Nudity in art.

[Craftygrl06]

I had a critique in my Acreenprinting class tonight. There is this one guy in there who I really don't like (he's just really bitter toward religion, and has decided that making fun of it in his art is an acceptable way of dealing with that), the past 3 projects he's done have had naked women in them. He apparently uses his friends as his models and does all sorts of nude photography. His art seriously offends me and makes me wonder if he really has any respect for woman at all....so no more ranting ...this semester is almost over anyway....

My question is: When, if ever, is it appropriate to use nudity in art?

[Brother Adam]

The human body is not 'bad' or 'depraved' it is good, as God created it. We can appreciate sex - the female and the male, without being immoral about it. I love Peter Kreeft's sermon "Sex in Heaven" (available online) on just that topic. Nude art, as it is found in the Vatican is not painted to evoke sexual pleasure or arosual as pornography does. It often depicts salvation history.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Craftygrl06]

I wasn't really considering the early stuff when I wrote this post. In some cases (esp. michaelangelo; the old greats), the nude is simply a depiction of how good the artist is. There was an obcession with the human body and recreating it in painting and sculpture.

I guess I was thinking more like modern art. Which is mostly political these days. It seems that artists have become promoters for all sorts of causes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Craftygrl06' post='954575' date='Apr 19 2006, 08:05 PM']
I wasn't really considering the early stuff when I wrote this post. In some cases (esp. michaelangelo; the old greats), the nude is simply a depiction of how good the artist is. There was an obcession with the human body and recreating it in painting and sculpture.

I guess I was thinking more like modern art. Which is mostly political these days. It seems that artists have become promoters for all sorts of causes.
[/quote]
True.

There is a great difference between classical and renaissance art and much of modern art. Classical art emphasized the beauty and nobility of the human body in a way that did not draw excessive attention to sexuality. It was very different from pornography and much of modern art which seeks to shock or provoke, rather than create beauty.

Much of modern "art" is a travesty - it has degenerated into cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda. Most of it will be quickly forgotten.

[avemaria40]

Nudity in art in and of itself is not sinful. it's when it gets pornographic and degrading that it is sinful, IMO anyway

[jswranch]

1. JPII's Theology of the body covers a bit of this topic. It is a very good read. He states it is the responsibility of the artist to ensure nude art does not cross the line into porn (as per Christopher West CD). West also discusses the JPII's decision to remove the loin cloths on the Sistine Chapel during the restoration. The loin cloths had previously been added after completion of the chapel.

2. Agony and the Ecstacy. It is an older movie about the painting of the Sistine Chapel. The pope is engaged in a struggle with Michaelangelo. The nude figures comes up as a topic. The pope conceeds to the artist after he finds Michaelangelo believes God sees the nude figure as good.

In the beginning (Eden), we were naked without shame. God saw us as good. We should strive be see the beauty of our creation as God did and does see us (not that we should promote exibitionism).

[dspen2005]

it is the same line we arrive at when separating pornography from legitimate film. Pornography takes the human body and makes it the sole subject; the acme of human gratification and nothing more. When we see art that is depicting a nude, what is it doing? is it poised in an obscene manner, or is it highlighting the intrinsically good aspects of the human body (God saw that it was very good).

I think it is best to use our common sense. Even those that paint and create such pieces of offensive art, know that it is offensive -- that is why they do it: to get a reaction from the onlooker.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='avemaria40' post='954806' date='Apr 20 2006, 06:44 AM']
Nudity in art in and of itself is not sinful. it's when it gets pornographic and degrading that it is sinful, IMO anyway
[/quote]


Yeah, but if you haven't noticed, a large portion of phatmassers equate nudity with pornography.

lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='955314' date='Apr 20 2006, 01:58 PM']
Yeah, but if you haven't noticed, a large portion of phatmassers equate nudity with pornography.

lol
[/quote]
Thank you, Cow of Shame, for this insightful piece of information. I myself was unaware of this. How did you come up with this statement? Did you take a survey?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='955493' date='Apr 20 2006, 07:49 PM']
Thank you, Cow of Shame, for this insightful piece of information. I myself was unaware of this. How did you come up with this statement? Did you take a survey?
[/quote]
Perhaps the Cow gleaned this information in the same manner that you found that "Much of modern 'art' is a travesty - it has degenerated into cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda. Most of it will be quickly forgotten."

lol

[Sojourner]

I agree with previously expressed statements saying that nudity can be entirely appropriate in a work of art given the proper presentation. I have pieces from 14 different artists in my place, the majority of whom are contemporary. Many of them I know personally. Of those, there's one piece of art that's approaching nudity, although it's far from being anatomically graphic. It uses the suggestion of nudity to convey a sense of vulnerability in relationship. Quite a beautiful piece. I had a friend in college who did a self-portrait of her naked back. Again, it was beautifully and tastefully done. Modern art isn't devoid, by any means, of appropriate presentations of the body and sexuality. I've seen several beautifully moving pieces involving nudity. I've also seen pieces I believe are inappropriate in their portrayal of the human body ... and not all of these pieces involve nudity.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' post='955493' date='Apr 20 2006, 07:49 PM']
Thank you, Cow of Shame, for this insightful piece of information. I myself was unaware of this. How did you come up with this statement? Did you take a survey?
[/quote]

Apparently all those self-congratulatory parties you threw for yourself in the political threads have made you go blind.

[Peccator]

No, I do not see anything wrong per say with nudity in art. There's a huge difference between nudity and pornography...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='955779' date='Apr 20 2006, 11:09 PM']
Apparently all those self-congratulatory parties you threw for yourself in the political threads have made you go blind.
[/quote]
Ah, go start another David Hasselhoff thread.

Let's face it, you're out of your league here.

[quote name='Sojourner' post='955634' date='Apr 20 2006, 08:12 PM']
Perhaps the Cow gleaned this information in the same manner that you found that "Much of modern 'art' is a travesty - it has degenerated into cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda. Most of it will be quickly forgotten."

lol
[/quote]
So would you disagree?

And - wow! - check out who Sojourner has quoted on on her signature!
You gotta admit, that lady's got true taste and class!

[Snarf]

And here I thought that irony was a lost art here on Phatmass.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' post='956560' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
Ah, go start another David Hasselhoff thread.[/quote]
Mmmmm.....someone likes to keep tab on my interests. Now, I don't mind a stalker or two...regardless of their batting preferences....so the next time you watch my house, feel free to drop off a couple bottles of hard liquor. I'm sure you'll know what I like.
[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
Let's face it, you're out of your league here.
[/quote]
Apparently so. I just can't seem to manage to slow my brain function down enough to engage in any sort of meaningful exchange with you. My apologies.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='956675' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:32 PM']
Mmmmm.....someone likes to keep tab on my interests. Now, I don't mind a stalker or two...regardless of their batting preferences....so the next time you watch my house, feel free to drop off a couple bottles of hard liquor. I'm sure you'll know what I like.

[/quote]
Sure, we could drink ourselves blind in celebration of my wisdom on the political threads!

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='956675' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:32 PM']
Apparently so. I just can't seem to manage to slow my brain function down enough to engage in any sort of meaningful exchange with you. My apologies.
[/quote]
Oooohhhhh! Cow just said I'm dumber than a bovine!

Say, you don't happen to be kin to Chris Zewe, do you?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='956560' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
So would you disagree?
[/quote]
I would.

I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" but I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." I admit I'm not a connoisseur of art nationwide or globally, and am no student of modern art, but I do love art and am fairly involved in the arts scene in my community. I've spent a lot of time in galleries, in museums, and with artist friends. The vast majority of pieces I've seen would not fall into the "cheap publicity and political propaganda." I think that's a overgeneralization that shows you would rather coin a label ("cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda") than logically defend a position.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 05:49 AM']
I would.

I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" but I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." I admit I'm not a connoisseur of art nationwide or globally, and am no student of modern art, but I do love art and am fairly involved in the arts scene in my community. I've spent a lot of time in galleries, in museums, and with artist friends. The vast majority of pieces I've seen would not fall into the "cheap publicity and political propaganda." I think that's a overgeneralization that shows you would rather coin a label ("cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda") than logically defend a position.
[/quote]
I said "much of modern art" - I did not say "all of modern art." I know that there are good artists out there.
I myself happen to know a number of artists. I have heard lectures and read articles by artists with much more knowledge of the art world than myself, who have made the same observations as myself on the modern art world. I even once dated a woman who was a professional artist. I have also seen and read about quite a bit of crappy mod art.
While this observation may be somewhat subjective, it seems clear that the amount of modern art work that falls under the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" is much more than a small handful.
I'm referring to such things as
A photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine
Photographs of people in a variety of perverted sex acts
"Performance art" in which HIV-positive "artists" cut each other up and sprinkle their blood on the audience
An ugly "madonna" with elephant dung and cut-outs of porno pics
Fruits and vegetables aranged on a bed to look like human body parts
People doing absurd and pointless stunts as "performance art"
A collage of photos of human genitals
Endless sexually-oriented art with the stated purpose of advancing feminist or homosexual political agendas

And some oldies but goodies:
Selling jars of one's feces as "art"
Hanging a urinal on a wall and calling it "found art"

These are only a very few examples that I can recall off the top of my head.
Read any art history and compare the art prior to the end of the 19th Century, and that afterwards.

The point of art was once to portray beauty or give honor and glory to God. Since the end of the nineteenth century, there have been major strains in art whose main purpose is to shock, offend, and provoke traditional sensibilities.

I am not "coining labels," but making what I believe to be accurate observations. My original post was agreeing with someone involved in art about the politicization of art.
Note also that this thread was was a civil and intelligent discussion about the role of nudity in art, with no personal attacks, until "Cow of Shame" and yourself came in and chose to turn it into a stupid insult thread.

You are extremely quick to accuse me and other conservatives of being shallow and irrational, yet I do not say things arbitrarily, and usually provide sources and arguments to back myself up.
It's clear that you have issues with some of us here, but it would be best that you either address them privately or keep them to yourself.

[Snarf]

Nothing disproves allegations of being "shallow and irrational" better than pulling ex nihilo the claim that someone has personal issues.