We interrupt the Starship Underpants series to bring you a serious post worthy of consideration and debate and we would be happy to hear your point of view and opinions.
The last episode of the Starship Underpants dealt with the story of Lady Godiva, an 11th-century Anglo-Saxon noblewoman who throughout her life had donated a lot of money, land and jewellery to establish various monasteries and to help good causes in England. She lived in Coventry and seeing that the folks of that town paid too much tax agreed to ride naked throughout town if her husband, (the ruler of the town), would lower the taxes.
Now we don't know whether the Godiva
story is true or not. But can you imagine the conviction and love in the
woman? She felt so much pity for the poor tax-payers of Coventry that
she agreed to humiliate herself for them. Having given away a fortune in her lifetime for others, she went a step further still in order to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.
That particular episode of the Starship Underpants asked the question as to when is nudity "acceptable"; especially if it is in the aid of someone else less fortunate than ourselves. We are grateful for your responses in the comments box.
Denise in VA, (check her Blog), however, raises another pertinent point. She says "... magnificent works of art bothers me not. I was once told off by a
visitor for not giving a warning when I posted a photograph of a nude
Leaving aside for a moment our personal nudity for the benefit of a good cause, like paying the medical fees of a sick child, or relative, facing death, (I'm sure you can think of other causes). Leaving that aside, Denise's comment raises the question of when is nudity art, therefore "acceptable".
For many many years artists, painters, sculptors and photographers have
been fascinated by the nude body. It has been accepted as art and
admired by many over the years.
Look at the two pictures below:
Now over to you ... would you consider both pictures as art?
Why? Why not?
When is the naked form considered acceptable as art?
Some famous nude paintings have, at the time, and since, been considered as provocative. But are they art? Are they "acceptable"?
Consider for example Édouard Manet's "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe", also known as "The Luncheon on the Grass".
Can you imagine the tongues wagging at the time when people found out who the characters are in the painting?
Can you imagine Manet's wife agreeing to pose for the painting? Was it a good cause in her eyes? Yet, she felt that her face should be replaced by that of another model. I wonder why?
Can you imagine Manet asking his wife to pose for him in the presence of his brother and his brother-in-law? All in the cause of art?
Supplementary question: What are the two men talking about, the football game on TV last might?
Plenty to discuss here - over to you.