Should nudity in art be frowned upon?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.