Nudity does us good...

[Amp34]

The channel is showing five life drawing classes through the week as part of its education show Life Class: Today's Nude.

Each half-hour broadcast has a different model and tutor to tell viewers about art and drawing techniques, guiding them through drawing their own picture as if they are in a real life class.

But dozens of viewers complained to the channel claiming they saw too much of fashion model Kirsten Varley at 12.30pm yesterday.

One viewer, Punteha Yazdanian, 23, said: "It was adult viewing, not for screening in the middle of the day."

The model posed for 30 minutes in a variety of poses as artist Gary Hume discussed the techniques in life drawing.

Alan Kane, the artist behind the programme, said earlier this week: "Because it is educational and non-sexualised nudity, Channel 4 didn't have any concerns with it at all."

A spokesman for Ofcom said: "We have received a small number of complaints which are being assessed against the broadcasting code."

He added that they were not looking to investigate the complaints at this time.

Section 1.18 of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code says: "Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...plaints-over-nude-life-drawing-programme.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/jemima-lewis/5803810/Nudity-does-us-all-good.html

What a sad reflection on our society, some of the comments are very enlightening in the second link. I do wonder what these people think of nudity in paintings, do they allow their children to see them? If so then is it not hypicritical to then complain about viewing the picture being drawn?

Anyone see any of these? I wouldn't be particularly interested in watching them (I can't draw to save my life) but I know plenty of people who would have loved to have seen this, both who have gone to life drawing classes themselves and who would like to.

 

[Amp34]

I cannot believe that in the 21st century, this is news.

I cannot believe there are still moaning old woman still trying to hold on to their Victorian morals. I really do wonder if these people complain about nudity in art as well.

what's a watershed ?

EDIT: nvm
Hmmm, I read 12.30pm as half an hour after midnight, I assume I'm wrong and it's actually 30 after 12 in the afternoon?

Bit like a water closet, but for tv?

Pics or it didn't happen.

No the fact that some nudity (that was not graphic or of a sexual nature) has caused an uproar.

People can play the whole "Think of the children card" but lets be honest, the vast majority of children SHOULD be at school when this was broadcast, and the ones that would have seen, can easily see more on the internet.

Why are people so offended.

What gets me (and what I also read on digg of all places) is that we are still more fine with violence and murder on our tv screens than nudity!

 

[Amp34]

nowt wrong with nudity itself, just some peoples over interest in it.

most kids would have been at school and any that happened to see it are going to be curious as opposed to offended or mentally scarred in some way, it's pretty much the same parental knee-jerk reaction that the one armed Cbeebies presenter received, ridiculously over the top, over involved, over sensitive parents who thought their children would be worried by seeing it.

And if a child is mentally scarred by the image then it probably has something to do with the parenting than the viewing of a perfectly innocent program...

Well, I prefer people to be clothed outside in the street. If some hot woman wants to get naked on TV then fine but personally I'd rather remain clothed and 'insecure'.

True, people walking around naked on a street would be odd (even in european countries it's confined to relaxing (beaches/parks)) but nudity on TV, what's the problem? In Spain for example, it's 2pm and an advert for shower gel comes on, instead of hiding things awkwardly they have a topless woman in the shower, nothing sexual about it, in the UK on the other hand, there was one advert in the 80's similar to that and it was banned within about 5 minutes because people found it wrong. Well newsflash moany people, if you find innocent nudity "wrong" and sexual then you are the one that needs to look at yourself and work out why you see sex everywhere, not the people that made it, or the people that looked at the advert and saw an attractive woman advertising a womans product...

 

[Amp34]

If you don't want to see it, change channel. Someone clearly does want to see it or the programme wouldn't exist. Funny that you're offended by the idea of old people naked, but not someone attractive.

Is that all nakedness is, a source of arousal?

Sex sells, so we're living in an increasingly sexualised world - but it seems now we can't separate bodies from sex.

If we'd all grown up in families who walked around houses naked occasionally (you dry quicker than walking around in a damp towel/robe), or gone skinny dipping together on holiday (a last-min run into the sea at night when it's dark needs no trunks/bikini), then maybe it wouldn't be that way. But I tell you, I can see my father buck-naked and not think once of sex. If I did, THAT would be wrong.

Spot on.

And I have a feeling that if these people were to see their parents naked they would probably think something related to about sex (and go "ewwwww" etc.) instead of just seeing it as a bit of flesh...