Nudity in art.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' post='957314' date='Apr 22 2006, 05:09 PM']
Nothing disproves allegations of being "shallow and irrational" better than pulling ex nihilo the claim that someone has personal issues.
[/quote]
She knows to what I refer. But I'm not going to discuss that any further here.
Let's keep to the subject of art.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' post='957314' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:09 PM']
Nothing disproves allegations of being "shallow and irrational" better than pulling ex nihilo the claim that someone has personal issues.
[/quote]

lol

[img]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c398/Cow_of_Shame/owned.jpg[/img]

[jasJis]

There's nothing wrong with nudity unless you have a dirty mind. Since we're all depraved, they should paint some fig leaves in the Sistine Chapel.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='956560' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
Ah, go start another David Hasselhoff thread.

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


And - wow! - check out who Sojourner has quoted on on her signature!
You gotta admit, that lady's got true taste and class!
[/quote]
hahaha, what a well-mannered individual our Socrates is.

dude, Snarf got you.


PEACE


ughhh...Sunday has been spent well

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
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.
[/quote]
the problem with some of the conservatives on this board is that they are shallow and irrational. And even when they are being rational and wise, they are so smug it's unbearable. I'm no liberal, but I operate under the old saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps conservatives would not be so put upon if they were a bit less unpleasant.

Moderates have it the worst anyway.

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
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.
[/quote]
the problem with some of the conservatives on this board is that they are shallow and irrational. And even when they are being rational and wise, they are so smug it's unbearable. I'm no liberal, but I operate under the old saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps conservatives would not be so put upon if they were a bit less unpleasant.

Moderates have it the worst anyway.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957917' date='Apr 23 2006, 12:12 PM']
There's nothing wrong with nudity unless you have a dirty mind.
[/quote]

Exactly, it's when it is pornographic and degrading that it becomes a problem.

[Craftygrl06]

YAY FOR MY POST GOING OVER ONE PAGE!

So I think we are all agreed that nudity in art has it's place, so long as it is tasteful not tacty....

So here's the next issue: What's wrong with modern art these days? It seems that it's all trying to be witty to address an issue...what ever happened to the concept of making something that's beautiful?

Edited April 24, 2006 by Craftygrl06

[MichaelFilo]

Modern art is all about the emotion and feelings it provokes, not it's content. At least thats the arguement for the pagan form of art, just like nudity is a pagan element of art, which understandably comes out of a pagan Renassance... (insert pagan wherever you may please).

At any rate, nudity is shameful, and only when we have our glorified bodies will it cease to be such.

And as for modern art, there was a woman who had her 5 year old paint on a paper and her art critic friend took it to his friends, and they treated it as they would other modern art. Again, it is false emotionalism, not beauty. Emotionalism is the realm of paganism (compare the pentacostal 1st century Christians to the men and women who followed Bacchus, the god of wine for a good example).

God bless,
Mikey

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:49 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]


[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
I said "much of modern art" - I did not say "all of modern art." [/quote]
[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:49 AM']
... but [b]I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." [/b] [/quote]
I never said you said "all of modern art."

I disagree with your contention that [b]much[/b] of modern art is cheap publicity and political propaganda.

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
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.
[/quote]
I am aware of all the pieces you've listed, and I could agree that those would fall into the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda." As I said:
[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:49 AM']
I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" ... [/quote]

I'm well aware that art styles have changed over the centuries. And I'm well aware that there are pockets in the art community in which artists' main purpose is to shock, offend, and provoke traditional sensibilities. But painting the whole of modern art with such broad brushstrokes discredits the vast majority of artists producing works today.

And, glorifying pre-19th Century art as being intended to "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" glosses over the less-than-savory aspects of art from those times. And, you intimate by this statement that modern art does NOT "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" -- that's something I'd definitely take issue with. I find many ARE intended to portray beauty, to call attention to beauty in areas in which we might miss it. It may not look like a Renaissance painting ... but then again, we are not Renaissance people.

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
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.
[/quote]
How is "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" not a label?

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='958426' date='Apr 23 2006, 09:22 PM']
Modern art is all about the emotion and feelings it provokes, not it's content. At least thats the arguement for the pagan form of art, just like nudity is a pagan element of art, which understandably comes out of a pagan Renassance... (insert pagan wherever you may please).

At any rate, nudity is shameful, and only when we have our glorified bodies will it cease to be such.

And as for modern art, there was a woman who had her 5 year old paint on a paper and her art critic friend took it to his friends, and they treated it as they would other modern art. Again, it is false emotionalism, not beauty. Emotionalism is the realm of paganism (compare the pentacostal 1st century Christians to the men and women who followed Bacchus, the god of wine for a good example).

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]
So ... art that evokes emotion is pagan?

[Seven77]

[quote name='Era Might' post='954545' date='Apr 19 2006, 07:47 PM']
While it's not wrong in itself, I'll be honest: I don't understand why the renaissance cats were so obsessed with nudity. Serious. Everything is in the buff in the Vatican. It's overwhelming, and I don't like looking at it, even if it is a nice painting.
[/quote]

sometimes i dont understand this either. it's like concupiscence didn't exist for those artists.

hmm.. i think maybe thats what they are trying to get across---when concupiscence didnt exist and when it will no longer exist.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='958783' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:19 AM']
I never said you said "all of modern art."

I disagree with your contention that [b]much[/b] of modern art is cheap publicity and political propaganda.
I am aware of all the pieces you've listed, and I could agree that those would fall into the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda." As I said:
I'm well aware that art styles have changed over the centuries. And I'm well aware that there are pockets in the art community in which artists' main purpose is to shock, offend, and provoke traditional sensibilities. But painting the whole of modern art with such broad brushstrokes discredits the vast majority of artists producing works today. [/quote]

Well obviously we disagree about the scope of the problem in modern art. I just know that there are those knowledgable and active in art who agree with me. And of course, when dealing with artistic matters, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. Not all mod art goes to extremes of blasphemy or obscenity or other depravity, but in my opinion, most of it is at best ugly or silly, particularly when compared with great artwork of the past.

[quote]And, glorifying pre-19th Century art as being intended to "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" glosses over the less-than-savory aspects of art from those times. And, you intimate by this statement that modern art does NOT "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" -- that's something I'd definitely take issue with. I find many ARE intended to portray beauty, to call attention to beauty in areas in which we might miss it. It may not look like a Renaissance painting ... but then again, we are not Renaissance people.
How is "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" not a label?
[/quote]
It's not clear exactly what "less than savory aspects," you are talking about here. I'm not claiming that classical, medieval, or rennaissance art was all perfect, but in general it was intended to truthfully portray people and nature or to glorify God or to instruct or illustrate. Art had many purposes, but prior to the 20th Century, it was never intended to shock, enrage, or engage in ugliness for its own sake.

While it may be true that "we are not Renaissance people," human nature does not change. What does change is the culture, and the increasingly godless and nihilistic viewpoints of recent centuries are reflected in our art. While once art portrayed and glorified order and beauty an sought to lift the observer to higher level, modern art often reflects nihilism or despair.
This is reflected in all aspects of art and culture - sculpture, painting, music, and architecture.

Where is the modern equivalent of the monuments and statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Gothic Cathedrals, or the masterworks of Michaelangelo?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
Well obviously we disagree about the scope of the problem in modern art. I just know that there are those knowledgable and active in art who agree with me. [/quote]
I know that there are those knowledgeable and active in art who agree with me, too. It appears we're at an impasse.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
And of course, when dealing with artistic matters, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. Not all mod art goes to extremes of blasphemy or obscenity or other depravity, but in my opinion, most of it is at best ugly or silly, particularly when compared with great artwork of the past.
[/quote]
Of course there is subjectivity when it comes to portrayals of beauty.

Perhaps my definition of beauty is slightly more broad than yours, because I happen to find a great deal of beauty both in modern art and in older works. I think modern art tells the same truths that the great masters of the past did, only using different forms. The greatest stories never change, although the words used to tell them may.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
I'm not claiming that classical, medieval, or rennaissance art was all perfect, but in general it was intended to truthfully portray people and nature or to glorify God or to instruct or illustrate. [/quote]
I'd argue that much of modern art carries the same intent.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
Art had many purposes, but prior to the 20th Century, it was never intended to shock, enrage, or engage in ugliness for its own sake.
[/quote]
Art prior to the 20th century was [b]never[/b] intended to shock, enrage, or portray ugliness? Even though I'm no art scholar, I'm quite certain that's not the case. You yourself say "human nature does not change." Artists 200, 300, 500, or 1,000 years ago were motivated by the same things that artists today are motivated by. Erotic art, as one example, has been around for millenia ... if that's shocking today, I'm sure it was no less shocking 500 years ago. And the old theme of seeing beauty and truth in ugliness was as compelling then as it is now. The forms have changed, but the messages haven't.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
While it may be true that "we are not Renaissance people," human nature does not change. What does change is the culture, and the increasingly godless and nihilistic viewpoints of recent centuries are reflected in our art. While once art portrayed and glorified order and beauty an sought to lift the observer to higher level, modern art often reflects nihilism or despair.
This is reflected in all aspects of art and culture - sculpture, painting, music, and architecture.
[/quote]
I'd definitely agree that human nature does not change. The modes through which we communicate and understand truth do, however, change. I have seen plenty of modern art I'd say is quite beautiful and uplifting. I've also seen art that's more somber, or despairing ... but there's some dark, depressing stuff from other centuries too. Human nature doesn't, apparently, change.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
Where is the modern equivalent of the monuments and statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Gothic Cathedrals, or the masterworks of Michaelangelo?
[/quote]
I'd hate to think that Indiana is the mecca of good art in the world, but I can think of several beautiful works of art we have here. Perhaps we are the last bastion of good art here.

Then again, I'm not convinced that our culture can produce only ugliness and despair, so I'm sure that my overall view of our culture affects my perception of the art I see.

[toledo_jesus]

If modern art simply aped the classics it would not be art.

Modern art can in fact be meaningful and speak to us. What is dangerous is when modern art is part of a fad, and will not speak to future generations as the classic works do.

The measure of art is that it speaks to timeless humanity, not to a small segment of history. That sort of art can be appreciated for intellectual value but to last beyond its immediate relevance it must strike a chord with people.




My college education has made me perhaps the world's best Art Museum Security Guard.

[praying4patience]

we all know when nudity is vice and when nudity is art.
We can discern between the 2.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='960080' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:28 AM']
I know that there are those knowledgeable and active in art who agree with me, too. It appears we're at an impasse.
Of course there is subjectivity when it comes to portrayals of beauty.

Perhaps my definition of beauty is slightly more broad than yours, because I happen to find a great deal of beauty both in modern art and in older works. I think modern art tells the same truths that the great masters of the past did, only using different forms. The greatest stories never change, although the words used to tell them may.
I'd argue that much of modern art carries the same intent.[/quote]
Perhaps, though I's say the intentional perversity intent ot shock or be subversive of traditional mores, and over-politicization which characterize much (not all) of "modern art" are historically recent developments.

Pick up an art history book and look through it. Do you honestly think that most 20th-21st century artists are really trying to "say" the same things as say, Raphael or Michaelangelo? (The Renaissance artists, not the ninja turtles)

[quote]Art prior to the 20th century was [b]never[/b] intended to shock, enrage, or portray ugliness? Even though I'm no art scholar, I'm quite certain that's not the case. You yourself say "human nature does not change." Artists 200, 300, 500, or 1,000 years ago were motivated by the same things that artists today are motivated by. Erotic art, as one example, has been around for millenia ... if that's shocking today, I'm sure it was no less shocking 500 years ago. And the old theme of seeing beauty and truth in ugliness was as compelling then as it is now. The forms have changed, but the messages haven't.[/quote]

I stand with what I've said. Read any art history. In Western art, there was a truly revolutionary change in the purpose of art in the early 20th century. The first forms of modernism began in the late 19th century, but truly revolutionary artistic movements began during the first world war with the "dada" movement, the ancestor of much of modern art. This was a deliberately subversive movement which sought to tear down the whole idea of art, and expressed a nihilistic philosophy by creating deliberately absurd and nihilistic compositions. (The urinal and feces examples I gave earlier were examples of dada, as well as painting a goatee and moustache on a print of the Mona Lisa). Many of the dadaists, surrealists, and other avante-gard artists were involved in revolutionary politics.

These movements have been very influential on later art.

While it is true that "erotic art" (pornography) has existed through the ages, it was always something seperate from "legitimate" art, and was found inside whorehouses and the like, not put on public display to "shock the burgoise" or for similar purposes.
The using of art to subvert or challenge public morality is a modern idea, as well as seeing the primary purpose of art as being to promote a political cause (popular in "post-modern" artistic movements).

[quote]I'd definitely agree that human nature does not change. The modes through which we communicate and understand truth do, however, change. I have seen plenty of modern art I'd say is quite beautiful and uplifting. I've also seen art that's more somber, or despairing ... but there's some dark, depressing stuff from other centuries too. Human nature doesn't, apparently, change. [/quote]
The point I was trying to make is not so much about uplifting vs. depressing as about reflecting a worldview where truth, goodness, and beauty do exist vs. a nihilistic worldview which sees the universe and human exististence as ultimately meaningless (expressed in many modern artistic movements.)

This can be seen in the countless debates here concerning "modern" Church architecture vs. traditional forms, and their appropriateness to sacred worship.

[quote]I'd hate to think that Indiana is the mecca of good art in the world, but I can think of several beautiful works of art we have here. Perhaps we are the last bastion of good art here.[/quote]
Can't say I know much about art in Indiana, but take a stroll through D.C., and you'll see all kinds of truly hideous "modern" sculptures in front of buildings that look like they were hauled fresh out of the local dump!

[quote]Then again, I'm not convinced that our culture can produce only ugliness and despair, so I'm sure that my overall view of our culture affects my perception of the art I see.[/quote]
I never said that is all our culture can produce. I am saying that it is what it tends to produce, at least much more so than in earlier times.
As our culture has lost faith in God, and in a sense of truth, virtue, and beauty, this is reflected in its art.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='960889' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM']
Perhaps, though I's say the intentional perversity intent ot shock or be subversive of traditional mores, and over-politicization which characterize much (not all) of "modern art" are historically recent developments.

Pick up an art history book and look through it. Do you honestly think that most 20th-21st century artists are really trying to "say" the same things as say, Raphael or Michaelangelo? (The Renaissance artists, not the ninja turtles)
[/quote]
Michelangelo was pretty shocking in his day. People then weren't all that happy with genitalia in the papal chapel ... some of which are still covered today. Let's not forget that Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities followed close on the heels of the great Renaissance masters.

And yes, I'd say artists today are exploring the same things that Raphael and Michelangelo were. Human nature doesn't change. I think it's easy to paint past cultures as being more pure than our own, that somehow our time is more difficult than any which has come before us, that our ancestors were more pure of heart than we are, more apt to glorify God. But the follies of the human heart don't change.

[quote name='Socrates' post='960889' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM']
I stand with what I've said. Read any art history. In Western art, there was a truly revolutionary change in the purpose of art in the early 20th century. The first forms of modernism began in the late 19th century, but truly revolutionary artistic movements began during the first world war with the "dada" movement, the ancestor of much of modern art. This was a deliberately subversive movement which sought to tear down the whole idea of art, and expressed a nihilistic philosophy by creating deliberately absurd and nihilistic compositions. (The urinal and feces examples I gave earlier were examples of dada, as well as painting a goatee and moustache on a print of the Mona Lisa). Many of the dadaists, surrealists, and other avante-gard artists were involved in revolutionary politics.

These movements have been very influential on later art.
[/quote]
I'm familiar wtih the dada movement and its effects on modern art. While the dada effect is undeniable, I think dada-ism in its purist form is not very prevalent. In my opinion, it's something like Protestantism. In its early stages, Protestants were making a clear statement against the Catholic Church. Today, many people are Protestant simply because that's what they grew up as, not out of any well-thought-out antagonism against the Catholic church. Are there anti-Catholic Protestants? Sure. But the majority of Protestants are seeking to know and understand the same God we do. Are there subversive artists today? Sure. But the majority of artists use their work as a form of expressing their own meditiations on something greater than themselves.

[quote name='Socrates' post='960889' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM']
The using of art to subvert or challenge public morality is a modern idea, as well as seeing the primary purpose of art as being to promote a political cause (popular in "post-modern" artistic movements).
[/quote]
Tell that to Savonarola.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote]I've been thinking about art a lot this week-- the HSkids are in an art class and I am looking at curriculum for next year... I was pretty interested in the curriculum that this particular art teacher was selling. He's very well-known in the HSworld... and he has one book on art history and Christianity and I was skimming through it. He has a section on whether or not one should use art examples containing nudes. And, well, I don't agree with his POV, so... I'm still looking.[/quote]

Posted in the wrong thread...

[Sojourner]

Is it Leland Ryken? He has a good book on Christianity and the arts.

[homeschoolmom]

I've never heard of him... I'm googling him now.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='961941' date='Apr 26 2006, 02:37 PM']
I've never heard of him... I'm googling him now.
[/quote]
The book I have is from my aesthetics class ... it's called "The Liberated Imagination."

Leo Tolstoy has an interesting [url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html"]essay on art, called "What is Art." [/url] (that's excerpts of the essay)

[quote]#10. To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. [/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='961732' date='Apr 26 2006, 10:41 AM']
Michelangelo was pretty shocking in his day. People then weren't all that happy with genitalia in the papal chapel ... some of which are still covered today. Let's not forget that Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities followed close on the heels of the great Renaissance masters.[/quote]
You seem to be missing a very important distinction here.
Michaelangelo did not create his artwork with the purpose of offending religious or moral sensibilities, and the nudity in his paintings, while it may have offended some, was not done for the purpose of shock value, but rather to display the beauty of the human form, and his skill in portraying it.
It's not as though Michaelangelo was some modern "shock artist" seeking to tick off religious folk by painting genitalia in a church!

Let us not forget that Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel and created other artwork (including his famous "Pieta" and "Moses") at the commission of the Church.

Savonarola, on the other hand, was denounced by the Church, and excommunicated.

All indications are that Michaelangelo was a pious and religious man. He is quoted as saying: "True art is made noble and religious by the mind portraying it," and that the soul becomes enobled by "the endeavor to create something perfect, for God is perfection, and whoever strives after perfection is striving after something divine."

To suggest that Michaelangelo had similar motivations in his relgious art as the Dadaists or an artist putting a crucifix in urine is beyond absurd.

There is unfortunately a prominent strain in modern art which seeks to offend or provoke as a goal in itself. This goal was largely absent in art before around 100 years ago.

While it is true that some have found great art offensive in its day, there is a distinction between art which happens to shock or offend some, and art which [b]has as its purpose [/b] to shock and offend.

[quote]And yes, I'd say artists today are exploring the same things that Raphael and Michelangelo were. Human nature doesn't change. I think it's easy to paint past cultures as being more pure than our own, that somehow our time is more difficult than any which has come before us, that our ancestors were more pure of heart than we are, more apt to glorify God. But the follies of the human heart don't change.
I'm familiar wtih the dada movement and its effects on modern art. While the dada effect is undeniable, I think dada-ism in its purist form is not very prevalent. In my opinion, it's something like Protestantism. In its early stages, Protestants were making a clear statement against the Catholic Church. Today, many people are Protestant simply because that's what they grew up as, not out of any well-thought-out antagonism against the Catholic church. Are there anti-Catholic Protestants? Sure. But the majority of Protestants are seeking to know and understand the same God we do. Are there subversive artists today? Sure. But the majority of artists use their work as a form of expressing their own meditiations on something greater than themselves. [/quote]
I am under no illusion that past ages were perfect and completely "pure." However, any Catholic who has studied history will have to agree that modern times are in many ways singularly evil. Note the unprecedented loss of Faith and apostacy in the West, the rise of atheism, the horrors of Communism and Nazism, and the widespread evil of abortion.
The godlessness and nihilism found in the modern world is often reflected in its art.

To say that things are no different now than they always were shows ignorance of history.

Your comparision with protestantism is actually quite apt. For, though most protestants may not be wilfully evil, the Protestant Revolt has done untold damage to Christendom and the Church, which has never been repaired.
So too have early twentieth-century nihilistic artistic movements done damage to the world of art.