![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Awesome Article on Nude Modeling
Found in the Chicago Tribune.
"Artists don't want models to all look alike," agreed Mandy Corrado, 27, of Evanston, who modeled while a student at the Art Institute of Chicago. "They appreciate models for their uniqueness and differences. Artists can look at people of all shapes and sizes and see beauty in them. ... To be accepted by artists for who you are and what you look like, without being judged, is liberating."
Still, using all types of models can meet resistance, Rosen said.
"If you're in a classroom or in workshop situations, [students] have very big responses to that. They'll be like, 'I don't want to draw her;,she's too fat. I don't want to draw her; she's too skinny. I don't want to draw him; he's a him.' "
Then it's up to the teacher to set people straight.
"Today we are drawing this person," Rosen said she tells students. "That's what's so interesting about drawing from life. ... Somebody's willing to sit there for us. They're sacred. And they should be treated as such. They're a gift."
It's not only students who might have the wrong image of art models.
"In society at large, it's quite misunderstood," said Corrado, who is now the assistant to the director of human resources at a Chicago company and a working artist. "For example ... people I tell [that she used to model], they look at me funny, they look at me weird, like, 'Oooh, a sex worker.'."
And it is SO frustrating whenever I think about how I'll ever have to explain this to people I know, that I DO happen to take off my clothes for more or less complete strangers, for the sake of art. Some people are all like "I'd have to be paid X amount of money", as if putting a price on their nakedness makes them all the more valuable than people who get paid the pittance we receive for the sake of art.
So far, I haven't had to explain this, because I somehow surround myself with really awesome people who understand and really like my work.
"It goes back, really, to the Renaissance," he said. "The underlying thought is you draw from a live model to develop your visual thinking skills, develop a strong foundation that you can use in whatever medium you choose. ... You can see, like, these drawings, Raphael drawing the nude figure in a study for a finished clothed figure in a painting. "Thinking about the education side of it, the human figure provides almost limitless teaching opportunities. You're talking about volume, mass, light, structure, anatomy, all these key concepts that an artist needs to learn."
Goodness YES.
Having been working on my costume for a while now, I'm so much more keenly aware of what cloth can and cannot do as a result of trying to design this dress, and I can imagine that artists become that much more aware of what the human body really is like when trying to draw an actual human, rather than ome stylized vision of what a human might look like.
And yes, there is sometimes that ewwwwww factor.
Corrado tells of a robe she used to wear, black silk with red flowers. Artists loved it. Sometimes too much.
"I'd hate it when they'd say, 'Keep your robe on. Just drape it, just show one breast.' I'd go, 'Oh, I'd rather be naked.' I mean, [their suggestion was] seductive, erotic. ... In a group setting? 'Show this, show that.' Ooohhh."
Yeah, I'd rather take off all my clothes too.
The idea of half-dressed-ness lies in the temptation, the hint of a striptease.
What grates me most often is the idea that nude = porn. Nudity happens in porn, yes, but porn does not happen just because someone is in the nude. Hell, porn doesn't even have to be dirty - it only happens to be so because we have some messed up, IMMODEST ideas that just because a person is without clothes, it means they WILL have sex (and this is bad because...?), which i a fallacy in itself.
Without clothes, in nudity, there are no hints. No teasing. It's a "this is what I am, FUCKING DEAL WITH IT" sort of attitude.
So the whole 'look-innocent-but-show-a-boobie' makes no sense to me from an artistic point of view, because as I wrote to an artist recently, the point of getting clothes off is to how the natural beauty of a person. To ask them to put on this show is hyper-sexualisation, and that's not natural anymore. Bodies aren't inherently sexual. So why sex it up? We're surrounded by hyper-sexualisation everywhere already - to actually portray a nude body as it is (i.e., not necessarily sexual nor particularly alluring) isn't really common enough.
It's a wonderfully-written article, and I highly encourage more people to read it. Not enough people really understand these little things about art modeling, and as a hobbyist model, it feels very gratifying to see someone taking art models so seriously.
"Artists don't want models to all look alike," agreed Mandy Corrado, 27, of Evanston, who modeled while a student at the Art Institute of Chicago. "They appreciate models for their uniqueness and differences. Artists can look at people of all shapes and sizes and see beauty in them. ... To be accepted by artists for who you are and what you look like, without being judged, is liberating."
Still, using all types of models can meet resistance, Rosen said.
"If you're in a classroom or in workshop situations, [students] have very big responses to that. They'll be like, 'I don't want to draw her;,she's too fat. I don't want to draw her; she's too skinny. I don't want to draw him; he's a him.' "
Then it's up to the teacher to set people straight.
"Today we are drawing this person," Rosen said she tells students. "That's what's so interesting about drawing from life. ... Somebody's willing to sit there for us. They're sacred. And they should be treated as such. They're a gift."
It's not only students who might have the wrong image of art models.
"In society at large, it's quite misunderstood," said Corrado, who is now the assistant to the director of human resources at a Chicago company and a working artist. "For example ... people I tell [that she used to model], they look at me funny, they look at me weird, like, 'Oooh, a sex worker.'."
And it is SO frustrating whenever I think about how I'll ever have to explain this to people I know, that I DO happen to take off my clothes for more or less complete strangers, for the sake of art. Some people are all like "I'd have to be paid X amount of money", as if putting a price on their nakedness makes them all the more valuable than people who get paid the pittance we receive for the sake of art.
So far, I haven't had to explain this, because I somehow surround myself with really awesome people who understand and really like my work.
"It goes back, really, to the Renaissance," he said. "The underlying thought is you draw from a live model to develop your visual thinking skills, develop a strong foundation that you can use in whatever medium you choose. ... You can see, like, these drawings, Raphael drawing the nude figure in a study for a finished clothed figure in a painting. "Thinking about the education side of it, the human figure provides almost limitless teaching opportunities. You're talking about volume, mass, light, structure, anatomy, all these key concepts that an artist needs to learn."
Goodness YES.
Having been working on my costume for a while now, I'm so much more keenly aware of what cloth can and cannot do as a result of trying to design this dress, and I can imagine that artists become that much more aware of what the human body really is like when trying to draw an actual human, rather than ome stylized vision of what a human might look like.
And yes, there is sometimes that ewwwwww factor.
Corrado tells of a robe she used to wear, black silk with red flowers. Artists loved it. Sometimes too much.
"I'd hate it when they'd say, 'Keep your robe on. Just drape it, just show one breast.' I'd go, 'Oh, I'd rather be naked.' I mean, [their suggestion was] seductive, erotic. ... In a group setting? 'Show this, show that.' Ooohhh."
Yeah, I'd rather take off all my clothes too.
The idea of half-dressed-ness lies in the temptation, the hint of a striptease.
What grates me most often is the idea that nude = porn. Nudity happens in porn, yes, but porn does not happen just because someone is in the nude. Hell, porn doesn't even have to be dirty - it only happens to be so because we have some messed up, IMMODEST ideas that just because a person is without clothes, it means they WILL have sex (and this is bad because...?), which i a fallacy in itself.
Without clothes, in nudity, there are no hints. No teasing. It's a "this is what I am, FUCKING DEAL WITH IT" sort of attitude.
So the whole 'look-innocent-but-show-a-boobie' makes no sense to me from an artistic point of view, because as I wrote to an artist recently, the point of getting clothes off is to how the natural beauty of a person. To ask them to put on this show is hyper-sexualisation, and that's not natural anymore. Bodies aren't inherently sexual. So why sex it up? We're surrounded by hyper-sexualisation everywhere already - to actually portray a nude body as it is (i.e., not necessarily sexual nor particularly alluring) isn't really common enough.
It's a wonderfully-written article, and I highly encourage more people to read it. Not enough people really understand these little things about art modeling, and as a hobbyist model, it feels very gratifying to see someone taking art models so seriously.
no subject
(man, you're like the side of me that wants to be out and free, only you actually are out and free while I'm all too scared. I want your...i dunno, bravery? fearlessness? lazzeiz-faire? spelling skills?)
no subject
You might be able to find some opportunities on MM - that's how I got connected to the live art group I've posed for before: met a painter on there who got me in touch with the co-ordinator of a live art group at a different university.
I miss live art modeling, though. Wish I had more opportunities to do some, but it's limited here in Halifax!