/nude/ general A thread dedicated to the human form in all its

>>2337206
we already have porn thread

>>2337232
Nude is not porn you retard.

File: William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_Bather_(1870).jpg (1MB, 1178x2427px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1178x2427px

>>2337206

File: Lucian-Freud_Painter-Working-Reflection.jpg (1MB, 1578x2117px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1578x2117px

>>2337307

File: 1995.jpg (365KB, 1600x1090px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1600x1090px

>>2337313

>>2337238
softcore porn

File: 5bf24-freu-001-hr.jpg (1005KB, 1670x2191px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 1670x2191px

>>2337316

File: zorn2.jpg (883KB, 1910x3000px) Image search: [Google]

883KB, 1910x3000px

>>2337338

File: the-reclining-woman.jpg (954KB, 1885x1070px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1885x1070px

>>2337348

>>2337350
boring photocopier porn
>>2337324
>>2337325
shitty teenage erotica scribbles

why are you posting this shit?

>>2337344
what's that thing between the dog mouth and the girls vagina?

>>2337355
the dogs tongue?

>>2337353
>it does not appeal to my personal tastes therefore it has no value

File: 1449348293302.jpg (263KB, 1280x745px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1280x745px

>>2337240

bourgereau my nigga

have a couple by serge marshennikov

>>2337366
shitty sketches that don't even have decent anatomy, the function of which is clearly as an aid in jacking off rather than a study of the human figure?

very little value outside of beating your meat.

File: 333_AlyssaMonks_Vapor.jpg (2MB, 2000x2999px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2999px

>>2337364

File: 333_AlyssaMonks_Echo.jpg (2MB, 2500x1879px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1879px

>>2337372

File: 6bc0e46a0fb240ee3aa7af0f4e6a6057_hd.jpg (1MB, 1700x1703px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1700x1703px

>>2337386

>>2337374
>>2337372
>>2337364

LOL this is funny that you mention this artist, I remember one of my college painting professors this semester shit talking her that she isn't an artist and her work is just huge gridded paintings from photographs of herself naked in the shower

>>2337316
disgusting fatty
>>2337322
is that man or a woman
>>2337350
feels like a shitty trace
>>2337357
kill yourself
>>2337367
nice edge
>>2337375
shitty porn

>>2337392
>>2337393
Delicious pettankos.

>>2337344
whos the artist?

>>2337372
I never get this shit.

Why even make a painting when you literally copy the photo? The artist adds nothing.

File: kejakejakeja.jpg (40KB, 406x455px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 406x455px

>>2337232
>American detected

File: 25 (8).jpg (285KB, 800x870px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 800x870px

>>2339386
http://art.vniz.net/en/bayros/
Franz von Bayros

>>2339352
+1 shitpost

File: alyssa-monks-0.jpg (330KB, 880x568px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 880x568px

>>2339447
you should see alyssa monk's work in person. at a distance it looks photographic, but up close it becomes very painterly.

>>2339347
your professor is smart

File: 333_AlyssaMonks_Impermanence.jpg (643KB, 1002x1173px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1002x1173px

>>2339347
>my painting professor was whining because she was a successful artist
ftfy

>>2339500
>http://art.vniz.net/en/bayros/
>Franz von Bayros
great stuff, dude.

>>2339649
daniel sprick is way better though, he works from life until the last part of the painting proccess and then does his hyper detail from photos.

>>2337320
porn is about shame, harassment and something perverse. nudity is beautiful. every nude body is beautiful. all pornography is disgusting.

File: alyssa-monks-8.jpg (486KB, 586x880px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 586x880px

>>2340099
pretty different styles though, I prefer Monks. She tends to be more painterly, less photographic (though she does have some work that is pretty photographic)

plus her play with the effects of glass/water/reflections takes it to the next level for me. spricks is technically proficient, but his work doesn't really do much for me.

closeups of various work by Monks in this video:
https://vimeo.com/115693161

>>2340454
not that guy but are you sure you know what painterly means? also there are hundreds of artists doing super realist paintings that just look like photos and if you're impressed by that it's pretty obvious you haven't done much painting yourself. I'd like some of her work as pictures, but the fact that she just copied it exactly how it is makes it boring as a painting. and the few pure whitein some spots makes it look sorta amateur-ish

>>2339649
>>2340454

Well what's artistic about using a grid to copy photographs directly.

At that point is there really a point to paint the damn thing.

98% of the viewers of the piece will see it digitally, through a screen anyway, so it loses the possible liveliness of color that a traditional painting can be capable of, as opposed to a screen (think looking at a master painting in real life versus an image), but the entire painting was already referenced from a photograph, so information on color has already been lost but also form.

And when it comes to the design aspect, all the work's already been done, and it'll look no different as an oil painting or the photograph on a 586x880 pixel image.

I suspect that for most viewers of her painting that the awe factor comes from not being able to believe that its a painting, but hey it brings in the dough.
But on the upside her tendencies are slightly shifting in her newer work.

>>2339649

this is a clever painting.

File: 333_AlyssaMonks_SmearStudy.jpg (2MB, 3600x1495px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x1495px

>>2341024
>are you sure you know what painterly means?
positive. did you watch the video? there are several clear examples in it.
> there are hundreds of artists doing super realist paintings that just look like photos and if you're impressed by that
I'm not, as I've already explained.
>it's pretty obvious you haven't done much painting yourself
I've been painting for years, I have a degree in painting, and a studio where I make a living selling paintings
>she just copied it exactly how it is
wut. she rarely does that (except in her early work), and when she does, she creates a painting that I'm not interested in.
>I suspect that for most viewers of her painting that the awe factor comes from not being able to believe that its a painting
quite the opposite for me. When I saw them at a distance I wasn't too interested, they seemed too photographic. But when I got closer, I could see how textural and painterly the actual brushstrokes were. When your face is a foot from the canvas, they seem almost abstract.

>>2340362
the definition you came us with yourself? then it's ok to see naked children?

File: 333_AlyssaMonks_Beginner.jpg (2MB, 3528x1465px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3528x1465px

>>2341498
also meant for:
>>2341081

>>2341499
Why wouldn't it be?

>>2341503
this. only problem is if you're a pedo who gets hard looking at naked kids. when I go over to my friends house and their 2 year old is running around naked, I don't shriek at them to cover up their obscene and pornographic child.

File: rubens.jpg (528KB, 1200x1548px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1200x1548px

some nudity for the thread since I seem to have derailed it with an Alyssa Monks discussion

Rubens, after Titian