Nudity In Art

[Lil Red]

is nudity in art good or bad? explain your position.

[kafka]

Bad. Why? Art is a high expression of beauty, and ultimately a reflection of God who is Beauty. Now public nudity goes against the moral law which God has written in the nature of men. So art that is immoral cannot be an expression of beauty or a reflection of God since it breaks his laws which are meant to lead men by love towards Him.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kafka' post='1341536' date='Jul 26 2007, 05:13 PM']Bad. Why? Art is a high expression of beauty, and ultimately a reflection of God who is Beauty. Now public nudity goes against the moral law which God has written in the nature of men. So art that is immoral cannot be an expression of beauty or a reflection of God since it breaks his laws which are meant to lead men by love towards Him.[/quote]kewel. the body god made us with is inherently immoral unless humans add clothes to it.

[Sojourner]

well, we could start by looking through similar discussions [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=51067"]here[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44625"]here[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=11094"]here, [/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=2091"]here.[/url]

My view is that it is OK as long as it's not erotic. There is a difference between portraying the body in a way that is intended to elicit lustful desire in the viewer (i.e., pornography) and portraying it in a way that is intended to elicit an appreciation for the inherent goodness and beauty of God's creation (i.e., Michelangelo's David).

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1341537' date='Jul 26 2007, 05:15 PM']kewel. the body god made us with is inherently immoral unless humans add clothes to it.[/quote]

sweet

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kafka' post='1341536' date='Jul 26 2007, 04:13 PM']Bad. Why? Art is a high expression of beauty, and ultimately a reflection of God who is Beauty. Now public nudity goes against the moral law which God has written in the nature of men. So art that is immoral cannot be an expression of beauty or a reflection of God since it breaks his laws which are meant to lead men by love towards Him.[/quote]
Public nudity doesn't go against the moral law which God has written in the nature of men. Haven't you read the creation story, dude? Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes until after they sinned...obviously then it wasn't a sin for them to be naked.

[Chiquitunga]

There are a couple threads about this at the Catholic Answers Forum - [url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=142487"]Nudity and Art[/url]

From what I've read, when they restored the Sistine Chapel, they restored the figures of Adam and Eve without clothes, as Michelangelo originally painted them. Some popes had requested that clothes be painted on them, but John Paul II was in favor of the original.

In Genesis it specifically says Adam and Eve were naked and were without shame. The naked human body is not evil, but God's creation.

We are, however a fallen race now. I think a lot depends on things like the culture, the times, intention of the artist, subject of the art. Not all nudity in art is bad, but certainly I think a great deal of it these days is immoral, and should be avoided.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Margaret Clare

[Lil Red]

Here is my position:

quoting from [u]Theology of the Body for Beginners[/u]

[quote name=' (page46-47)']Purity, therefore, is not prudishhness. It does not reject the body. "Purity is the glory of the human body before God. It is God's glory in the human body, through which masculinity and femininity are manifested" (March 18, 1981). Purity in its fullness will only be restored in heaven. Yet, as the Catechism teaches, "Even now [purity of heart] enables us to see according to God...it lets us perceive the human body - ours and our neighbors's - as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty" (CCC, n.2519).

We have to reckon with the fact that we have a Pope who, in the restoration project of the Sistine Chapel, ordered the removal of several loincloths that previous popes had painted over Michelangelo's original nudes. And he did this in the name of Christian purity. During the homily dedicating the restored frescoes, John Paul proclaimed the Sisten Chapel "the sanctuary of the theology of the human body." He added, "It seems that Michelangelo, in his own way, allowed himself to be guided by the evocative words of the Book of Genesis which...reveals: 'The man and his wife were both naked, yet felt no shame' (Gen 2:25)." (April 13, 1994)

What then, is the difference between pornography and a proper artistic portrayal of nakedness? The Pope says the difference lies in the intention of the artist. Pornographic portrayals of the body raise objection "not because of their object, since the human body in itself always has its inalienable dignity - but because of the quality or way of its reproduction" (May 6, 1981). The pornographer seeks only to arouse lust in the viewer, while the true artist (such as Michelangelo) helps us see "the whole personal mystery of man." Proper portrayals of the naked body teach us "in a way that nuptial meaning of the body which corresponds to, and is the measure of 'purity of heart'" (May 6, 1981). Those who experience mature purity understand the naked body for what it is - the revelation of God's plan of love.[/quote]

the way that i've heard it said: it is not that pornography shows too much, it is that is shows too little.

[kateri05]

[quote]it is not that pornography shows too much, it is that is shows too little.[/quote]

i couldn't agree more

[Chiquitunga]

That's very well said.

It's too bad evil has come into the world and tainted God's creation through abuses like pornography. The devil is quite unhappy with us, and the gifts God has given us. He will never be united to God again, and tries his best to corrupt the human race, twisting God's gift of human sexuality, which reflects the great mystery of God Himself, the Holy Trinity, into such immoral and cheapening abuses like pornography.

Yesterday I reported one of my own posts with the beautiful pictures of Our Lady, because I realized a link in the link I provided had a some pictures/photographs and links to art that I felt was on the verge of being inappropriate. They reminded me of some of the ways in which the devil tormented Padre Pio with visions of naked dancing young women.

But yeah, the correct understanding of the matter is written well here. I am reminded of another of Christopher West's series on the Theology of the Body, [i]Naked Without Shame.[/i] We are blessed in our day to have so much written well on the subject for our understanding, which is vital to our very beings as humans, created for love, and destined, [i]or rather[/i] created, to be united to Love Himself.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Margaret Clare

[knightec]

It all depends on how it is used. If it is used to arouse sexuality then I would say no. I took an art class where we studied the human body in terms of form and a representation of nature. There was nothing sexual about it. Michaelangelo's David is art, Playboy is not.

[Sojourner]

Here's an interesting question ... those of you who answered that you're not opposed to nude art, would anyone actually pose in the nude for an artist? Would you put up a nude portrait of someone you knew? Please explain your answer.

[cmotherofpirl]

ah the VATICAN Museum has nude art... are ya gonna object to Michelangelo????????

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341731' date='Jul 26 2007, 08:01 PM']Here's an interesting question ... those of you who answered that you're not opposed to nude art, would anyone actually pose in the nude for an artist? Would you put up a nude portrait of someone you knew? Please explain your answer.[/quote]

Yes and yes. God didn't make me with clothes on.

[kafka]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1341542' date='Jul 26 2007, 04:31 PM']Public nudity doesn't go against the moral law which God has written in the nature of men. Haven't you read the creation story, dude? Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes until after they sinned...obviously then it wasn't a sin for them to be naked.[/quote]

Of course I read the Creation story, dude. That was before the Fall.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1341736' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:05 PM']ah the VATICAN Museum has nude art... are ya gonna object to Michelangelo????????[/quote]

Object Michelangelo? Sure why not he was only an artist, a man, a sinner like the rest of us I dont care how talented he was

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341731' date='Jul 26 2007, 08:01 PM']Would you put up a nude portrait of someone you knew? Please explain your answer.[/quote]

I don't know anyone hottt enough that I'd want them nekkid on my wall. Yeah, yeah...human body=God's beautiful creation, but let's be realistic here, eh?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1341746' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:20 PM']Of course I read the Creation story, dude. That was before the Fall.[/quote]
yeah but aalpha's point is that the moral law was instilled in man before the fall ... so covering nakedness was not part of that. The desire to cover nakedness arose out of fear of lust, sexual desire without true love ... it wasn't something that was done out of response to an innate moral directive.

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='1341750' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:24 PM']I don't know anyone hottt enough that I'd want them nekkid on my wall. Yeah, yeah...human body=God's beautiful creation, but let's be realistic here, eh?[/quote]
Obviously you have not met me ...

[kafka]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='1341750' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:24 PM']I don't know anyone hottt enough that I'd want them nekkid on my wall. Yeah, yeah...human body=God's beautiful creation, but let's be realistic here, eh?[/quote]

Lets be real, of course the body is beautiful and God's creation, a good thing, etc. but one of the aspects of original sin is the disorder of body and soul, wherein the soul is not directed solely towards God as our highest good and Heaven as our everlasting home, and wherein the body is not directed solely towards God by serving and obeying the soul.

So when we are talking of nudity in public and in general the disorder of the body is at risk thus making it immoral for us. Adam and Eve were completely directed towards God before the Fall so in a sense above certain aspects of morality.

In theory I agree with that theology of the body post above but I dont think its very practical nor realistic considering our state after the Fall and the enormous problem of chastity in the Church and modern secular society.

And no I am not a prud

[Groo the Wanderer]

I personally would not pose nude since it would probably disgust everyone but my wife. I also do not wear a speedo - not qualified!

As for hanging a nude pic of someone I knew...only a baby pic of my daughter or somesuch. Baby booty is soooo cute



Now to throw gas on the fire....the line between pr0n and art has already been defined as depending on reason for the nekkidness. We usually think of nudes in artwork in the mediums of sculpture, paintings, mosaics, and sketchings.

How would you fit in nude photographs, specifically of the type not meant to be blatantly sexual but taken to highlight the beauty of the natural human form?

3..2..1....go!

[saint_wannabe]

i belive the kids these days call it poronography.