DAZ Studio, tonality adjusted in Photoshop. Click to enlarge.
I was going to put a warning above this image to alert folks that it contained an image of a nude angel.
But then, I realized that’s pretty much the point.
We don’t put “Warning: Contains image of bombed out buildings”, or “Warning: Contains pictures of guns” on images, yet those things (the contents, not the images themselves) are what can change and devastate lives in ways that the nude human form cannot. After all, when we’re nude, we are at our most defenceless.
Why is it we’re desensitized to the weapons and results of violence of war, but feel the need to warn about bare skin?
I could have put clothes on the angel, but then angels are supposed to lack Original Sin. They never tasted the apple, discovered all about modesty and shame, and therefore are the last folks to use or even see the need for clothing. An angel is, by definition, sinless, and therefore has nothing to feel ashamed about. An angel doesn’t need clothes and more than it needs to eat or sleep.
I’ve never understood how nudity (as opposed to nakedness) can in some way be something we ought to warn about. Any image can be either demeaning, or respectful, of the subject. Sure, there’s far too many demeaning naked images of women out there on the Internet.
Can’t we put up respectful, strong images of nudity for a change?