Nude Art

[Maggyie]

jim I feel bad because in one of your earlier threads about modesty I posted a beautiful picture of Our Lady with her breast exposed. This probably cause you distress.

 

It's quite possible that it wasn't Pope Julius or Pope John Paul II or any other great patrons of the arts who erred in promoting the beauty of the human body... instead it was probably the post-Trent popes whose approach to art was tinged with a Protestant, prudish spirit.

 

Wholesale objection to penises, breasts, etc in art is VERY deeply Protestant. The reason Protestants don't have sacraments is similar to why so many Protestants object to nudity in fine art.

[jim111]

Saying "Trent did it" does not mean much. Not unless you can also articulate how it being reversed subsequently somehow does not 'count'.

Trent States:

Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.

 

Therefore the paintings were covered because they were deemed capable of exciting lust.
 

[arfink]

Trent States:

Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.

 

 

 

 

I don't think Jim can hear us anymore guys...

[TheLordsSouljah]

Trent States:

Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.

 

Therefore the paintings were covered because they were deemed capable of exciting lust.
 

'Beauty is the battleground upon which God and Satan fight for the souls of men' (von Balthazar, pretty sure)

When it comes to beauty, there is a difference between love and lust. Genuine admiration and lust.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TheLordsSouljah

[Nihil Obstat]

I see where you are coming from, and I am beginning to adopt your position, but could you please explain how while it is not essential that man is fallen and is tempted, doesn't detract from the fact that he actually is? What about porn (not the hard stuff)? I know that's another kettle of fish, and one could say that it is all in the intent of the 'artist', but what is the inherent difference?

Intent is certainly part of it. Pornography specifically depicts sexual acts. It is not the nudity that is the issue, so much. I think the objections against pornography are more in its objectification of the sexual act.

 

The thing about nudity and concupiscence is this:

Because of the fall we have great temptations, in some areas more than others. Nudity certainly can present temptation, sometimes the greatest temptations, which is why the greatest of prudence is necessary. But still, even in this case, there is no inherent, essential link between nudity and lust. Nudity can cause lust, but it need not. That is why there do exist contexts in which nudity is licit. They may be rather restricted contexts, as prudence demands, but nonetheless they do exist.

So, since nudity is not inherently sinful, and since there do exist contexts in which it is licit, it remains simply to be determined which contexts are appropriate. Art is certainly one because it glorifies God through celebration of the human form, which is inherently good. Nudity between spouses is also licit because it allows them to bring glory to God through their intimacy.

 

Jim's mistake is that he does not recognize the human body to be inherently good, in my opinion. I do not think Jim recognizes that nudity is not inherently shameful. Rather, the human body is inherently good, and it is prudence that causes us to cover it in normal everyday scenarios.

That is why I asked, earlier, if Jim has Manichaeist tendencies of which he may not be aware. I think he is (perhaps inadvertently) treating the body is inherently shameful. That is certainly not the Catholic position.

[Nihil Obstat]

Trent States:

Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.

 

Therefore the paintings were covered because they were deemed capable of exciting lust.
 

I am willing to accept that the church may not be the appropriate place for art depicting nudity.

But it might be as well, especially if such art avoids lasciviousness, as Trent dictated. As I have said quite a few times now, there is no essential link between nudity and lust. I will keep saying it until you acknowledge that you can demonstrate no such link, and if you cannot demonstrate that link, most of your arguments absolutely cannot obtain.

 

Basically, I think this quote is more or less irrelevant to our discussion. 

Edited May 2, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

Maybe the problem is that he's saying that the body (and more specifically, nudity) became inherently shameful after the Fall.  Which, on one hand, seems to make sense (at least biblically).  But that's not true.  Nudity is neutral in itself.  We feel shame when nude only as a response to the lust of another.  It doesn't come from being nude, but rather as a result of sinful behavior.  

[jim111]

Intent is certainly part of it. Pornography specifically depicts sexual acts. It is not the nudity that is the issue, so much. I think the objections against pornography are more in its objectification of the sexual act.

 

The thing about nudity and concupiscence is this:

Because of the fall we have great temptations, in some areas more than others. Nudity certainly can present temptation, sometimes the greatest temptations, which is why the greatest of prudence is necessary. But still, even in this case, there is no inherent, essential link between nudity and lust. Nudity can cause lust, but it need not. That is why there do exist contexts in which nudity is licit. They may be rather restricted contexts, as prudence demands, but nonetheless they do exist.

So, since nudity is not inherently sinful, and since there do exist contexts in which it is licit, it remains simply to be determined which contexts are appropriate. Art is certainly one because it glorifies God through celebration of the human form, which is inherently good. Nudity between spouses is also licit because it allows them to bring glory to God through their intimacy.

 

Jim's mistake is that he does not recognize the human body to be inherently good, in my opinion. I do not think Jim recognizes that nudity is not inherently shameful. Rather, the human body is inherently good, and it is prudence that causes us to cover it in normal everyday scenarios.

That is why I asked, earlier, if Jim has Manichaeist tendencies of which he may not be aware. I think he is (perhaps inadvertently) treating the body is inherently shameful. That is certainly not the Catholic position.

 

I agree with you, and as i said in the past, because of original sin when we look at the beauty of the body our minds are clouded by lust. If this was not so, we could all be naked, and there would be no scandal.( which is why i say if it is good to be naked in art, it is good to be naked in real life) However in reality mans lower appetite has been increased, and looks more easily looks at the naked body with lust then with admiration for beauty.

 

Lets put this another way do you have a wife, or daughter? Would you let someone paint a naked picture of them, similar to the ones you posted earlier?

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe the problem is that he's saying that the body (and more specifically, nudity) became inherently shameful after the Fall.  Which, on one hand, seems to make sense (at least biblically).  But that's not true.  Nudity is neutral in itself.  We feel shame when nude only as a response to the lust of another.  It doesn't come from being nude, but rather as a result of sinful behavior.  

I would also want to push that a bit farther by saying that the body, in and of itself, is objectively good, and that clothing is rather a different subject entirely. So yes, I agree that nudity is neutral in and of itself, while the body, as God's creation, is inherently noble and to be celebrated within the bounds of prudence.

[TheLordsSouljah]

Intent is certainly part of it. Pornography specifically depicts sexual acts. It is not the nudity that is the issue, so much. I think the objections against pornography are more in its objectification of the sexual act.

 

The thing about nudity and concupiscence is this:

Because of the fall we have great temptations, in some areas more than others. Nudity certainly can present temptation, sometimes the greatest temptations, which is why the greatest of prudence is necessary. But still, even in this case, there is no inherent, essential link between nudity and lust. Nudity can cause lust, but it need not. That is why there do exist contexts in which nudity is licit. They may be rather restricted contexts, as prudence demands, but nonetheless they do exist.

So, since nudity is not inherently sinful, and since there do exist contexts in which it is licit, it remains simply to be determined which contexts are appropriate. Art is certainly one because it glorifies God through celebration of the human form, which is inherently good. Nudity between spouses is also licit because it allows them to bring glory to God through their intimacy.

 

Jim's mistake is that he does not recognize the human body to be inherently good, in my opinion. I do not think Jim recognizes that nudity is not inherently shameful. Rather, the human body is inherently good, and it is prudence that causes us to cover it in normal everyday scenarios.

That is why I asked, earlier, if Jim has Manichaeist tendencies of which he may not be aware. I think he is (perhaps inadvertently) treating the body is inherently shameful. That is certainly not the Catholic position.

Ahh, merci. Prudence is the key. Thanks for taking the time for that answer.

Jim sounds a tad Gnostic... :(

It seems it's about taking the middle path and not getting extreme on either side.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ahh, merci. Prudence is the key. Thanks for taking the time for that answer.

Jim sounds a tad Gnostic... :(

It seems it's about taking the middle path and not getting extreme on either side.

Just a pet peeve of mine, but I do not like "middle road" sorts of arguments. I rather prefer what Dietrich von Hildebrand talked about in (probably among other works) Trojan Horse in the City of God, which said basically that if it appears that both extremes are wrong, the solution is not somewhere between the two, but rather something 'above' both. So, if the two extremes seem to be "all nude all the time" and "wear burqas to bed", the real solution is not to argue that X degree of clothed-ness is perfect, but rather than it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the human body and concupiscence to argue for either extreme. The true solution is reached by demanding a proper treatment of the question, which is not obtained by the paradigm that implies a sort of gradient between extremes.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

Aristotle was a pretty middle of the road guy.  Just depends on what's in the middle.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Aristotle was a pretty middle of the road guy.  Just depends on what's in the middle.  

Aristotle was a righteous heathen. :proud:

[Nihil Obstat]

But yeah, I accept that the 'middle road' concept is supported by lots of good people. I just prefer Dr. von Hildebrand's look at it, and it strikes me as uniquely Catholic, while the middle road think in turn strikes me as rather modernist and consequentialist. Just sort of in theory, not necessarily in practice.

[Basilisa Marie]

Aristotle was a righteous heathen. :proud:

 

And yet Aquinas thought he was enough of a bro to ask his Muslim friends if he could borrow their copies of his works. 

 

Because that's exactly how it happened.  :|

[Nihil Obstat]

And yet Aquinas thought he was enough of a bro to ask his Muslim friends if he could borrow their copies of his works. 

 

Because that's exactly how it happened.   :|

 

Righteous, dude!!

[Basilisa Marie]

But yeah, I accept that the 'middle road' concept is supported by lots of good people. I just prefer Dr. von Hildebrand's look at it, and it strikes me as uniquely Catholic, while the middle road think in turn strikes me as rather modernist and consequentialist. Just sort of in theory, not necessarily in practice.

 

But middle of the road is great.  It doesn't mean the literal quantitative middle.  Middle of the road doesn't have to just mean wear half your clothes all the time.  I can mean wear no clothes sometimes, were all your clothes other times.   :saint2:   You gotta think outside the scatter plot! 

[Nihil Obstat]

But middle of the road is great.  It doesn't mean the literal quantitative middle.  Middle of the road doesn't have to just mean wear half your clothes all the time.  I can mean wear no clothes sometimes, were all your clothes other times.   :saint2:   You gotta think outside the scatter plot! 

Wearing half a burqa... This might just catch on!

 

If you like I will try to find that section in Trojan Horse, but it has been several years since I read it, so it could take a while. Obviously he presents it much better than I could.

[jim111]

Wearing half a burqa... This might just catch on!

 

If you like I will try to find that section in Trojan Horse, but it has been several years since I read it, so it could take a while. Obviously he presents it much better than I could.

 

Lets put this another way, do you have a wife, or daughter? Would you let someone paint a naked picture of them, similar to the ones you posted earlier?

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[Quid Est Veritas?]

I don't see why I should not be painted. By having been painted, the image in the painting would not be me, but rather, Woman, in some aspect. The painting would be a window to one person's (the artist) perception of femininity. It would not be a person objectified to a set of body parts, as in porn, but a truism about femininity, an aspect of God's creation.
Now of course the setting and the pose could be calculated to incite the baser passions, as illustrations of pinup girls from the 1940s were. Usually, though, in classic art, the intent is to reveal God to the viewer, or to reveal some beautiful aspect of His creation. The ancient Greeks were particularly adept at this, Venus de Milo being their best known example. Similarly, Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, and Romantic artists focused sometimes on the nude human body, but in all the examples I can think of as a way to show the glory of God through the beauty of His creatures. Nudes by William Adolphe Bouguereau are a wonderful example of this.