There are several libraries accumulating printed publications about naturism under the management of international naturist associations. Alas, they all provide materials also on a paid basis. To promote naturism, I think it would be more expedient to make the archives of these libraries digitized for translation and open for public access. Since it is better to receive income from increasing the number of new members of naturist associations.
In the United States the Nudist Research Library Consortium is working on a digitization project. The four libraries in the consortium are donor supported.
To me, art is something created by intent. A body is therefor, IMHO, not in and of itself art. A body may be extremely beautiful but it falls in the same category as sunsets and landscapes and flora and fauna, and such. Natural beauty is not art - which is the root of art-ificial.
It can be a canvas for art to be displayed on. Some people would consider body building to be an art in which the body could be art because it has been transformed by the will of the artist from what it normally is to a means of expression. Jewelry, tattoos, paint, hair styling, makeup and other forms all use the body as a canvas for art.
The body in motion could be art if the motion is intended to convey something. Again, the intent to evoke a feeling is what makes dance an art as opposed to doing the dishes.
Agree with your Fred. The general issue from our perspective is the presentation of any and all photos of naked bodies as art and thereby worthy of monetization for its viewing. We think that is a slippery slope for naturists to pursue and historically hasn’t served naturism overall well. The content creators and influencers tend to be the ones who benefit. That has create a cottage industry separate and apart from artistic expressions of naturism that in the end are more harmful than helpful to the naturist social project we pursue.
There are different kinds of monetization. On one end you could have an "Only Fans" page. 🙄 At the other you could be asking for voluntary contributions. "Buy me a Coffee." There's the Patreon route. Substack has its own subscription options.
On my own I wouldn't monetize because I write for the joy of communicating my experiences but a publication (Naturist Community) I write for does. Nobody subscribes because they want to see more nude photos but rather because the posts are interesting. (We hope.). Blogs/publications eat up money, time, and resources. Some small compensation is nice. Someone willing to pay for my work is a nice stroke to my ego.
I agree with you 100% that the nudists who will show you more visual content if only you'll spring for a subscription/donation are not helping the cause. But there's nothing to be done for it. They are helping their own bottom line.
Not against monetization by any means. We started doing it last year just to be able to get support to keep doing what we are doing? But we draw the line at pay per view nudity as the title of this piece suggests. Be leave firmly that something beyond images of naked bodies should be provided for momentary return otherwise it feel too much like porn. That leaves a lot of opportunity for monetization of a personas art or skill. Naturist writers should be able to monetize their writing should they choose. As should naturist film makers, yoga/fitness instructors, travel bloggers, chefs etc.
At the time this piece was written we observed several individuals using the naturist community to monetize their "art" which amounted to nothing more than naked pics. Some of these folks were adamant that they did not consider themselves naturists or nudists but were happy to take that money. And there were several naturist influencers online who felt that to grow the community this should be encouraged. The spoke out vociferously against anyone who suggested otherwise. There was even a guy who wrote some for the site until we discovered that he was selling sexually explicit photos as well. Whe we ended the writing relationship and removed his stuff from our site he accused the editor of all kinds of things and had other accuse us of trying to prevent him from making a living. He has every right to do that we just draw the line on having that we called naturist art.
Years later another twitter naturist pointed out the same thing and additional really gross stuff that was being offered by this "naturist" it was believed and he faced no backlash. Coincidentally the twitter naturist is white and CFL editor (me writing this) is black. That was a real confirmation of the myth of naturist equality among naturists online. We persevere with our approach in spite of all that because we genuinely believe in the naturist social project espoused by Baxandall and Descamps, more so than what is being plied as naturism by notable naturist content creators and influencers.
"...the notion of nudity as art to a place of nudity is art."
Wow, that's something to think about. To me, the body is a work of art. But then, just as clothes-free everyday living is not sexy, perhaps it's not Art, either.
I'm coming to terms with the (non-sexual) naked photos posted on social media, including Twitter and Reddit. On the latter, I subscribe to several subs where nude content is posted, so when I scroll through my feed I see nudity. I enjoy looking at pictures of naked people enjoying themselves in wholesome ways. (Some images cross the line into sensuality, and I scroll past those. Not a fan of the multitudinous dick pics, either.) I don't know if it creates a dopamine rush in my brain or what, but in a certain way it is . . . pleasurable, but not in a sexual way. You might say I find the images titillating by not prurient, not arousing. Still, when a person enjoys looking at frolicking naked people, is this a form of . . . pornography?
Bill, I think the important part of this is the concept of naturism being beyond nakedness. That means it is a way of life rather than a state of dress. Simple nudity then is not art, so much as it is ordinary natural way of being. Naturism exists in a context whether that is the context of people doing everyday life or engaging in naturist activities. One important aspect of the naturist context is management of the gaze, it is how e manage the gaze that makes images of the naked body artistic, erotic or pornographic.
There are several libraries accumulating printed publications about naturism under the management of international naturist associations. Alas, they all provide materials also on a paid basis. To promote naturism, I think it would be more expedient to make the archives of these libraries digitized for translation and open for public access. Since it is better to receive income from increasing the number of new members of naturist associations.
In the United States the Nudist Research Library Consortium is working on a digitization project. The four libraries in the consortium are donor supported.
https://clothesfreelife.com/naturism-wiki/nudist-research-library-consortium/
That Walgreen commercial is 100% good.
https://youtu.be/gDBcrPnuHEI
To me, art is something created by intent. A body is therefor, IMHO, not in and of itself art. A body may be extremely beautiful but it falls in the same category as sunsets and landscapes and flora and fauna, and such. Natural beauty is not art - which is the root of art-ificial.
It can be a canvas for art to be displayed on. Some people would consider body building to be an art in which the body could be art because it has been transformed by the will of the artist from what it normally is to a means of expression. Jewelry, tattoos, paint, hair styling, makeup and other forms all use the body as a canvas for art.
The body in motion could be art if the motion is intended to convey something. Again, the intent to evoke a feeling is what makes dance an art as opposed to doing the dishes.
Agree with your Fred. The general issue from our perspective is the presentation of any and all photos of naked bodies as art and thereby worthy of monetization for its viewing. We think that is a slippery slope for naturists to pursue and historically hasn’t served naturism overall well. The content creators and influencers tend to be the ones who benefit. That has create a cottage industry separate and apart from artistic expressions of naturism that in the end are more harmful than helpful to the naturist social project we pursue.
There are different kinds of monetization. On one end you could have an "Only Fans" page. 🙄 At the other you could be asking for voluntary contributions. "Buy me a Coffee." There's the Patreon route. Substack has its own subscription options.
On my own I wouldn't monetize because I write for the joy of communicating my experiences but a publication (Naturist Community) I write for does. Nobody subscribes because they want to see more nude photos but rather because the posts are interesting. (We hope.). Blogs/publications eat up money, time, and resources. Some small compensation is nice. Someone willing to pay for my work is a nice stroke to my ego.
I agree with you 100% that the nudists who will show you more visual content if only you'll spring for a subscription/donation are not helping the cause. But there's nothing to be done for it. They are helping their own bottom line.
Not against monetization by any means. We started doing it last year just to be able to get support to keep doing what we are doing? But we draw the line at pay per view nudity as the title of this piece suggests. Be leave firmly that something beyond images of naked bodies should be provided for momentary return otherwise it feel too much like porn. That leaves a lot of opportunity for monetization of a personas art or skill. Naturist writers should be able to monetize their writing should they choose. As should naturist film makers, yoga/fitness instructors, travel bloggers, chefs etc.
At the time this piece was written we observed several individuals using the naturist community to monetize their "art" which amounted to nothing more than naked pics. Some of these folks were adamant that they did not consider themselves naturists or nudists but were happy to take that money. And there were several naturist influencers online who felt that to grow the community this should be encouraged. The spoke out vociferously against anyone who suggested otherwise. There was even a guy who wrote some for the site until we discovered that he was selling sexually explicit photos as well. Whe we ended the writing relationship and removed his stuff from our site he accused the editor of all kinds of things and had other accuse us of trying to prevent him from making a living. He has every right to do that we just draw the line on having that we called naturist art.
Years later another twitter naturist pointed out the same thing and additional really gross stuff that was being offered by this "naturist" it was believed and he faced no backlash. Coincidentally the twitter naturist is white and CFL editor (me writing this) is black. That was a real confirmation of the myth of naturist equality among naturists online. We persevere with our approach in spite of all that because we genuinely believe in the naturist social project espoused by Baxandall and Descamps, more so than what is being plied as naturism by notable naturist content creators and influencers.
"...the notion of nudity as art to a place of nudity is art."
Wow, that's something to think about. To me, the body is a work of art. But then, just as clothes-free everyday living is not sexy, perhaps it's not Art, either.
I'm coming to terms with the (non-sexual) naked photos posted on social media, including Twitter and Reddit. On the latter, I subscribe to several subs where nude content is posted, so when I scroll through my feed I see nudity. I enjoy looking at pictures of naked people enjoying themselves in wholesome ways. (Some images cross the line into sensuality, and I scroll past those. Not a fan of the multitudinous dick pics, either.) I don't know if it creates a dopamine rush in my brain or what, but in a certain way it is . . . pleasurable, but not in a sexual way. You might say I find the images titillating by not prurient, not arousing. Still, when a person enjoys looking at frolicking naked people, is this a form of . . . pornography?
Bill, I think the important part of this is the concept of naturism being beyond nakedness. That means it is a way of life rather than a state of dress. Simple nudity then is not art, so much as it is ordinary natural way of being. Naturism exists in a context whether that is the context of people doing everyday life or engaging in naturist activities. One important aspect of the naturist context is management of the gaze, it is how e manage the gaze that makes images of the naked body artistic, erotic or pornographic.