# Art > Art & Art History >  the difference in paintings

## cacian

what could be the major difference between a nude portrait painting and a fully clothed one?r 
in other words what would the reason be for an artist to chose nude portraits over clothed one and vice versa?

for example one difference could be
that the artist could have been nude themselves or been inspired by nudity because they could not be nude themselves
and the other
the artist desired clothes because they could not afford them and so engaged in clothing extravaganza in their portrait painting.

what inspires nude paintings because portraits with richely clothed portraits are more prominent because they indicate wealth.

----------


## NikolaiI

To the best of my understanding, most classical art with portraits of nude people is done to glorify the human body as beautiful, and especially when this is forgotten. I'm not an art critic, but that's my general picture of it. Then also you have depictions of human beauty as a reflection of the beauty of the spirit; and I believe sometimes it's in that direction. 

Also strength and health and beauty, all of these are inherent qualities of an art, as it is also meant to inspire us to see that beauty, health and strength, of form and spirit. Partly, I am remembering a statue from a fantasy novel - in the Wizard's First Rule series, or rather, Sword of Truth. . that was quite nice metaphor. 

Mainly I see it as a way of showing the beauty and strength of a healthy human form. And to me - those are all three very close to synonymous, and quite closely related.

----------


## stlukesguild

what could be the major difference between a nude portrait painting and a fully clothed one?

Hmmm... let me go out on a branch here and suggest that the primary difference might be that the nude portrait lacks clothing.


-Titian- "Venus d'Urbino"

in other words what would the reasons be for an artist to chose nude portraits over clothed one and vice versa?

A "portrait" is a very specific genre. Most nudes are not portraits. A portrait is a painting of of a specific individual. This is a nude... but not a portrait... at least that we know...


-Giorgione- "Dresden Venus"

This, on the other hand, is a nude portrait (of the mistress of the French King):


-Francois Boucher- Portrait of Mademoiselle O'Murphy

The subject matter or most works of art, prior to the Romantic era, were dictated by the Patrons. Most Patrons tended to be male and liked looking at naked women. As artists gained greater autonomy things changed greatly. Most artists tended to be male and liked looking at naked women.

Why would one choose to commission or create a clothed portrait as opposed to a nude? On one hand, the sitter might not be someone many would want to see nude:


-Gilbert Stuart- Mrs. Richard Yates


-Quentin Massys- "The Ugly Duchess"

Or the painting might be intended as a formal portrait of the patron's or artist's wife, lover, mother, daughter, etc... 


-Anthony van Dyck- Portrait of marie Louise Tassis


-Jean-Étienne Liotard- Young Princesse


-Ingres- Portrait of Vicomtesse d'Haussonville

Most of us would not likely think to place intimate nude photographs of our spouse, lover, mother, or daughter on public display. Most artists... no matter how "Bohemian" they might portray themselves... would not likely place paintings of their spouse, lover, mother, or daughter on public display (although they would certainly make such paintings for themselves):


-Peter Paul Rubens- Portrait of the Artist's Wife (Het Pelsken- The Fur)

Of course there are exceptions:


-Lucian Freud- Esther (Portrait of the Artist's Daughter)

Of course Lucian was the grandson of Sigmund. 

for example one difference could be
that the artist could have been nude themselves or been inspired by nudity because they could not be nude themselves
and the other

I doubt many artists ever paint in the nude. Picasso did strut about in little more than shorts...



I must admit to having done as much as well... but then again this is usually in July when the studio might get near 100-degrees. And (unfortunately) I'm not working from live models. 

There's also E.L. Kirchner's famous self portrait...


-E.L. Kirchner- Self-Portrait with Model

He wears nothing but a robe, tossed on (reportedly) immediately after having made love to his mistress (seated behind him). 

Pierre Bonnard portrayed himself and his wife-to-be in a similar manner:


-Pierre Bonnard- Man and Woman

Rodin and Gustav Klimt both famously strutted about their studios naked or wearing little more than a robe while 2 or 3 models would strike lascivious poses for them. 


-Gustav Klimt- Nude Study

There are no images that I know of however in which they include themselves in their erotic fantasies. 

and the other
desired clothes because they could not afford them and so engaged in clothing extravaganza in their portrait painting.

There is a close relationship between Art and Fashion. Many painters have been quite enamored of beautiful clothing in the same way they might be attracted to flowers or fruit due to their inherent beauty and color. 

I would love to have the sort of clothing that Van Dyck or Ingres (above) had to paint. Most of our everyday dress is so bland. As such I am far more attracted to costume and erotic dress (lingerie, etc...)

To the best of my understanding, most classical art with portraits of nude people is done to glorify the human body as beautiful...

That was often the sales pitch that was given to justify the nude. The reality was often far more earthy. Artists and patrons in the past were just as much a horny bunch as we are today. Sex and an erotic passion for admiring (ogling) the naked human body is not something new.

----------


## NikolaiI

No, certainly not new. But you can undersand that painting them as beautiful is a very different thing from painting them as grotesque, which which would rather suggest the opposite. As when certain artists descended into madness, and their paintings or drawings became more and more grotesque. 

In other words, to paint the beautiful form is to show the earthy - as you mention it - is beautiful and good, and not something to be ashamed of. 

This is why they're painted with beauty and health radiating, as these are the what the artist wishes to portray. Indeed, there are many who believe that health and beauty are reflections of health, vigor, peace and beauty of the spirit which shapes the physical form.

----------


## cacian

I am blowmn away but the amount of paintings offered here and i thank for that StLukes
can i ask what you see when you look at a nude paintning and then a fully clothed one?

----------


## cacian

> No, certainly not new. But you can undersand that painting them as beautiful is a very different thing from painting them as grotesque, which which would rather suggest the opposite. As when certain artists descended into madness, and their paintings or drawings became more and more grotesque. 
> 
> In other words, to paint the beautiful form is to show the earthy - as you mention it - is beautiful and good, and not something to be ashamed of. 
> 
> This is why they're painted with beauty and health radiating, as these are the what the artist wishes to portray. Indeed, there are many who believe that health and beauty are reflections of health, vigor, peace and beauty of the spirit which shapes the physical form.


i am not sure being ashamed is what i think of when i see a nude painting.
i feel more discomfort because i like shapes rather then in you face body parts.
does that make sense?

----------


## stlukesguild

can i ask what you see when you look at a nude painting and then a fully clothed one?

I look for the same things whether the painting in question is a Nude, a clothed Portrait, a Landscape, or a Still Life. I am looking for an image that resonates with the unique vision of the artist. I am looking at how well the artist has organized the various elements of art (line, shape, color, etc...) and employed the principals of design (harmony, balance, contrast) in order to successfully communicate the artist's intentions. Ultimately, I am looking for a work of art that speaks to me... and continues to speak to me over time.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> That was often the sales pitch that was given to justify the nude. The reality was often far more earthy. Artists and patrons in the past were just as much a horny bunch as we are today. Sex and an erotic passion for admiring (ogling) the naked human body is not something new.


Heh heh. True enough, though there is also the tradition of Hellenic idealism and the human form (something Matsys is lampooning). But perhaps that's just a higher caliber sales pitch. In any case, thanks for the dirty pictures.  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> Heh heh. True enough, though there is also the tradition of Hellenic idealism and the human form (something Matsys is lampooning). But perhaps that's just a higher caliber sales pitch. In any case, thanks for the dirty pictures.


dirty??
now you said.
perhaps nature aims to keep clean
and then nudity comes along to churn it unclean
who knows 
a painting aim to elevate it to that of a glorified nudified whether it succeeds or not is in the eye of the beholder.  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> can i ask what you see when you look at a nude painting and then a fully clothed one?
> 
> I look for the same things whether the painting in question is a Nude, a clothed Portrait, a Landscape, or a Still Life. I am looking for an image that resonates with the unique vision of the artist. I am looking at how well the artist has organized the various elements of art (line, shape, color, etc...) and employed the principals of design (harmony, balance, contrast) in order to successfully communicate the artist's intentions. Ultimately, I am looking for a work of art that speaks to me... and continues to speak to me over time.


i understand
would you agree there is less movement and skill with regards to nude exposees since the aim is to take everything off the body and shows it bare so it becomes dare/stare? 
after all if we stare we think less.
and also
all nude paintings are extremely similar if not repetitive if you have seen one you have seen all of them?
the mind differentiates no longer it is almost an anger/in anger?
nudity tends to take off/strip characteristics from that of a face/figure the nudes become depersonalised one cannot tell them apart?

----------


## Pompey Bum

> dirty??


Oh yes, I mean, um, _earthy_. Dirt vs. earth. Quite the distinction.  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> Oh yes, I mean, um, _earthy_. Dirt vs. earth. Quite the distinction.


lol 
dirty is perfectly acceptable i think as long as one is not dirtied  :Smile: 
earthy is vast one thinks to last  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pompey Bum

> dirty is perfectly acceptable i think as long as one is not dirtied


Agreed. ;-)

*EARTHY*
That adjective given for earth
Is a mood that inclines toward a birth:
If today we say "flirty"
(For none dare call it dirty),
Still tomorrow it bumps a girl's girth.

----------


## cacian

> Agreed. ;-)
> 
> *EARTHY*
> That adjective given for earth
> Is a mood that inclines toward a birth:
> If today we say "flirty"
> (For none dare call it dirty),
> Still tomorrow it bumps a girl's girth.


howdy that is a nice perky piece
did you write that?
and is
a girl's girth
her waist?

----------


## Pompey Bum

Thanks.  :Smile:  

Yes, I write all my own stuff. And yes, a girth is the measurement of a waist. Don't you have Limericks where you come from?

da DA da da DA da da DA (a)
da DA da da DA da da DA (a)
da DA da da DA (b)
da DA da da DA (b)
da DA da da DA da da DA (a)

And they're supposed to be risqué. They're easy and fun. Mine are mostly too, um, earthy to post, though. ;-)

----------


## cacian

> Thanks.  
> 
> Yes, I write all my own stuff. And yes, a girth is the measurement of a waist. Don't you have Limericks where you come from?
> 
> da DA da da DA da da DA (a)
> da DA da da DA da da DA (a)
> da DA da da DA (b)
> da DA da da DA (b)
> da DA da da DA da da DA (a)
> ...


Limerick and I don't agree i could never write one i have no idea why
i don't get the concept and god knows i have tried  :Wink: 
risky however is everywhere it depends how one perceives it though  :Smile:

----------


## Pompey Bum

Ms. Cacian's a lady I know;
She cannot write a Limerick, though.
She's just not satisfied 
(Though God knows that she's tried),
For risqué rhythms lead her to woe.

That's how you do it.  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> Ms. Cacian's a lady I know;
> She cannot write a Limerick, though.
> She's just not satisfied 
> (Though God knows that she's tried),
> For risqué rhythms lead her to woe.
> 
> That's how you do it.


haha nice one Pompey
you have a talent for this style of poetry haha 
i like this one too  :Biggrin: 
it looks easy 
but i just isn't to me to write  :Smile: 

Pompey are you into poetry or prose ?

----------


## Pompey Bum

I am a reader and critic of prose. I've read a lot of poetry, but aside from epic poems and verse drama, I don't pretend to have much insight about it. I love to write metered doggerel though, and sometimes little epigrams. But I don't mistake them for anything other than games.

----------


## Ecurb

> can i ask what you see when you look at a nude painting and then a fully clothed one?
> Ultimately, I am looking for a work of art that speaks to me... and continues to speak to me over time.


With paintings, I look, but don't hear
To me, they say little, I fear.
Neither do I look
At an audio book,
At least not while trying to steer.

I'm sure some artists have tried adding sound tracks or sound effects to their paintings -- animators certainly have. It might add to the art museum experience if paintings spoke to you. Some might shill for themselves: "Hey! Psst! Hey you! Over here! Check me out, I'm naked."

Perhaps "Young Princesse" (from Stluke's offerings above) could simply bark.

----------


## cacian

> With paintings, I look, but don't hear
> To me, they say little, I fear.
> Neither do I look
> At an audio book,
> At least not while trying to steer.
> 
> I'm sure some artists have tried adding sound tracks or sound effects to their paintings -- animators certainly have. It might add to the art museum experience if paintings spoke to you. Some might shill for themselves: "Hey! Psst! Hey you! Over here! Check me out, I'm naked."
> 
> Perhaps "Young Princesse" (from Stluke's offerings above) could simply bark.


nice poem by they way 
it speaks and does not shout

to me nudity in art shouts louder then anything
it is in case one does not want to look so nude exposes ways to attract an audience
how else the artist thinks?
an artist thinks i get to be looked at for as long as i maintain nude evposes 
i guess i that is the trick.

the other thing about art is that it must not should not and could not talk
to look we use our eyes and to think we use imagination
if art spoke we would not listen because no matter what it would say it would contradict the painting it is offering us to look at
art therefore does not speak or it will defeat the meek.
the idea is to baffle without sound 
nudity does not baffle but numbs even though is shouts. 
cruelty? 
i say it is nudity it exposes hilarity because even though it shouts those who can't hear it hear it and those who can can't.

----------

