It's not news that Madonna posed for nude photos 30 years ago in order to make ends meet, but it is noteworthy that The Huffington Post web site today published the uncensored image (with a NSFW disclaimer). Since the print is being sold through Christie's and is expected to fetch $10,000, the editors must have felt the image now falls into the category of "high art".Look, it's a nice image, but it's no different than what you see on quality nude photography web sites like Domai or MetArt, and far less erotic than a Georgia O'Keeffe painting. I just find it amusing that a photo once peddled in Playboy as being scandalous is now acceptable.
So at what point does a nude photo of a spread-eagled woman become art in our society? Is it the fact that the subject is a celebrity? Bingo. Other than the fact that it's a photo of Madonna, it's no different than any other good cheesecake photo out there.
As a nudist, I have no problem with either image. It's the double standard that irritates me.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
3 comments:
Don't forget that black-and-white photography is infinitely more artsy than color.
I remember the Playhoy photos. They were arty but I still wouldn't consider them "high art". If it weren't for Madonna's celebrity status, no one would care. It would be just another nude photo.
Yes, there are double standards at work. Nude photos of certain people are OK but nudes of others are not. It's pretty arbitrary.
The thing that struck me about them when they were first published was the body hair. I can't imagine Playboy these days publishing a photo of a woman with hairy armpits and legs, much less any pubic hair more than the "landing strip." I remember at the time how much grief Madonna got for the hair. I kinda liked it.
Post a Comment