This is something that's really bothered me about art for awhile.

I hate that naked women = art.

Look, it's not that I'm against nudity. No, not at all. It just irritates me that you can photograph boobs and OMG IT'S TEH ARTZ. Really? That's all your art is? Tits? I'm not saying it's not artistic or anything, but I don't know, it just seems so uninspired to me to have nude women in various "sexy" poses as the basis for all your pieces. Even if you had something that wasn't in a sexy pose, it'd be a bit better.

I also have to admit that my gallery has some of this (Spinal Tap, Bara, Mask Dance and Riona). In high school, putting nude women in my art was sort of a rebellious thing. I could totally get away with it. I couldn't put nude men in my art (too risque, apparently), and I wasn't really sure how to draw them anyway. I wasn't about to use porn as a reference, because it's just not what I want to draw, nor is it representative.

When I first started doing "sexy" art, I didn't really think of men as worthy of artistic representation. How shitty is that? It was weird to think of a man as sensual or beautiful, as I'd really only seen women depicted that way. I didn't think a man could have that kind of ethereal beauty that I'd seen in so many women. I have changed my mind, though. Unfortunately, I don't think very many people bother to see the beauty in men. After all, women are just beauty incarnate, right? Apparently, because I see a whole lot of waist-hip curve shots. And after all, sex in art is supposed to be all edgy and shit. And we all like to be edgy.

But when did softcore porn and art turn into the same damn thing? I must have missed the memo. I'm not saying nudes can't be artistic, or that all nudes are softcore porn. But when I look at a lot of these, there's the porn-star eyes, makeup, clothes and poses. You've got girls in pigtails and underwear making out or bodies splayed out on beds or girls touching their genitals. I swear, it's practically the same thing as softcore, and some of the artists like just pushing the standards. Which is fine, but why are there so many of them? Why is it that a nude woman is so sexualized? Why are so many of the fetish shots just disembodied parts of a woman's body?

The comments don't really help my seeing it as pseudo-porn. Looking through some of the comments, a majority of them are like, "HOT" and "THIS IS SEXY" and "Can I get a high-rez version lol" or some other permutation of things like that. Having art be appreciated because it's sexy if fine, in a way, I suppose. It bothers me that there are just so many of them, and that if the art didn't feature some sort of sexy, no one would really give a damn about the "amazing shots".

*Edit, because I forgot a point: On top of all of this, having it be a "punk" girl doesn't make it any less porny that it would be if she were the "stereotypical" (i.e.: blond, blue-eyed, large breasts, white, etc.) porn girl. You're not unique and edgy because she's got piercings and green eyeliner. I also hate that this is a fetish in and of itself. It's not amazing because she looks "unconventional", yet still very pretty.

Also, it's not usually the vagina that you see. You're probably looking at a vulva, unless it's an inside shot, in which case, then you can see a vagina. Vaginae are not generally on the outside of the body. The outer and inner labia (often the clitoris is included, as it's also on the outside of the body) constitute the "vulva". You can't shave a vagina, either. It's a little nitpicky, but if you're going to be obsessed with female genitals, you should at least use the proper terminology.

If I look for "nude", how many pages do I scroll through before finding a dude by himself (I'm going with "newest", not "popular")? Hold on and let me find out (last time, it was 31). ...this time, it's 23. And even if it's not in the double digits or something, there's like... one male nude to about a bazillion female nudes. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong times, and it's really not as skewed as it appears. I admit, doing it twice isn't exactly scientific or representative. Yay for that.

I hate that a nude body is so often just something that's sexualized. It's artistic. Oh, it's so pretty. I mean, even straight women spout this crap about women's bodies just being "more attractive" than men's. If you're a straight woman and you think men are unattractive, why are you straight at all? I don't know how many times I've heard girls say that women are simply "more artistic-looking" and "golden ratio" and blah blah blah, tacking on that penises look funny. Are you sure you're straight, there?

I know that I'm overreacting. I know that I'm being a little bitchy. If I don't like it, I shouldn't look at it, right? Right. It bothers me that sexuality has to be everywhere. It's in advertisements, it's in art, it's in movies and games and fuck, it's on food, too. It's just used to sell shit, and while it works, it's just... so uninspired to me. I shouldn't criticize too much, because it's not like I'm inspired myself, but is there any other way to celebrate sexuality other than the same, tired things we've been using? Why is sexuality always so similar to pornography? And why do we like it so much? I have theories on this, but they don't really matter right now. My point is that we act like we're being so unique and edgy by putting porn in art, when really, we're just imitating.

Is it still true that dA won't allow erect penises to be in your gallery? I know that it used to be the case because it was "pornographic", but you know, you're allowed splayed labia and all. That's totally not pornographic.