Nudity in Tarot.

Hi,
I would love to know how folk view depictions of nudity in tarot decks.
Are there acceptable levels, where others are just too much or are you just plain put off and naked flesh renders a deck unusable?
I ask as the deck I am painting will likely have male and female nudity throughout and I am not seeking to create an erotic deck.
The state of undress feels necessary. Though I am not so keen to deploy an army of censorious fig-leaves, I may need to shyly turn figures away from the observer.
Perhaps I need two versions.
Perhaps I should start a poll to get a general idea.

The third tarot deck I ever got was the Cosmic Tribe Tarot(http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/cosmic-tribe/) which if chock full of nudity. It was a bit of a shock to see cards depicted with real people in the nude. To me there is a drastic difference between artistic nudity that is done to enhance the meaning or value of a card versus either nudity for nudity's sake or nudity for shock value. Perhaps you should look at it that way.... "does having nudity here enhance the meaning I'm trying to convey?"

This may also help, from Wikipedia:

The nude figure is mainly a tradition in Western art, and has been used to express ideals of male and female beauty and other human qualities. It was a central preoccupation of Ancient Greek art, and after a semi-dormant period in the Middle Ages returned to a central position in Western art with the Renaissance. Athletes, dancers, and warriors are depicted to express human energy and life, and nudes in various poses may express basic or complex emotions such as pathos.[1] In one sense, a nude is a work of fine art that has as its primary subject the unclothed human body,[2] forming a subject genre of art, in the same way as landscapes and still life. Unclothed figures often also play a part in other types of art, such as history painting, including allegorical and religious art, portraiture, or the decorative arts.

Click to expand...

I don't mind nudity that's consistent but what I often see is bare breasts and "artfully" covered male anatomy. But that's also the world we live in, particularly the US with omni present penis aversion. It's the elephant in the room.

I agree with Danny, if it serves a purpose great. Likewise if it's consistent, great. But I can't tell you the amount of occult or pagan images, statues, etc that I run into with random bare boobs---because somehow they're relevant.

The fixation on exposed female images vs hidden male is something that annoys the crap out of me. I generally land on the side of "it's a body part. Any taboos are silly social constructions"

Thanks cbiz and Danny-boy.
Yes, annoying the crap out of anyone is not what I am aiming at.
I tend too think everyone is exposed or no one is.
I will be painting a card today which does depict female nudity. The male is covered. It is rather the point of the card. This will be a way to test the water. I am planning some male full frontal bareness, it is not for this card. I wander if I will be confident to post it.

cbiz83 said:

I don't mind nudity that's consistent but what I often see is bare breasts and "artfully" covered male anatomy. But that's also the world we live in, particularly the US with omni present penis aversion. It's the elephant in the room.

Click to expand...

Ah I can't help myself, there is joke here somewhere lol. Not the elephant in the room but the junk of the trunk.

Seriously though, chests whether male or female is one thing but full frontal is another. Just in terms of censorship if you are worried about that. I did have a shipment to Qatar supposedly confiscated for "nudity" and I imagine it was for pubic hair barely shown on the Lust card lol unless it was breasts. I personally do not mind either if tasteful, but don't care for decks with big cartoon balloon breasts or ridiculously portrayed muscle man male chests (not that you would do that!) Realistic is good, and idealized but realistic is good. I am not one to want sag and bag just for the sake of realistic lol. Tarot cards are icons, and for the most part, I prefer them beautifully idealized but realistic versions of humanity.

As far as the issue of breasts serving a purpose to the meaning of the card, I should point out it is not always gratuitous random eye candy, at least if one is working within the Golden Dawn framework. Because the descriptions of the Princesses specify a young woman bare chested and with little armor, for example Princess of Wands "attired like an Amazon with shoulders, arms, bosoms and knees bare wearing a short kilt and a broad belt of scale male" etc and likewise similar through all the Princesses of the suits.

Nowhere though does it specify the full monty lol male or female though it was Victorian times so...but in the Thoth deck the Lust card has Woman on the Lion is nude which certainly is appropriate.

I vote for nudity. Lol. Where it feels right for your artistic vision, and don't worry about it.

dannyboy8406 said:

T

Perhaps you should look at it that way.... "does having nudity here enhance the meaning I'm trying to convey?"

Click to expand...

I second that. If every card has complete nudity in it would remind me of a jungle or of a nudist resort even though I get the idea behind it. Still. If it adds value to a particular card it's OK. Otherwise it seems just a useless distraction for me.

As ever Babalon, I find I agree with you.
In my other life as a house-painter, we have a phrase for getting the brush just right in order to paint to tricky to reach spots, 'the angle of the dangle' is perhaps the key here. Full frontal need not be depicted from the full front.

Hmm Rylla. The element of distraction is also absolutely to be avoided.
A fine example of nudity in a deck is The Mary El Tarot. One of my all time favorites. While loving the artwork, perhaps some of the nudity is distracting? Not being massively into reading tarot for others, I can not say for sure.

I'm fine with it as long as it isn't totally gratuitous. Why should a naked body distract any more than a clothed one ? I never get that.

That's how I feel. If nudity is not used gratuitously, there's no problem. If this is for your Kahlo project, I would expect about the same level of nudity as in her paintings, which seems like it would be fine.

Sometimes the effort to hide parts of the body just draws more attention. I actually don't notice the male nudity in the Mary-el much. It feels natural. Whereas if her figures posed with something shielding their anatomy from view, it would detract IMO.