Like English, Dutch has two words for the uncovered body. I still don't know what the correct translation of each one is, but I supose that 'bloot' is translated as 'naked', while 'naakt' is translated as 'nude', inspite of an etymological connection between 'naakt' and 'naked'.
Recently a radical protestant party sued an underwear retailer in the Netherlands over a billboard depicting a scarcely dressed woman and I heard a 'third wave' of feminism is going to launch a campaign against the woman as a 'sexy object'.
Somehow I wonder: Why do these two groups immediately link nakedness to the act of reproduction? Who has the dirty mind here?

Somehow people who themselves don't photograph, paint or sculpture seem to have strange views about the bare human body. They wonder what goes on behind the closed doors of a studio and have all kinds of wild fantasies. Not even the Freemasons or Opus Dei are as mysterious as those people who stare so shamelessly at breasts and arses.
Men often seem to get excited at the idea of a naked woman, while they are repulsed at the thought of a naked man. Many women meanwhile applaud the esthetics of nudes, unless of course they are feminists...

Let me disappoint them. There is nothing glamorous or exciting about a naked model. It's just an object, not a sexy one, but just a thing, a collection of  bones and muscles, skin and fat. There may be an occasional wrinkle to help the begining painter along and some may have unexpected fat or moles, but over all they are rather boring. They are well paid for doing nothing, but in return they can expect that however beautiful they are, no-one cares about who they are. They could just as well have been carved out of marble, for they evoke no emotion whatsoever in the artist. Nor should they!

I realy don't see why people make such a fuss over models lacking clothes. It just makes them easier to draw. A nice way to start off if one doesn't have a clear view of anatomy yet, but not very challenging. I rather have them dressed, as I like stripes which add depth to a two dimensional image, folds which accentuate curves and shiny materials which reflect the light. Naked people are rather uninteresting, as the fabric is the same everywhere and the anatomy hardly ever surprises.

People are obsessed with Venus' boobs, Apollo's chest and the muscles of Rodin's thinker, but what struck me way more was a picture from the a film, where the main character watches statues. I'm not sure if I saw it correctly, but I think one of the statues depicted a woman wearing a semi-transparant veil. A veil out of stone! Now that's way more interesting than the best carved boobs or arses. How can one make marble look transparant? I guess that while the religious fanatics and feminists stare at the images of naked girls I am going to ponder over veils, as I have seen enough nudes already.