Personally, I would have to ask myself why I was friends with such prudes if I found out they were making this kind of comment about me. I'm all for nude art - it's not pornography, for goodness sake!

A) I can't believe that anyone would be offended by this type of art! I may be biased as an art student that spends 6 hours per WEEK looking at nude people, but I think these are gorgeous.

B) If anyone is looking for pieces of art that look very similar to this style of nude sketch or ink drawing - I recommend going to an art school or posting on craigslist looking for students. I had a life drawing class earlier today and probably did about 20 of these.

I think I might take down a nude artwork if, say, I knew my conservative grandparents were coming over, and if it was also a large and imposing piece (we have one...it's currently in the laundry room) and if it was in the sitting area. I wouldn't enjoy having to do this but I wouldn't want it to be a distraction, since I don't see them too often. But in general, I would not want to tailor my home decor to other people's tastes. Then again, most of the people who would be visiting us are artsy types who would not be offended.

I am tempted to agree with bakingstone, and like stainedglasslove I was also an art student and looking at the nude human body doesn't bother me. I think it's kind of strange to be offended by the human body.

My grandparents had wallpaper in their bathroom (one that was used by all guests) that was scenes of nude women in roman baths- and then there were 2 small nude paintings in the bathroom as well. I definitely found it slightly funny as a child, but it really wasn't a big deal. Oh and my grandparents were pretty conservative- but I guess they considered it tasteful decor? who knows...

Somehow I think hiding them all in the bedroom would seem was more creepy. Wherever the piece looks best is my vote. Though, it should be noted we did once lose a craiglist sale of our couch likely because the couple's 10 year old son was fix eyed on the one above the mantel. They left pretty quickly.

I was thinking about this the other day as I was contemplating where to hang this:
http://bit.ly/cWh9l

I have a young daughter and though I love the print, I don't know how her young friends will react. Maybe it's a different issue, I don't know.

That said, I do remember going into people's houses and sometimes feeling uncomfortable by some of the art on the walls. Some of it was weird (like psychedelic black light posters) and sometimes the subjects made me uncomfortable (portraits that looked sad or scary or dark). Anyone relate?

Actually nude art was considered pornography before there were cameras too. Besides photography is an art too. So if it's called porn when it's a photo why isn't it porn in another medium? We still live in a society where we wear clothing in public (most everywhere). Whether we consider ourselves 'sophisticated' or think that we should have grown up or beyond that is not the point. If a person had pornographic photographs on their walls how would you feel about that? Just because it's an artistic rendering doesn't really change that it is an image of a naked being and nakedness evokes discomfort and/or arousal because of the social norms of the society in which we live.

I think everyone here has some very valid points. I studied art for several years, and also have a degree in visual communication/advertising. Images are powerful, and meant to elicit a response from the viewer. My favorite medium to use has always been pencil, and my favorite subjects are the nude body. However, I do keep in mind that what I consider very beautiful and tasteful is not necessarily what my neighbor or father might appreciate. In fact, they may find it downright offensive. Just because my friends or family don't understand the image or cannot find beauty in it does not mean they are too 'prudish' to be friends with (there is also something very interesting and art-worthy in the attitudes and appearances of more uptight individuals as well, but that's another story). They simply have had a vastly different upbringing and life experience than I have. And while my home is my own, I also want others to feel welcome there. My rule of thumb has always been to choose nudes that are less likely to offend in more public areas of the home, and save the others for less traveled areas of my home.

I'm curious about this one, so I hope more people comment.

The level of realism matters. David is quite realistic, but the sketches in the first one have barely distinguishable privates.

The tone matters too. Do they stare at you? What's their expression? Is it sexual or just naked?

What's showing? Venus de Milo's breasts get fewer awkward glances than David's penis.

Interesting topic... Reminds me of the time my husband & I went to my friend's husband's small art show. My friend mentioned that she would have some photographs in the show as well, and she sounded so serious when telling me. So I jokingly said, "Well it's not like it will be naked pictures of you or anything!" (hardee- har-har) and she was like, "Well, um, actually there will be..." LOL! We still laugh about that.

Couldn't agree more, cashba! It's very much those three things (tone, realism, and exposure) that set the stage for reception by the viewer. Right on, right on.

Re: "Venus de Milo's breasts get fewer awkward glances than David's penis."

I think that is a huge component of the question; female nudes tend to elicit a smaller reaction than male nudes, naked breasts are less shocking than naked genitals, black and white is less confrontational than color (both b&w vs. color photography and a totally b&w drawing vs. one with pink/red nipples), etc. etc. etc.

Most everybody has some point where they are "uncomfortable" with a nude representation - for some, no nudity is OK, for others, a small b&w sketch would be fine, but a big color photograph of a nude woman would not be...

In my house, I decorate to my comfort level. If any of my guests are made uncomfortable, I apologize, but I wouldn't take down art I like just so other people won't be offended. As a side note, though, I don't have a lot of children visiting my house, so I don't really have to consider that angle.

@SeaJenL: Porn is people engaging in sexual activity, no? I disagree with your assessment that an artistic nude is materially indistinct from porno mags. Furthermore, the U.S., at least, is still a rather uptight, Puritanical country and the only way to change this, since our lawmakers seem intent on keeping us all tied, voluntarily or no, to conservative Christian standards of marriage/healthcare/sex ed, is to refuse to behave like Puritans in our own homes. Grassroots sanity! Exposing kids to artistic nudes, like the European tendency to allow moderate, supervised consumption of alcohol by under-18s, might make 'em less apt to go all crazy when they get older. The human body doesn't always have to be sexualized, and the fact that we tend only to see it as such is a big part of the problem.

I'm intrigued by the human body and since my home is mine, I have pictures of it posted where I find them most attractive.

I understand if visitors have different responses to it but it's my house and if you've been invited to visit it, you probably already have some idea about what you might see here--tehehe...

Unlike a lot of commentators, I'm not an artist/student, and I don't fully understand why people take issue with nudes either. It's...art. Anyhow, it's your stuff, in your home. Put it where it looks right.

My parents were artists, so we had nude art around the house and I never thought anything of it.

Come to think of it, I have a small nude bronze sculpture sitting in my living room right now! But I made it, so I reserve the right to put it where ever I please. :P

I would say use a bit of common sense. As emmelemm pointed out, there are different levels of nudity that tend to be more or less acceptable by most people.

If the art looks "classical" enough (ie it looks like a style older than 200 years) then you can get away with anything except a penis. Think of how many nude greek statues you've seen without batting an eye.

With more modern stuff, the more abstract something is the safer it will be for general areas - little nude doodles will raise fewer eyebrows than photos, etc.

And again, only do this if you are worried about upsetting people. If you don't particularly care, then put up whatever you like! It's your home.

My grandmother used to have nudes hanging in the front entranceway of her house. That they were things like "After the Bath" by Paul Peel seemed to make it more 'acceptable' since they were sentimental paintings of children at bath time and not more audacious images. But my grandparents maintained a collection of figurines that included a few sizeable classical-greek-styled nudes too.

I think what matters most about the appropriateness of nude artwork is just how in-your-face it is, and its tone. Of course people are all going to have different opinions, but, as was previously said, there are very clear differences between things like bare bottoms and full-frontals, impressionistic blurred lines and crisp, clear photos, and scant pencil line drawings and full-colour depictions. Part of what makes art remarkable is that everyone interprets it differently. That's both the joy and the detractor to displaying art (publicly or in your home).

My immediate thought of how "too far" one can go with nudes in the home was to remember the supper scene from the Bird Cage where the uberconservative inlaws were dining at Robin Williams' character's home and admiring the "dancing greek boys" on the soup bowls! Everyone has different comfort levels for art. In the end, you alone (or you and your family) have to live with it, BUT I think you should also be able to justify it were a guest to be deeply offended by it. (e.g. Having a more in-your-face nude might draw a shocked response from your grandmother, but if you can say something like "this was drawn by my super talented artist friend, and I am so proud of her accomplishments that I want to show her talents to everyone" or "Gauguin's nudes are so important to art history blah blah blah...", you should be able to at least soften the initial shock!) We can't make people share our tastes, but we can try to make them understand why something is of value to us. ... this can be particularly important when encountering the enraged parents of your childrens' friends. ;)

i love nudes, i have drawn tons of them, i even considered posing nude (but the college wern't looking for models, weird) and have had some bouts as a stripper. its the human body, everyone has one, everyone has seen one, whats the issue? plus, its art, but i find when i was drawing a lot of nudes, once you've drawn 100 penises you just see them as another shape rather than what they are, but i still enjoy the form and accuracy of a decent drawing, and the abstract ones even better.

I have a nude line drawing over my fireplace. (O.K. ... it's a copy of a Matisse I bought at Ikea ... but still ...)

My brother-in-law snickered at it one night during a family dinner. At which point my 6 year old step-son said "Uh, it's art. Duh."

HAH! That cracked me up. Still does!

I personally think putting nudes in the bathroom/bedroom and hiding them away makes them feel much closer to pornography than just having them as wall art in the living room. It's a human body - hopefully we all have them. I think they only become offensive when we try to pretend this isn't so.

I just spent a week figuring out where to hang my lifetime collection of etchings, photographs and paintings given to me by various artists (I have definitely been blessed). One of them has some nudity and I was asking a friend who has no children where he thought I should put it, and he said, "wherever you want". I countered with, "well what about children who visit?" Do you really have friends that are such prudes that their kids have never seen nudes in art?

Ultimately I ended up putting it in the master bedroom, where everyone who comes through on a tour, just ignores it (adults and children alike).

I have never considered that a nude would offend anyone. I've been in very traditionally decorated homes with nude paintings over the fireplace, etc, and I've always considered nude drawings rather formal in a way. I would not think twice about hanging nude drawings. That said, I have taken figure drawing classes, and I have posed nude for an artist friend of mine. So maybe I have a different perspective than some, but I don't think I'm way out there.

When I was a kid, no nude drawing would have shocked me. Do you realize how much stuff kids see on TV, in movies, at their own homes? Kids see their parents naked, their friends naked, etc. It isn't shocking to the kids, but it may be shocking to the parents who assume that it will be shocking to their kids. But really, children are intelligent people, they can handle a little nudity.

I think there is a big difference between nudity and nakedness, a difference which usually delineates my own level of comfort. If the body is rendered lovingly, with an appreciation for its shape and variation from other bodies, then it's a nude. If the body is meant to be gazed at like a dress I want in a store window -- as a commodity or sort of tool -- then it is naked. I feel that the individuals who feel uncomfortable with nude art would mistakenly classify the pieces we're discussing as naked.

I think it was Lewis Grizzard, the Southern humorist, who said " There is a difference between being naked and being nekkid. Naked is when you have no clothes on- nekkid is when you have no clothes on and you're up to something." I think this applies to art too.

I am currently spending time looking for a new house in southern sweden, spending at least an hour each day looking through pictures of the interior of houses on the market. In sweden nudes are NOT an issue. As someone said, IKEA sells them for god's sake! But I must say, looking at pictures of people's houses, it is truly creepy how people keep the rest of their house all art-free and IKEA-ish, only to adorn their bedrooms with dungeon-like candles, tribal sculptures of people embracing and sketches of nude men and women. I say, bringing a nude into the light of day keeps it neutral and allows you to enjoy the artistic aspect of it. Keeping it in the bedroom makes me think of what you might be doing in there at night... eeeew.

@Mercy: oh, totally. I think my folks quoted that one at me a few times, growing up.

But that's mostly because the picture that always hung in the guest half-bath was... well, I suppose words don't really capture it.

Sure, I've had friends who've come out of the bathroom looking slightly pop-eyed, but I'm the second generation to display it, so it's not cheap anymore, it's almost an antique. It's practically a family heirloom! Okay, not classic like the mahogany poker table, but hey, anyone could have a mahogany side table, but very few can claim Daisy Duck does Early Bordello. Though if that's a family heirloom, it probably says a lot about my family. But since I like what it says, that's fine with me.

Therefore, to anyone stressed about being known as a Naked House, I say, embrace your notoriety, and live it up with style!

The human form is a beautiful thing to begin with and it's beautiful on paper too. Display it. Appreciate it.

I'm... gobsmacked by this topic.

It was never an issue growing up in Canada (parents had some nude sketches, I went to art school and spent 6 hours a week drawing nudes for 3 years...)...

...and it sure isn't an issue in Europe.

Violence on tv and movies (incredibly explicit violence, gory CSI episodes, etc.) doesn't elicit comment, but nudes do??

Amen mschatelaine!

I think if a piece of art (including photos) is beautiful, you should hang it. That said, use common sense. If the piece is explicitly sexual (google Pierre et Gille if you don't think art can be sexual without being pornographic) and you have children coming around often, you probably shouldn't hang it. You might be fine with your kids seeing it (I probably would), but every parent has a right to decide when to introduce their kids to sex.

I can't believe it. I write from Spain and no, nudes are not an issue in Europe. I would have never thought of it.

My mother announced to me over the phone one day that she had framed and hung one of the drawings I'd brought home from my intro-drawing class in college. Was it the still-life with squash (why is there always squash? another topic...)? No, it was the three-nudes I'd done as an over-lapping pose. So now there are three, fairly stylized black-ink male nudes on the dining room wall. It was briefly over the mantle.

There is a huge difference between nudity and Nekkidness. Nudity is about line, form, and volume. I'll admit to briefly dating one of the male models in my drawing class, but he wasn't even cute to me until he put his pants on and started talking about his interests.

I have the same problem. Being an artist nudes don't bother me. But I know not everyone is an artist or has the same views on beauty that I do. I personally have not hung any of my own nude sketches because I have kids and most of my friends have kids that come over, and I am not going to make another adult feel pushed into having a discussion about it when their kid asks them questions LOL. I agree with most people here that 1). if you don't have many kids coming over... put them wherever you want to display them. Any adult visiting your house should be mature enough to either not comment or appreciate it as much as you do. 2) that there is a major difference between pornographic images and nudes as an art subject.

As an artist and former artists' model, I think this is hilarious. If people are shocked or taken aback by the human form, I have to really wonder what's going on in their psyche. There are so many other real problems to be concerned about.

I would say that it depends on the pose. Someone I know has two nude paintings/drawings by her sister. One of them is really lovely and I think would look really nice anywhere in the house, but the other one is a woman lying down, with legs apart, and drawn from the vantage point of the foot of the platform or whatever it was she was lying on. A direct view, shall we say. Not really something I want to see while drinking my tea! My friend has moved it to the laundry room though.

Being an artist myself, and having many talented friends, i have had all types of art in my home through the years, guests and relatives have always appreciated it, nudes included, although it seems of late some of the more politically themed art seems to illicit more questioning comments (sign of the times?).
The only time I ever had a reaction to a nude in my home was years ago when my sister was visiting with her three young kids for a long weekend in the city. She is one of my best friends and we are a close family. I had always had a nude of a friend hanging in the entrance to my bathroom. The whole family had seen it many times before, with no comments other than it was a really beautiful photo.
Later, on the day of this particular arrival my 5 year old niece came out of the bathroom and asked "mama, why is the mans penis covered up?" I and my guests looked questioningly at each other. We followed my niece into the bathroom. My sister, in a sudden puritanical moment, had covered over the middle half of the photo with toilet paper and some tape from her purse!! We all burst out laughing! My sister was red-faced, my niece and guests confused! Now many years later we still laugh about that incident. Had it not been for my siblings "censorship" the photo would not have been given the slightest notice.

I've been lurking here for a long long time, and I'm kind of sad that this is the topic that's going to make me emerge from anonymity. But the comments to this question are more than a little one sided, and it seems worthwhile to bring in a different perspective.

Before I jump in with my perspective, I'd like to sum up what I've heard so far:

"Why are you friends with people who are offended by public displays of nudity (prudes)?"

"I'm an artist, so it doesn't bother me. Therefore no one else should be bothered either."

"It was never an issue when I was growing up. It shouldn't be one for anyone now."

"Hang it wherever you want. It's your house."

I'd like to apologize right now, because I'm probably going to offend most of you with the following statement: all four of these ideas are basically selfish.

The question the article is really asking is "Would it be better to make people feel comfortable in my home, or is it OK to display possibly offensive material?"

If you are going to entertain people; if you are going to invite them to come into your space; if you are attempting to make them feel comfortable, wouldn't a better question be "What would make my guest feel most welcome?"

With the exception of a gathering of artists who enjoy drawing, painting and photographic nudes, I have a hard time believing that the answer would be "Hanging nudes on the walls."

I'd never even have a second thought about people displaying nudes in their homes. If I went to my friends' houses and saw a Thomas Kinkaide on the wall, however, I'd be offended beyond belief.

First of all, the human body is NOT pornography. We're not talking about graphic images of people having sex, are we? I say, hang what you want in your own home; you know who your friends are. And if certain guests are offended by your taste or your artwork, stop inviting them over. Or tell them to mind their own business. Again, if you love it, hang it. You're going to censor the art in your own home??? C'mon.

Also, why would it be okay to hang a nude in a public art museum, but not in a private home? Do people avoid the David when they visit Florence? I'd find that hard to believe. My public school educated kids take field trips to the art museum, along with all of their public school friends. I've never heard of parents keeping their kids home because they're afraid of them being exposed to naked bodies. Why should it be any different in a private home.

I remember buying my sister a poster of Matisse's The Dance. She couldn't put the poster up in her house because her mother in law would be offended because the people were nude. It never dawned on me that they were nude. To me, that was like saying a kid couldn't draw a stick figure because that, also, was nude. I was just oblivious. Never dawned on me that someone would pick out "naked" from the picture, when all I saw was "joy."

When the pics you show above offend people, and they are barely "articulated" people, I wonder what they would not be offended by? Are they offended by the mannequin used by art students?

I think your own home should be a place you enjoy & where you celebrate what you personally find beautiful. It is the place where you are selfish, self-centered & where your own personal expression should be allowed. If not at home, where are we ever to be allowed personal expression?

It seems to me that as pornography has become more prevalent that nudity in general is getting a bad rap. The question should be: "What is the intent behind the picture?"

If it's intended to be provocative, shocking or arousing then perhaps we should use discretion in regard to where we'd display it. But to take offense at nudity in any form is unhealthy. Old illustrated bibles portrayed Eve topless. Depending on context and presentation the human body is as beautiful and inoffensive as anything else in nature.

A little exposure to tasteful nudity enables children (and people in general) to be able to view the human body without it necessarily seeming illicit. Shielding children from nude art simply reinforces the idea that nudity is dirty. Would you rather your sons first exposure to a naked body was an Arthur Rackham picture or a Penthouse he found?

I grew up in the rural Midwest, and I was never exposed to nude drawings as a child, unless maybe they were in one of the Childcraft Books about art or anatomy! Since then, I've befriended many artists and seen many, many nude drawings. I have to say that growing up that way made me much more likely to notice nudes. That doesn't mean I'm offended. It just means its something that elicits a stronger response in me than say, a squash.

I feel that the drawings above are very neutral. Most advertising is more sexual. But I have seen some nude art that I would call "confrontationally sexual," as if it's point is to say, "Sex should be out in the open, and if you don't agree, get out of my house!" And dropping friends who don't like your artwork? Seriously? I really don't get that my-way-or-the-highway attitude, whether pro-nude or anti-nude. Do you really want to ban everyone from your house who doesn't agree with you on such a minor aspect of life as whether or not to hang nudes? Or do you think being slightly uncomfortable with nudity is a symptom of some deeper perversion? "Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach," as the song goes.

@mschatelaine,
I agree. Perhaps it's a US thing? They're still in a flap over Janet Jackson's nipple reveal from a few years back. I can't think of another country where that would have caused such a commotion, except perhaps the middle east.

I once cleaned house for an older couple (70 ) that had nude photographs, of the wife, in their master bed and bath. One was a photo of her in a pink sweatshirt and high-top sneakers, with nothing covering the downstairs. The other was a picture of her in some racy lingerie. And they were taken when she was well into her sixties. Now THAT was akward! and I'm not one to blush.

I really wonder sometimes if Americans are just too sensitive on the subject of nudity. When my husband and I were in our mid twenties, we took a trip to London and Edinburgh. We found it pretty funny that they only had four TV channels, so whenever we turned on the set we would pretend to be very serious about our 'evening entertainment'. Well, then we saw a commercial featuring an older couple, who happened to be nude, wandering in an idyllic green pasture. I don't even remember what the commercial was for because this was so mind blowing. In America, being seen without clothes is 'not done', unless you are young and sexy. So, nude, to an American, equals sex. And sex, to an American, is something we rarely talk about except to our closest friends, or when we can be anonymous.
The difference between art and pornogrophy, normal and strange, sexy and just naked, is really just in how often something is seen. Hiding images in a closet turns them into something forbidden and secretive. Sure, art is in the eye of the beholder, but I wouldn't want my friends to have to hide parts of their life from me because they were afraid I was judging them. If I found out someone was taking down artwork that they considered beautiful, just because I was visiting them, I would be ashamed. Of myself.

I've been thinking about this some more. To be honest, I don't find most nudes offensive. Though, as minichristine pointed out, a lot of what can bother a person about a nude is WHERE it is placed. The comment in this case being that having nudes in the bedroom can actually make them appear even MORE provocative than if you had one hanging over your piano. I still stand by the sentiment that the style and kind of image are VERY IMPORTANT to the potential offensiveness of the piece.

The art I am actually bothered by, though (which may seem odd to some of you), are those Flemish still life or scene paintings of recently killed animals set out on the table waiting to be skinned or plucked for supper. Talk about effective dieting aid. (e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_SNYDERS,_The_Pantry.JPG) And the most often chosen location for these beauties just so happens to be the kitchen/dining room. Now, the facts that I am not a vegetarian, and that I actually don't mind being involved in the cleaning and preparing of freshly-caught supper (like fish, for instance) should mean that this kind of art doesn't bother me, but it does. And I KNOW that some vegan and vegetarian guests would be hard-pressed to not be bothered by such paintings.

Does that mean that I (or anyone) ought not to display them? I've been in homes with these paintings. The best approach I've found is to not look at them if you know they're going to bother you. It is not your home, you are a guest. And while the host should be doing their best to make you comfortable, everything else about their home reflects who they are. Why not embrace the experience and appreciate their home for what it is, including the potentially offensive-to-you art and be glad that you don't have it hanging on your own wall. People have reasons for displaying the art that they do. If it bothers you THAT much, ask them about it.

Sistine Chapel, anyone?

i'm with shanalulu and mschatelaine.

and what's with the common thread of "what if kids come over"? is there something about children that makes the human body destructive to their minds? it's silly. being exposed to the human body is like being exposed to responsible alcohol consumption. and it sure is better than being exposed to all the violence on tv.

i once watched a movie in the US that had a censorship bar across the naked buttocks of someone. it cracked me up - don't we all have butts? every last one of us?

my house is filled with female nudes i've painted that i fondly call my t & a pics. if someone has issue with them, it's their problem, not mine. i don't even think about it.

the bathroom is fairly apropos & could give the art the feeling of a more purposeful collection.

I think they're appropriate anywhere in the home - the only place so far that I've found them questionable is in an employer's office - only because it occasionally will elicit a remark from a coworker and you REALLY don't want to know if you're working with a prude or a perv!

I have done some nude drawings... none are hanging in my house, yet. If I do hang them, they'll go in more private spaces. It has more to do with me than it does with the response of others who might enter my house.

This is just my personal philosophy, so I would never condemn someone else for not feeling the same. But for me, I like to respect the people I have drawn, and I interpret that as keeping their bodies in a more private setting. I like the idea of privacy and not becoming desensitized. It adds an extra dynamic to intimacy.

My spouse is a photographer, so we have a lot of nude photography around the house. Even if he were not, most of our collection focuses on the human form in some way, so we would be hard pressed to avoid having this in our home.

If we can tell a guest is distracted by the art, we bring photography into the conversation. In response, we usually get a question about which photos are of us. This personal connection seems to be the real source of discomfort.

I acknowledge it might be selfish to display art that some might find distracting or offensive. Honestly, though, we are proud of my spouse's work. Why would we hide it? Not displaying it sends a message that we are somehow ashamed of it.

I think it equally selfish of a guest to expect someone to rearrange his/her home at the level of decor to remove potential discomfort. Should we decorate our homes all alike so that all uncertainty is removed -- I mean, someone might hate stripes. Should we cover up the stripes when guests come to visit just in case they are distracting or discomfiting? At some point welcoming and accommodating your guests turns into effacing yourself and your own style.

I've never had a problem with displaying nude art anywhere. I consider the nude form a classic from art's history. I figure, since it goes back thousands of years, I can display some classics wherever I want to. But then again, I like making people uncomfortable... ;)

Wow, nudes in general never occurred to me to be a problem. I have a fair number in my apartment.

I do keep more sexual art out of public places because I'm very aware of what survivors of sexual violence can find triggering, which includes some friends, and I wouldn't want my living room to be uncomfortable. I have a traditional Indian drawing in my living room that has uncovered breasts, and a print of a torso, but anything with sprawled figures on beds is in my room. I think it's important to remember that a guest's discomfort might not just be prudishness.

The line drawings above I'd still probably feel okay putting in public, but I might refrain - just to avoid stupid comments and my ensuing annoyance.

I only know of one nude that elicited a really widespread response. A friend's dad was a painter and their house was full of his paintings. BUT... right smack above a doorway in their large front living room (the first thing you saw when you walked in) was a HUGE nude that was very obviously my friend's MOM. That... was somewhat uncomfortable. :)

"If it's intended to be provocative, shocking or arousing..."

Isn't the point of art to be, at the least, one of those three? Otherwise, it's decoration.

I think the only angle I'd have on this, that hasn't been discussed already, is that the human body, fully nude, is more or less meant to be a private thing. It can obviously be portrayed tastefully and classically, but I don't think I'd have nude art in my home. Still, I wouldn't be offended if I saw it somewhere else.

Having went to an art based college and having zillions of life drawing sketches crammed away in a closet now, I think nudes are fine! With a small caveat. I think quicker, loose type sketches like in the photo can look beautiful framed in any room particularly a bathroom or bedroom, but I wouldn't go so far as to post a highly rendered detailed drawing. Its one thing for your guests to see the sketched out human form, its quite another to hit them with an intricate drawing of an areola or penis when they turn a corner in your house.

Canadian, so perhaps that affects things, but...

how is this an issue? my parents had a poster in their bedroom that was suggestive - but it was also so popular that when they sold their house the buyer wanted to have he poster too, and I recall many of my parents' friends smiling to themselves when they saw it. I didn't know why, at the time (I was a child), but it dawned on me at some point and it's just always been part of who they are and what their house is. Nobody ever had a problem with it, as far back as I remember (mid 70s onward) and I grew up in a small prairie town in Alberta. Can't get much more conservative than that up here.

Honestly? My kids see my body naked every day. If they're going to get worked up about a painting, well...

clarification: they see my body naked because I leave the shower, or am heading into it and we're pretty free form in the family...

Nobody in my house ever had a problem with nude art or nudity at home. I wasn't raised with a feeling of shame over being, well, human!

Being an artist myself and working in an art shop, interestingly enough I can tell the families that avert their eyes from the nude paintings or act ashamed about having seen it, by the reactions of their children. The parents will do an about-turn to walk away from a painting and look at some landscape or abstract pretending they didn't see the nude there, while the kids will run up to it and point and giggle. "That picture has a BUTT/BOOBIES in it, Mommy! Look!" Then the parents blush furiously and stammer out some excuse or try to drag the child away from the painting somehow. I find that sort of situation really sad, and I wish it was my place to tell the kids that everyone has a bottom and that it's nothing to be ashamed of! Usually I just smile and nod while the family storms out of the gallery, their kid still giggling about butts or boobies.

The families who are more cultured about nudity will bring their children and they will actually say how pretty the nude painting is, and the whole family would have a perfectly normal reaction to nudes the same as they do to landscapes or abstracts.

Shanalulu is right on.

(except that i do voluntarily subscribe to Christian morality, and disagree vigorously that it means no nude art is acceptable. it's more of an American comfort thing than a Christian thing)

I have 2 nudes hanging in my living room. By artists I know personally(all my art is by artists I know or pieces with otherwise special meaning to me.) Neither show genitals.

Porn is meant to titillate, these are not; a figure drawing is far from a tijuana bible. The idea that the human form, tastefully depicted, is inappropriate is really bizarre to me.

It's MY HOME, I'll make it beautiful and personal however I see fit and I'll hang my art where it makes me happy.

Wow -- obviously the OP has hit a nerve. I think that most folks who might be described as 'offended' are actually uncomfortable, and there is a difference. I grew up in a very uptight, disfunctional home and, unfortunately have not really been able to completely outgrow that. However, I would never dream of judging someone else's art that they are displaying in their own home. And I hope I wouldn't describe someone's home as 'the house with all the nudes'.

I hesitate to post because the post number was at 69, and I hate to ruin that... It seems most of us are in agreement that tasteful nudes have a place in the home. Now, how about more titillating images? I was shocked (but impressed) to find a Hindu home in India with an enormous painting of the Buddha reclining, naked, and his penis grew into a tree! That painting had me transfixed. I was particularly shocked because present day India has a fairly conservative Victorian attitude, nothing like the olden days of Kama Sutra open sexuality.

I wouldn't want to be friends with somebody offended by someone offended by nude art. If everyone you know needs to agree with you artistically or politically...?

Josh W said:

"I'd like to apologize right now, because I'm probably going to offend most of you with the following statement: all four of these ideas are basically selfish.

The question the article is really asking is "Would it be better to make people feel comfortable in my home, or is it OK to display possibly offensive material?"

That's a very laudable sentiment, Josh. At the same time, there is no perfect answer to your questions.

Some people, for instance, have had very bad experiences with religion. An ex-Catholic friend I know has a very legitimate, very bad reaction to nuns, and large crosses make him uncomfortable. And he's certainly not the only one - there are plenty of people who feel uncomfortable around religious paraphernalia. I know some people in my own home town who would be very disturbed to sit in a living room that had an Islamic crescent moon, and flat out terrified if they saw a pentagram.

Does that mean we should not display any religious symbols in public areas of our home, because many people out there have strong emotional responses to them?

In the end, the best answer in judging whether something is suitable must be a personal one. What you couldn't imagine upsetting someone may be awful to someone else, and vice versa.

As an Art Educator I find this thread really interesting. I think it is part of our job as art lovers to educate society of the beauty of self expression. I don't mean by inviting our friends over to our nude clad living room for a lecture. I do mean that when friends come over and you have tasteful nudes hung on the walls, that you should think of that as exposure to culture for children and adults alike. Even if at the time it does make them feel a little uneasy (everyone has to start somewhere). Maybe that little bit of exposure helped them to feel a little more comfortable with art, and maybe in the future they will look past their issues and look at the art for it's beauty...not is lack of clothing.

I do have nude art work in my home, and my husbands aunt was once a very conservative nun who left the convent and had children... The conservative views of her family lead to some pretty interesting comments and facial contortions (haha)! I look at this as a chance for her to educate her children... when they leave the kids ask a lot of questions and I think that is fantastic, for this is how we LEARN!!! She also loves us very much and would never say anything negative to her children about us. I hope this would be the case with your friends when they visit your home with their children.

I think EliJack makes a good point. Prudishness and being uncomfortable around images of nudity aren't always directly related. I think that one does need to consider one's guests when hanging art, no matter what the subject. I think that insisting that everyone who I invite into my home immediately adapt to my values is as close-minded as labeling all nudes pornographic. Then again, I might not be allowed to have an opinion since I never took an art class, and all the artists in my family are musicians.

Reading all the responses that reference the study of art makes me wonder: why is it that approval of nudity or nude art a sign of open-mindedness and/or education?

this is a rather disturbing line of thought to me. should i remove my quran, statue of buddha and copy of "origin of species" when my devoutly religious friends and in-laws come over? should they remove their bibles, crucifixes and not pray before dinner when i come over to their homes? should i hide away my meats & cheeses when vegans come over, or my alcohol for people in recovery?

other people's homes are like other countries, when i'm within their borders i respect the customs native to that country regardless of my comfort level or preferences.

LaurelJRyan: I am was not implying that education would make people less "prudish or conservative". I am saying that everyone has different like and dislikes and that this is part of cultural diversity. These are the things we should be teaching out children. It is not just about what we hang in our homes it is about teaching people to be excepting of different types of people. Cultural understanding is the cornerstone to a healthy and happy society.

I'm with dashiel. Our homes are our sanctuaries. If we're not free to express ourselves in our own homes, then where?

JosieDaisy said:

"I wouldn't want to be friends with somebody offended by someone offended by nude art. If everyone you know needs to agree with you artistically or politically...?"

Speaking for myself, I respect that people have different beliefs--which is why I would never expect someone to arrange their home according to my tastes. Just as I would never arrange my home according to someone else's tastes. As I stated in an earlier post, if someone is uncomfortable with something in my home, then they don't need to come back. That would be their choice, not mine.

I know someone with very primitive nudes painted on the walls of a public area of her home. Not only are they life size, the genital areas of both the men and the women are covered in dark patches of fur. I was invited to this woman's home for a book discussion (along with several other women, some of them quite conservative). A few guests were shocked, yes, but no one (as far as I could tell) was offended. In fact, the artwork became the topic of a very lively, enjoyable discussion. The point is, IT WAS HER HOME. And everyone knew to behave respectfully whether they shared her taste in art or not.

The human body in itself is a piece of art. As a nursing student and art appriciator, I see a LOT of nude bodies. I find them beautiful.

I have a giant painting of a grinning pinup with a fistful of money in my bath and a painting of two Chinese women sitting next to each other--one clothed, one nude--smackdab in the middle of my living room. My hallway is lined with framed 1950s men's magazines.

The intent behind each of these pictures is irrelevant to me. I think they're tasteful because they're fun and interesting. My only regret is that the pinup isn't on velvet.

What hangs upon the walls of my home is not subject to a vote. That's why it's MY home.

There's nudes and there's nudes. I don't want to eat dinner with Joe Gould's privates staring me in the face.

http://www.artsjournal.com/artopia/2007/05/alice_neels_family_values.html

What about Playboy centerfolds? Would anyone here be offended by a display of those?

I blogged about this topic of Bare Naked Ladies a few months ago (http://wp.me/pt2rM-4V) but only as it applied to the work environment. I firmly believe in art and that one should surround oneself with art and objects one loves in the home space. Guests be damned! If they are your friends they should know who you are by now. But, if on the other hand you are trying to court investors or hold some other business meetings in your home unrelated to selling art, then you might reconsider.

Speaking as a former art history major cum bio-psychology major (at a well known university) I have seen many depictions of nudes from many cultures. While I was an art history student I learned that there are valid criticisms to be made about the drawing, painting and displaying of naked people, whether or not they strike a particular person someone as pornographic or titillating is irrelevant really.

The artist was being a voyeur, the artist has more power than the model. Which is why it's usually male artists and female models, in my opinion. The model is turning the very thing they live inside (their body) of into an object, a commodity. The model is objectified. The model becomes so much meat. When we observe a nude, do we normally think, what spiritual qualities does this woman with the big breasts or that man with the wrinkled legs have? If I asked this person with their behind exposed a deep question about math or science, what would his or her answer be?

No, we start thinking about body parts and I think usually, on some level we are thinking about sexuality.

I think it's time to grow up and realize that objectifying human bodies is inappropriate, whether or not it's in a church or the Louvre, or your bathroom. Otherwise what we have is nothing more that ersatz sophistication.

oh, kamilya, that is such bs.

So an artist depicting a still life (squash seems to be the choice in this thread) is OMG, objectifying it?

There's a complete difference between nudes as still life and nudes as pornography. One is about form and beauty, the other is about sex. If you can't differentiate, you have issues of your own.

Kaete, I agree. Religious artifacts definitely make me extremely uncomfortable in people's homes. Even with close relatives who are religious, I feel slightly uncomfortable being in their homes because I worry I'll slip and say "oh god" instead of "oh gosh" and that sort of thing. Yet I do try to be very respectful of that when I am at their homes, because I'm a guest. (On a related topic, if you go out of your way not to offend anyone, do you refrain from what some consider blasphemy at all times because someone you meet might find it offensive?)

JoshW, your assumption that we are being selfish hinges on whether we have even considered that nudes could be offensive! If it simply isn't something we'd thought of, then how is it selfish? And how is it selfish if you live in a culture where nudity is acceptable in all contexts?

kamilya, when you started out "When we observe a nude, do we normally think, what spiritual qualities does this woman with the big breasts or that man with the wrinkled legs have?" My emphatic answer is YES. I have seen naked bodies, they don't interest me that much. What interests me in a nude sketch is whether I get a feeling for the person's mood or personality, absolutely! If I don't get some of that from the image, then it's boring to me, precisely because the actual body parts are NOT what is fascinating to me.

OK, now for a related follow up question: What about things that ARE sexual? Would you hide a sex advice book? Your copy of the Kinsey report? I have been in quite a few homes with books on tantra or sex manuals on the shelves, and I'd be interested to hear some takes on that.

The problem with thinking art is wrong for "objectifying" nudes is that it is a very slippery slope indeed.

Perhaps you're not wondering about the soul of the woman whose boobs were sketched (assuming a live model was used at all.)

But then you don't wonder about the day that the athlete had on the front of your wheaties box. You generally don't wonder about the wishes and dreams of the little girl in the campbell's soup ad. You don't think hard about the soul of the man holding a pair of pruning sheers on the front of your Home Gardening magazine.

The simple fact is that you are surrounded, every day, by imagery of human beings as placeholders. The vast majority of the time, you give them no more thought than that nude sketch. They are objects, no denying it.

If you would scorn a nude drawing because the viewer does not "think of the soul" of the human it was based on, then eventually you end up with the sort of attitude religious Islamic art had in certain eras - a complete ban of the human form.

never nude
posted by SwedishChef on March 19th 2010 at 10:42pm

Am I the only one who thought this was an AD reference?

:)

in YOUR HOME you can and should hang up art you enjoy where you want to see it. This includes nudes.

Wow, the real nudity here is the naked posturing of the commenters trying to prove how broadminded and groovy they are. I've never seen such desperation to prove free-spiritedness.

I don't have any nudes in my home, but that's largely because I've never seen any of sufficient artistic merit for me to want to acquire them. Many nudes are lazy attempts at art, relying on our inherent fascination with the human form to create their impact. A nude that uses the body as a jumping off point for a communication about beauty, relationships or society is a different story, and would be far more welcome in my home.

As to whether they are appropriate in public rooms, that depends on the nude. A stylised pencil drawing by Matisse? Definitely. A lifesized, gynecologically accurate pastel with splayed legs? Not so much... but it's still a possibility, if the picture is good enough.

It also depends on numbers. A few nudes in a collection is to be expected. A collection that's almost entirely nudes, especially when those nudes are of the gender to which the collector is sexually attracted, is way creepy.

"I don't have any nudes in my home, but that's largely because I've never seen any of sufficient artistic merit for me to want to acquire them."

What, never? Never ever? I hope you only mean "within my price range" because otherwise that is a very surprising thing to hear a person say. I can understand if you personally do not like nudity, of course! But our museums are full of beautiful works drowning in "artistic merit" that happen to include unclothed people.

Yes, Kaete, I did mean in my price range. There are plenty of amazing nudes out there, but they're generally priced in the thousands or tens of thousands, and you're only ever likely to see them in galleries.

Art is art is art...
Nudity is nudity is nudity...

I think tasteful nude art is appropriate in any room of the house. However, I would draw the line if the subject of the nude were the owner of the home. If it's obviously you in the drawing, keep it private.

I have a copy of a nude sketch of me from my student days of working as an artist model for life drawing classes. Honestly, no one ever notices that it's me because no one ever expects a nude pic to be the lady of the house :)

I have modeled nude for several artists & photographers & have some the images - line drawings, ink sketches & photos on my walls. All of my friends accept this and expect it. Hell - half the time the art on the walls isn't the only thing nude - but i digress.
It's your house, your walls, your art! If others don't like it they are free to stay away. If they have opinions that they must share, they can do so courteously and respectfully, and expect a response in a similar tone.

I frankly can't imagine someone being bothered by a drawing, painting, or other work showing someone in the nude in someone else's home.* Artists have depicted nudes for centuries upon centuries. Does the objecting guest also object to the Statue of David? The Vitruvian Man? The Sistine Chapel? There's a whole lotta naked up there!

*Unless that nude is depicted in a way meant to be crass or disturbing. BUT how many people hang Maplethorpe or Dali nudes over their couches? They're typically expressionistic works as shown in this post. Do people honestly find those pornographic? If so, I worry more so about the overly sensitive libido of the viewer...

I just looked around my house and realized just how many boobs were on my walls that I never even think about. I have an 8 yr old daughter who also doesnt seem to notice.

Took a long time for someone to bring up Playboy ... and no one responded. I would be offended if there were framed Playboy centerfolds in someone's home. I'm also offended by Snap On calendars, and I am friends with people who are offended by my offense. If a nude is just a drawing of a person with a typical body who happens to be naked, I ahve no problem with it. Nudes designed specifically to cater to non-respectful, prurient interest offend me.
I used to be an artist's model, and I have a nude portrait of myself. It used to hang on my wall, but now it's rolled up in the closet, probably moldy by now, along with all the rest of my prints.

aurelais- I thought I was the only one who noticed the reference!

I see a lot of us have studied art and life drawing -- not surprising considering the main topic around here.

As someone suggested, not all nude art is Art. I definitely defend everyone's right to the decor of their choice, but I WILL think less of you if you are out to shock me or offend me with your choices. (I'll probably forgive you, but you will have lost some of your former allure!) This includes pinups and other prurient images, certain Mapplethorpe photos in public zones (yes, I consider them art, but definitely provocative), etc.

I tend to like landscapes and abstracts, so I think the only nude I have collected is a carved oak female torso. I have it in my bedroom because it fits the room best, but I have had it in public areas before. It's fairly stylized, but not unrealistic... nobody ever said it bothered them.

However, I think it's in bad taste to force guests to sit and stare at things that dismay them. Not everyone is sophisticated and educated in art. So I would be careful about putting art that tends to be shocking in some respect in the livingroom, diningroom or public area lavatory. That's me, I like making people be at their ease. If you like a stimulating argument or whatever, you'd have other strategies.

That said, my most offensive art collection is probably my Pantheon. I have dozens of deity sculptures (museum replicas of archaeological finds, tourist items, plastic angels, bronze Pietas, R2D2) from many cultures and time periods. Since in the mix are Christian saints, Hindu goddesses, Egyptian statuettes, etc. some people would probably find them annoying -- they DO definitely reflect my conviction that NO religion has any merit. But they are in my Library which is the room you pass through to go upstairs, and you are either a repair man or a very good friend before you are invited there -- and my friends and family already know about me!

@EliJack, you brought up an interesting point, I hadn't even perceived that as a possibility. Yet I recently stored a piece of artwork that I'd inherited because it acted as a trigger to remind me of the threat of violence. A beautiful piece of art, yes. Something I'll bring out again, yes. For now, though, I wanted everything in the house to deliberately reflect a peaceful mindset.

http://www.1010wins.com/PIC--New-Jersey-Family-Covers-Up-Nude-Snow-Woman/6486104 Here's an example of a pretty extraordinary snow sculpture of a nude woman similar to the Venus de Milo that offended someone in the neighborhood enough to call the police to cover her up. It's pretty amusing. As for myself, I would put nudes in a bathroom or maybe a bedroom. It really depends of the piece. If it's tastefully done, it could go anywhere...but, let's face it, some nudes are a bit too 'out there' to be displayed where it might make a visitor uncomfortable. Once, I visited an artist's studio, and he did a gorgeous nude woman painting that I would love to have. I emailed him about a price...no response. I know I couldn't have afforded it anyway.

One of the themes of Apartment Therapy is the division between modern and traditional decor.

Surprisingly, traditional decor is more hospitable to the nude. The Victorians loved it. And modern designers shun it (except when it has shock value. (Alice Neel, etc.)

My taste (for what it's worth) is strongly with the Victorians. And I find nothing so boring as the Knoll showroom and buildings by Mies van der Rohe.

Long live the nude!

WOW. Never really thought about it. I buy art because of the skills of the artist regardless of the subject matter and hang it in the best location for showcasing the painting. I have nudes and never really gave it a thought that it may be offensive to some to enter my house. No plans to take them down.

Just occurred to me after this post. My sister and her family are prudes and their lives evolve around religion. They stayed at my house for a week and no one said anything. Oh well.

Love the story about the very public snow lady, hahaha.
I guess it's all a matter of personal taste whether we find it offensive or not (in public, other than at a Museum).
For example, in Manhattan, you can see there gigantic horrendous expensive nude sculptures standing at the Time Warner Center. :(
On the other hand, there is this wonderful artist, Hani Shihada www.hanisidewalkart.com, who makes these reproductions of famous Renaissance paintings on the sidewalks, using pastels. :)

" "If it's intended to be provocative, shocking or arousing..."

Isn't the point of art to be, at the least, one of those three? Otherwise, it's decoration."

I meant provocative in the sexual sense. And art can be emotionally engaging without being any of those three.

The French artist Jean Baptiste Greuze depicted a woman in the throes of orgasm in one of his most famous works. She is shown from the breasts up -- dressed, but with her decollatage pulled low enough to just reveal her nipples, with her head thrown back and mouth open. If you know what the subject of the painting is, the image clearly depicts, well, what it depicts. Apparently, though, the image is safe enough that the Getty used it on all of its streetlight banners all over Los Angeles and nary a peep of protest was heard. I visited the exhibit and framed the image, as it was printed in full color on the cover of the brochure. It hangs in my living room and NOT ONE PERSON has ever even noticed it.

@ kamilya - I found your response to this topic interesting. One of my art teachers used to say that the reason he didn't allow people in the room who weren't planning on drawing was because they became voyeurs. As someone who has drawn many a nude, I can tell you that the artist is focused much more on lines and shadows than the fact that the model is nude. Many models are themselves artists (most of the ones at the classes I took in college were actually in the class). If we're talking about objectifying people, I would go after mainstream advertising way before this.

btw. I am a woman, and resent the notion that "it's usually male artists and female models".