Nude models. I'll just put it out there.
A free class has them and a class I may be required to take has them. Yes, I may be a mature adult, but I don't want to necessarily go around drawing naked women as a married man. Don't want to remember those images, even as mature as I may be.
Lots of people think it's the only way to learn to draw the figure. The professor who is really sticking to that point also said to be weary of absolutes. If that is the only way, that's an absolute.
Pros
- I have a model who poses for a long time
- It is live. Photos are worse for drawing
- Drawing enhances the memory of something and so I have a memory of naked woman (other than my wife) in my brain
- Awkwardness
- I'll never show those pictures to anyone
Do it and get a degree (which I don't necessarily need)
Don't take those classes, work harder with real, clothed people (who may not pose) and not get the degree. This might not matter because my ultimate goal is an MFA and I only need so many upper division courses of a BFA to apply and get in. Hopefully. Portfolio would be the largest criteria for acceptance. At BYU, where I would love to attend again, has life drawing, but guess what? They are more clothed. You still get a pretty good view of the proportions, just not the nether regions.
It's not that I'm trying to be prudish or "holier than thou." I just kind of don't want to have to deal with that.
What are your thoughts? What does your wife say? How would she feel if you had to draw a bunch of naked women? They may be old, ugly or they may not be. Oh, and I'm not so concerned about the male figures. But maybe a married woman would be.
Thanks ahead of time. I know we may differ on semantics, dreams, and almost everything, but I k now we can have good, intellectual, supportive conversations.
I asked Ashely about it, and she suggested you might see if you could draw a model of your own choosing in a place and time of your own choosing, drawn without her head. She felt like it would be still awkward (more for the model in this case), but maybe a little less so on the whole.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing, though, that if such an option were available it would have been made known.
When I was taking my TV classes, I was often in the TV studio which is in the Centrum with the art department, and often passed by the displays of the art students. I noticed on display some examples of the exercise in question, and got wondering about it. Is looking, in great detail, and in the flesh, at a naked woman who is not my wife, just plain wrong, or is it permissible under certain circumstances? Why don't they use really accurate mannequins? While I thought about it, I never really came to a conclusion because I was not an art student, and it wasn't something I actually had to decide about.
Before I get going, I apologize if what follows is not what you were after. I just hope it's helpful. I know that this is very common practice, and a lot of people go though it all the time, but I think it's wise to make careful consideration of territory that can quickly become rocky.
In terms of rightness and wrongness, the law in question would be the law of chastity, which deals, very simply, with sexual relationships. If the exercise is not sexual, the Law of Chastity, by my understanding, is not violated.
That's not really the end of it, though. I don't believe the exercise is designed to be sexual in nature, but what goes on in the participants' heads is much stickier. I think it comes down to whether or not the participants can really separate the female human form in the room, which, let's face it, is the Jewel on the crown of Creation and worthy of a great deal of respect and appropriate appreciation -- from the fact that that form belongs to a person who has thoughts and feelings, and who might pass by in the hall tomorrow. If I knew the model, or there was much chance of coming to know her, it'd be all off.
That would be the crux of the matter for me, I think. If you can keep the form separate from the person, then it'd be ok. The fact that human males are wired to respond a certain way to the female figure might make that a challenge, but maybe not impossible. In the words of Mrs. Tweedy, "It's all in your head."
You are concerned about the images resurfacing in your memory, and you're probably right to be. The difficulty doesn't end when the model is again robed. It may translate into more difficulty in the future when the images resurface and you have to deal with them. If the memories are simply parts and proportions, memories of a form rather than a person, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
By my estimation, if everybody had perfect control of their mental faculties and appetites, clothes wouldn't be necessary at all. Except to keep us warm. And not sunburned.
Anyway, thanks for your indulgence. I know that what I have to say is nothing as important as what your wife thinks on the matter, but I'm glad you asked anyway.
And, if anybody disagrees with what I've written -- do share.
So I had a comment and my browser lost it. I will try and comment again when I get some time. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss a difficult topic.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't do it if I were me, though I can't say it is "wrong". It seems that this may be optional as you mention a "free class". I also would be wary of absolutes as I believe the pertinent study could most likely be done with at least partially clothed people. I have often wondered why it is so important to "learn to draw the figure" if you have no intention of drawing naked people why would you need to study it.
ReplyDeleteMy brother-in-law is an artist and attended BYU so he may not have faced this question exactly, but he and other coworkers could serve as additional experienced voices in the matter. He works for Avalanche software and they have figure drawing sessions every Friday. From the drawings I have seen all of the female models wear a bikini at least. http://artsammich.blogspot.com/search/label/People is the address of some of his figures. I can't imagine the covered parts adding much of anything to the experience.
I had seen advertisements for draped models at SUU but can't help feeling a little disappointed that there are nude sessions as well.
I think one approach would be to use a model that you can see naked without even potential problems (your wife) as the art would be for study and skill development no one else would need to see them. You could get additional experience with the draped sessions or with male sessions (I can't say I would be interested in those either, hence I didn't go into art).
I heard once that the eastern philosophy in art was that the study should be done on landscapes and other art before even attempting the majesty (my word) of the human form. I think it is really going to come down to what you and your wife feel are appropriate and what you are trying to accomplish. BYU would far from frown on a decision made for moral purpose.
Some other thoughts may come up and I will try and get them down. One more thought Jane had mentioned was that sometimes we may not know how we might respond to a situation so staying away altogether may be the safest route (that was a paraphrase on my part). Let me know if you would like to discuss this more.