way the nade is handled, and the artist doing it also helps.  |
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Jan 11, 2009 13:54:46 GMT -8
Forgot I had this piece in my collection, never thought of it as a nude. Frank Frazetta "Golden Girl"  |
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jan 11, 2009 14:24:42 GMT -8
You have the original?
|
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Jan 11, 2009 16:36:15 GMT -8
Hand signed & numbered limited edition.
Released back in the 70's. (when i was a kid)
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvia0rtiz on Jan 11, 2009 17:03:03 GMT -8
im glad you started this thread leslie totally opened my eyes :0)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bytor on Jan 11, 2009 17:35:39 GMT -8
Forgot I had this piece in my collection, never thought of it as a nude. Frank Frazetta "Golden Girl" OMG! thank you for posting this painting! My father owned an "old School" Harley shop and he painted the motorcycle tanks with images inspired from frank and Boris and I use to stare long hours at this picture that was in one of his art books when I a young girl and I haven't seen it since. Nudes never bothered me I guess because I have always been around them like someone else here had mentioned . when I first started painting I was painting my women very voluptuous and now I realize that it was because of the influence from these fantasy artist I use to look at. I try hard not to make them so endowed these days and play the nudity down a bit. The newest painting I posted under "Leslie Ditto's Newest pieces" under "Lowbrow" is of a nude pregnant young women so I had to make the breast a bit round. |
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jan 18, 2009 23:48:30 GMT -8
I noticed there was quite a few nude works in the James Jean solo show. They all sold. Now is this because they are more abstract than the Wiener paintings, or the style that James Jean has made it easier to purchase them?
|
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jan 19, 2009 7:20:10 GMT -8
I suppose you'd have to ask the people who bought them, . . . if the nudity was a factor in their decision to acquire them.
I suspect not. They are just beautiful pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by constant on Jan 19, 2009 11:51:42 GMT -8
James isn't the first to depict nudity in his work. It's been done by artists since time eternal, in abstract form or otherwise. Buying the pieces boils down to personal preference. It's art, you either like it or you don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jan 19, 2009 13:39:09 GMT -8
James isn't the first to depict nudity in his work. It's been done by artists since time eternal, in abstract form or otherwise. Buying the pieces boils down to personal preference. It's art, you either like it or you don't. Of course, the first piece of known figurative art is a nude. The thread was more with figuring out what buying styles the current collectors have. And me being a budding art historian, I also like to know what lines are there when people purchase and view art. |
|
|
|
Post by dangler on Jan 19, 2009 20:42:23 GMT -8
... I feel that the buying styles of the current collectors, at least in this genre that we are referring to, are after cutting edge - fresh new styles... a look that is marketable and distinct where every piece defines the artist that created it... making it a solid investment, (in their eyes.) It is completely far too subjective to distinguish a majority of whether nudes are in or out... but the way I see it, if Mark Ryden painted a nude, SOLD... if Craola painted a nude, SOLD... if Audrey Kawasaki painted a nude, SOLD...
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jan 25, 2009 13:04:04 GMT -8
There's an article in the NYT today that touches on this topic: "The Image Is Erotic. But Is It Art?" www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/arts/design/25john.html?_r=1&ref=design"The fault line running through all this involves the question of the “proper” use of sexual imagery in art. Do we ever allow it as an end in itself, or must it always be redeemed by some aesthetic, social, moral or ironic purpose? Can pornography be high art? Indian and Japanese artists raised it to that level in pre-modern times; literature is loaded with great erotica, from the Marquis de Sade to “The Story of O.”
On the other hand, whether because of aesthetic convictions, prudery or politics, the modern art worlds of Europe and America have not appreciated the idea of art made for sexual arousal. But why should that be any less worthy an aim than, say, trying to inspire religious feelings?"By the way, ImageShack is a good hosting service for nude paintings... Photobucket and most of the other hosting services will pull them within a day or two, no matter how "artistic" they are. www.imageshack.us/ |
|
