The Instigator
PokemonGirl
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Debate_King1475
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should nudity in art be frowned upon?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Debate_King1475
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,611 times Debate No: 63090
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

PokemonGirl

Con

I believe that nudity it simply a part of art. Each human is a masterpiece and nudity in art should not be frowned upon or covered up, due to it just being a part of the art. If used in the appropriate manner, it is beautiful. Some of the world's greatest artist used nudity in their art.
Debate_King1475

Pro

Nudity in art is offensive, not to me personally, but it is offensive to society in the larger sense. I understand that we have a right to liberty but just because we have a right to liberty does not mean we can do whatever we want. . Some of the greatest artworks may have had nudes in them to show the beauty of the human body during that time period. However, society as a whole does not show many nude photo because they are offensive and that is not the way we show the beauty of the human body anymore. If they aren't offensive, then why are we not showing them in school and drawing them in school. Society today requires the use of clothes in the world and in art.

The argument said should it be looked down upon and not should it be illegal. Legally, I see no reason why it should be illegal, but there should be restrictions such as in school to convey society's disapproval of these pictures and to allow those who disapprove to be freed from having to look at nude art.
Debate Round No. 1
PokemonGirl

Con

The only reason it is offensive to society is because of how sensitive our society has become. The only reason we find it offensive is because we are being slowly persuaded into thinking that the naked body is something dirty and it should be hidden. Nudes should be acceptable in art classes and schools because it helps the artist learn how to draw the body. It is a part of an artist's toolkit they have. It is one of the main things an artist needs to learn to get better. Plus, nudity in art helps express a point. Using elaborate clothing takes away from the person because your attention is drawn to something else. Keeping your model nude helps express a point.
Debate_King1475

Pro

Our society is sensitive??? We are listening to the most offensive tv, music, and reading racist and offensive stuff online in history and you call that sensitive??? The problem is the connotation that it has in our society today. Because of the connotation of lust and sluttish nature, we have been tricked into thinking that it is a bad thing. BUT THAT IS HOW SOCIETY HAS BECOME!! We should think that it is offensive not because the actual content is offensive but the connotation that has been brought up in society makes it offensive. Basically, times have changed.
Debate Round No. 2
PokemonGirl

Con

Our society is sensitive to certain things, but that is not the point here.
Basically what I'm trying to say in my arguments is, nudity in art should be accepted because it is the human body, it is anatomy. Nudity in art is usually (and should be) portrayed in a delicate and respectful manner. Art is art, no matter what it looks like. It is not the artist problem how people lust after a nude painting, sculpture, drawing, etc. The artist wanted to catch a moment of some kind or portray something and that was the best way to. To some people, nudity in art is offensive, but that just depends on how immature they are. People should be able to look at the human body without thinking innapropriate thoughts. It is not the artist's fault on how you think.
Debate_King1475

Pro

Debate_King1475 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Debate_King1475 2 years ago
Debate_King1475
But by putting the nudity in art, it may offend some people and the connotation is different today than it was in Greek times. Remember the question was worded a little bit poorly. It said should it be looked down upon. By the standards of today's society, yes.
Posted by dr_orbital 2 years ago
dr_orbital
Nudity represent human body. How could nature be offensive? We might choose to believe so....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
PokemonGirlDebate_King1475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con confused science with art. If the topic was, "The naked body should be included in high school textbooks," then Con would have won. The problem is Con never explains how the naked body qualifies as art. Sensation isn't beauty. Pro also makes interesting points about living in an insensitive society and context. Con's retort of the audience lusting after nakedness isn't the artist's fault seems backwards too, especially after what was said before about sensitivity, and honestly, I can't really blame Pro for not responding because at that point, nothing needed to be said. Artists are supposed to be considerate of their audiences in order to avoid making unintended impressions. Otherwise, art is just bullying, so we might as well just tolerate the destruction of artists themselves. I mean Con's point is basically, "It's my right to tickle you, but not your right to lash out." Yea, OK. Artists aren't expected to control themselves, but audiences have to? I don't think so!