Do you start to question the credibility of an artist if all they paint/photograph are female nudes?

Doesn't it really make you wonder if yeah, they're a little talented but really they're just trying to find an excuse to be a perve all day every day?|||Well definitely some are perves. The only reason some people even go into photography is the naked chick factor. But when that is the case it is usually more then evident. The fact that someone prefers nudes as a subject matter of itself means nothing. Judge the art on its own merit.|||That would be like asking if someone paints or does photographs of landscapes only do you question the credibility of their work. I think you have to see beyond the artist, the medium and the subject matter. Their work will speak for itself.|||No. I have learned that many of the great artists of the world studied anatomy in order to be able to create beautiful nude works of art. You should also consider works of nude women to be a "jump" for many early artists, because when art went through much of the Greek periods female nudes were considered not as beautiful as male nudes. Also, through Catholic scruitiny (later on), nudes of any type were usually considered "unholy", and were usually only accepted in paintings of the Fall. (Strange...because now the female body is seen as one of the most beautiful things...and the religious groups should have accepted nudes b/c it wasn't considered "wrong" until the Fall).|||Not necessarily. If you've an eye for art, you will probably tell by looking at the work - is the subject really only the figure, or the drawing/painting itself as a work. Before it's anything else, an artwork is an artefact, a thing in its own right. I think Matisse said an artwork was not a mere representation of a subject - but a re-presentation. Female nudes fascinate artists not only because of sexual attractions, but because the female figure has such subtle but strong structures, with interplaying planes and lines of bone structure and soft muscles. The female figure is therefor like landscape - the rock geology "visible" shaping the draping of the earth, and thereby creating repeated forms, like music. That's why real artists, of any age, can find old or fat women ("like melting candles") more lovely to draw than some young nubile nymph unmarked by life (which can be pretty boring).|||First off, I'd retort would you be asking this question if the sex of the artist were female?





Anyway, there's a term for an artist's work which focuses on a singular subject matter: it's called a "theme". The collection of these thematic works is called a "series".





While variety and versatility have their prize and place in the art world, thematic painting is a time-honored, treasured tradition: like the iron-clad simplicity of the 12-bar blues, thematic painting is especially challenging because it obligates the artist to find new ways to say the same thing, new ways to speak from his or her inner soul. It's a journey Georgia O'Keefe took in painting numerous cow skulls, that Frida Kahlo took in her multiple depictions of her off-again, on-again husband and soul mate Miguel Diego and Andy Warhol embarked on with his many Campbell Soup paintings.





However, all that being said, I don't doubt that (if this is indeed a heterosexual male we're talking about) this focus on painting/photographing nude women isn't based on his sexual interest. And if he's single and looking, sure, I'm POSITIVE this is (at least subconsciously) another strategy for him to meet women.





I just mean that if he's (also) a true artist, finding a woman who accepts his heart will not end his artistry but enrich it with genuine beauty and truth.|||No. Not if the art is art and not just porn.|||well i wont say dat..coz for an artist if one thing is wat he/she lyks then dats wat they paint..they let their feelings come out n if dis is da subject they like to paint..thn dats pretty fine..art is also to paint da beauty of da world..n wat can be more b'ful n captivatin thn women?%26gt;?