Nude Art

[jim111]

Why is this acceptable, or is it?

[jim111]

What makes art good. What is the purpose of not putting clothes on people if not to incite lust.

[Nihil Obstat]

Are you honestly saying that the one and only purpose of a nude figure in art is to incite lust? I am afraid we will not be able to have a discussion on this subject if that is what you are actually saying.

[Nihil Obstat]

You appear to be of the opinion, Jim, that the human body inherently is something to be ashamed of. This is not the Catholic way.

I wonder if you have some Manichaeist or Jansenist tendencies that you may not be aware of.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[arfink]

Jim, the people who lust over nude art (as opposed to pornography) have an unhealthy fixation on nudity.

[Lil Red]

I think you are a little obsessed with nudity, modesty, and the like. If this is not the case perhaps you should try making threads about other things.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for starting this thread.
Some art might make certain individuals feel hot and heavy, true. But normally the intention is to admire the beauty of it. A greater exposure to art might dull out such stimulating effects. 

There is a wide list of things that can turn people on. Some get a kick out of balloons, others like to dress up as furry animals (they do this in public too). It's almost impossible to not expect something seemingly innocuous to lead at least one person to sin. The artists aren't the ones who should be concerned about this. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[jim111]

You appear to be of the opinion, Jim, that the human body inherently is something to be ashamed of. This is not the Catholic way.

I wonder if you have some Manichaeist or Jansenist tendencies that you may not be aware of.

 

No, but original sin has disordered our lower appetite, so that we desire things improperly.

What is the purpose of painting a person naked instead of clothed.

Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111

[CatholicsAreKewl]

No, but original sin has disordered our lower appetite, so that we desire things improperly.

What is the purpose of painting a person naked instead of clothed.

Think of God as an artist. When a Christian paints a nude figure, he/she is imagining the beauty of the creation itself. We can detach ourselves from viewing the human body sexually, though even the sexual aspects are beautiful. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Nihil Obstat]

No, but original sin has disordered our lower appetite, so that we desire things improperly.

What is the purpose of painting a person naked instead of clothed.

Recognition/celebration of the beauty and dignity of the human body? Development of artistic skills? Representation of mankind in an unfallen state? Representation of mankind as a fallen yet redeemable creature?
I am not even an artist and I thought of those in about five seconds. If you are so afraid of nude art, then do not look at it, but please avoid trying to force your eccentricities on everyone else.

[EmilyAnn]

No, but original sin has disordered our lower appetite, so that we desire things improperly.

What is the purpose of painting a person naked instead of clothed.

It is near impossible to learn to properly paint the human figure clothed without first learning to paint it unclothed.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I would be careful not to worry too much about this, Jim. It can be easy to obsess over whether human urges, thoughts and desires are sinful. I'm sure you're only curious. However, I'm concerned that it might be easy to fall into a scrupulosity matching the symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder. Thoughts, feelings, and desires should be accepted as they are, not fought out of guilt. The more one actively fights these things, the more often they'll recur. Plus, overexerting oneself by controlling every thought might lead one to being less able to actually control himself/herself, especially his or her emotional state.  

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[arfink]

It is near impossible to learn to properly paint the human figure clothed without first learning to paint it unclothed.

 

Please don't ever go to art school Jim.

 

Also, please don't ever tell me you like works of art like this:

 

Because your views would mean that the process needed to produce this are also immoral.

Edited May 1, 2013 by arfink

[jim111]

Recognition/celebration of the beauty and dignity of the human body? Development of artistic skills? Representation of mankind in an unfallen state? Representation of mankind as a fallen yet redeemable creature?
I am not even an artist and I thought of those in about five seconds. If you are so afraid of nude art, then do not look at it, but please avoid trying to force your eccentricities on everyone else.

 

It is my understanding is that the reason women are to keep covered is because they are an occasion for sin. The reason I am saying bodies in art should be covered is because it is an occasion for sin. My reasoning my be false, but that's how i see it.

 

I can look at naked people in real life and see the beauty and dignity of the human body, this does not make it OK to look at naked women.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is my understanding is that the reason women are to keep covered is because they are an occasion for sin. The reason I am saying bodies in art should be covered is because it is an occasion for sin. My reasoning my be false, but that's how i see it.

 

I can look at naked people in real life and see the beauty and dignity of the human body, this does not make it OK to look at naked women.

The human body is not inherently sinful to look upon. That is why your argument is unsound.

[arfink]

It is my understanding is that the reason women are to keep covered is because they are an occasion for sin. The reason I am saying bodies in art should be covered is because it is an occasion for sin. My reasoning my be false, but that's how i see it.

 

I can look at naked people in real life and see the beauty and dignity of the human body, this does not make it OK to look at naked women.

 

Don't ever get married. Don't ever have sex if you do get married. Don't ever change diapers if you have a baby girl.

 

^^ Do you see how messed up the above saying are? Yet they are the direct result of your saying women are an occasion of sin.

 

Women are not an occasion of sin. I am very disappointed in you for saying so.

Edited May 1, 2013 by arfink

[arfink]

Also I think your notion of an occasion is sin is flawed too. An occasion of sin is different from a regular temptation. An occasion of sin is a situation in which you are so weakened that you are led into sin, and will vary from person to person. For example it may very well be true that a hardcore alcoholic who has only been sober for 1 week will find it literally impossible not to drink if you place him alone in a room with a bottle of Jack and a glass. That is an occasion of sin for him, and he is obligated to avoid such situations not because they are merely tempting, but because he WILL SIN if he wanders into it. His negligence in that situation is his own downfall, and he is then culpable for not avoiding the near occasion of sin.

 

However, we cannot be culpable for other people's near occasions of sin.

[EmilyAnn]

It is my understanding is that the reason women are to keep covered is because they are an occasion for sin. 

Say that to a woman's face and I can pretty much guarantee you that she will slap you. If you said that to my face I would. 

Woman are not "an occasion for sin". Learn some respect. 

[jim111]

The human body is not inherently sinful to look upon. That is why your argument is unsound.

 

I thought original sin made it very potentially sinful to look upon the opposite sex when they are naked. Yes it is possible to not, but it is an unnecessary occasion for sin.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Don't ever get married. Don't ever have sex if you do get married. Don't ever change diapers if you have a baby girl.

 

^^ Do you see how messed up the above saying are? Yet they are the direct result of your saying women are an occasion of sin.

 

Women are not an occasion of sin. I am very disappointed in you for saying so.

Arfink, you're very right but I think his argument is actually interesting. What we consider "art" nowadays is so broad. A painting of a nude model is okay but is a picture of that same model? How about a painting of two models engaged in sexual activity? Would you consider that okay? How about a picture of those two models? 
If this all passes, then maybe some might consider a porn movie to be art. It is, afterall, just a bunch of moving pictures. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl