Sojourner Posted April 21, 2004 Posted April 21, 2004 OK, so we've been talking a ton about modesty with regard to clothing (specifically bikinis). On a separate yet related topic, what about nudity in art? Is it appropriate? If so, when? If not, why not? Does nudity in art incite lust?
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted April 21, 2004 Posted April 21, 2004 I do NOT think nudity in art today, 21st century, is moral. I would say it also depends on what kind of art. And the audiance viewing the art... Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy
Dave Posted April 21, 2004 Posted April 21, 2004 What about art from when nude art was the norm, such as the era of artists like DaVinci? Surely that wouldn't be immoral, would it?
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted April 21, 2004 Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) [quote]I do NOT think nudity in art [b]today, 21st century[/b], is moral. I would say it also depends on what kind of art. And the audiance viewing the art...[/quote] I would agree...what I said was "in art today, 21st century" meaning any kind of pornography. Nudity in this century has become something of entertainment, rather than art (like during Davinci and Micalangelo.) I wouldn't say that it is because nudity in art back then was the 'norm' but because it wasn't perverted.(corrupted) The 'norm.' could be immoral...the norm today is immoral. But nudity in art wasn't immoral back then because it wasn't currupted. People respected another's body as a gift from God. Today (according to most of society) a body is just a form of entertainment. Lord have Mercy on Us. Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy Edited April 21, 2004 by thywillbedone7
cmotherofpirl Posted April 21, 2004 Posted April 21, 2004 Are you sure about that? The human heart has not changed.
willguy Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='thicke' date='Apr 21 2004, 05:39 PM'] Ask willguy....Maybe he'll make a poll. [/quote] Ouch. Anyways, my opinion is this- Nudity is acceptable in art if it is not meant to arrouse lust or desire. Roe example, nudity in Renaissance art was meant to show beauty. If you look at a Renaissance nude, you don't lust.
CreepyCrawler Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 but in today's context w/ today's minds looking at the art, even though the purpose was to show beauty, some dirty guy (or girl) could look at it and lust so isn't it immoral to look at today? (i'm just playing devil's advocate)
willguy Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 21 2004, 08:18 PM'] but in today's context w/ today's minds looking at the art, even though the purpose was to show beauty, some dirty guy (or girl) could look at it and lust so isn't it immoral to look at today? (i'm just playing devil's advocate) [/quote] I wouldn't say it is immoral to look at it [i]today[/i]. I would say it is immoral for that person to look at it. There were probably people in the 1400's who looked at it dirtily. It would be wrong for them.
CreepyCrawler Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 sorry to bring up the bikini thing over here, but if you're not supposed to wear bikini's b/c they could cause some people to sin, isn't it also immoral to show nude art to the public b/c it would cause some people to sin?
crusader1234 Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 i think that it is clear when a painting is made to incite lust, or for art. just because art is from the 21'st century doesnt rule out nudity. nudes are still one of the most beautiful artforms, and if you look at a nude sculpture you will notice they are not meant erotically. a local artist has done many nudes, and none of them insite lust. most crude pornography does not take place in paint, or scupture. it takes place on film. pornography, being a shady business, has nothing to be gained in art. pornography is striaghtforward. pictures, videos. nudity and pornography are two completely different things. the point of the 'venus de milo' is not an expression of sexuality, it is an expression of feminine beauty. beauty and lust are two separeate things and i think thats key to keep in mind.
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 But one could argue that leading one to sin is a sin...so by showing nudity in art that could possibly lead to sin (even if it isn't meant for lustful purposes) is a sin in it self. Is that true, or am I just a crazy son of a gun? Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy
Matty_boy Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 i think nudity in art is fine as long as it's art and not pronography. a friend of mine is a sculptor and asked me to model nude for a crucifiction scene. i haven't done it yet, but i think i may as soon as we figure out a time.
Sojourner Posted April 22, 2004 Author Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 21 2004, 08:18 PM'] but in today's context w/ today's minds looking at the art, even though the purpose was to show beauty, some dirty guy (or girl) could look at it and lust so isn't it immoral to look at today? (i'm just playing devil's advocate) [/quote] Yeah, this is probably more along the lines of what I was considering. In the other thread, we've got folks saying we should never be naked in front of anyone but our spouses (I assume an exception would also be in place for healthcare-related folks). And there are folks talking about how nudity incites lust, which is undeniably true. (I struggle with saying nudity [i]causes [/i]lust ... I think it just makes it easier to get to that point. My good buddy and atheist co-worker tells me that for him and his friends clothing fit and coverage makes little difference in whether or not they lust). But can't the nude form -- and I'm speaking here of that of someone not your spouse, portrayed in an artistic manner (now or centuries ago) -- can't the nude form also be seen with holy eyes? I think of Titus 1:15: "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." Is this not the goal to which we should aspire, to be able to view the nude form with pure eyes and through it to see something of the holy? Obviously, if viewing nudity brings you to a point of sin, avert your eyes, by all means. But even then, can we not be working toward this goal, of seeing with regenerate eyes? Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that women should start walking around in bikinis in order to display that which is holy. It's clear that we should dress modestly (however that ends up being defined) in order to protect that which is good and beautiful from lust.
ironmonk Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Apr 21 2004, 05:51 PM'] OK, so we've been talking a ton about modesty with regard to clothing (specifically bikinis). On a separate yet related topic, what about nudity in art? Is it appropriate? If so, when? If not, why not? Does nudity in art incite lust? [/quote] Nudity is not art. It has no place in art. Even when it was the norm. There is no need for nudity in art. Remember, the devil is cunning and manipulative; his attacks are subtle and take many years, he has the time. God Bless, ironmonk
p0lar_bear Posted April 22, 2004 Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 22 2004, 09:41 AM'] Nudity is not art. It has no place in art. Even when it was the norm. There is no need for nudity in art. Remember, the devil is cunning and manipulative; his attacks are subtle and take many years, he has the time. God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] Ever been to the Vatican? Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel includes a lot of nudes. Does this mean that it is not art? That the entire chapel is an occassion of sin?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now