Nudity In Art

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341539' date='Jul 26 2007, 03:25 PM']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][/quote]
Good times!

[quote]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).[/quote]
I agree.

Tasteful nudity in art, as found in much of classical and renaissance art (Venus de Milo, Michaelangelo's David, etc.) focuses on the beauty of the human body as a magnificent work of creation, rather than specifically on its sexuality.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1341533' date='Jul 26 2007, 03:08 PM']is nudity in art good or bad? explain your position.[/quote]

The human body in and of itself is not bad. It's a beautiful thing. But we changed since the fall and God has made it so that we are to be covered. It's not the body that is bad, it is how we now perceive of it. I think that the decision of Paul IV to have the paintings covered up is important to consider. I think that while nudity in itself is not bad, it at the very least presents a problematic scenario. Especially in public works of such artistic renderings where such a piece is viewable to anyone of any moral or immoral disposition. Making them available publicly to anyone who wishes to view I think is irresponsible at least.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341539' date='Jul 26 2007, 05:25 PM']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).[/quote]

:applause: I couldn't have said it better myself.

[catholicinsd]

In the bar of my workplace, we have hanging a painting of two topless Lesbian mermaids holding a large globe with an eagle on it, trying to sell alcholol.

[Cow of Shame]

How do you [i]know[/i] they're lesbians? Or are all mermaids lesbians? I mean, you don't hear of mermen all that often. Huh...you're right. Odds are, they [i]are[/i] lesbians.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Cow of Shame

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1341757' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:43 PM']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[/quote]
[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1341780' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:52 PM']The human body in and of itself is not bad. It's a beautiful thing. But we changed since the fall and God has made it so that we are to be covered. It's not the body that is bad, it is how we now perceive of it. I think that the decision of Paul IV to have the paintings covered up is important to consider. I think that while nudity in itself is not bad, it at the very least presents a problematic scenario. Especially in public works of such artistic renderings where such a piece is viewable to anyone of any moral or immoral disposition. Making them available publicly to anyone who wishes to view I think is irresponsible at least.[/quote]
While it's true that lust impairs our ability to see the body rightly, we are all being transformed by grace, and by grace can develop the ability to see one another without lust, to appreciate the goodness of God's creation in one another lovingly rather than lustfully.

Of course someone who struggles with lust should maintain purity, but the goal is not to achieve purity by avoiding the beauty of the human body, but to achieve purity by an inner transformation by God's grace -- and that [i]is possible and should be encouraged by the church.[/i] By all means someone who lusts should avert his or her eyes, but don't stop with aversion ... true purity comes from grace transforming the heart to enable an individual too see rightly, and this should always be our goal.

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1341760' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:54 PM']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![/quote]
I don't have a problem with a tastefully done nude photo. It is in the same category as other forms of art, imo.

[quote name='saint_wannabe' post='1341762' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:11 PM']i belive the kids these days call it poronography.[/quote]
He was specifically referring to non-pornographic art works.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1341777' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:43 PM']Good times!
I agree.

Tasteful nudity in art, as found in much of classical and renaissance art (Venus de Milo, Michaelangelo's David, etc.) focuses on the beauty of the human body as a magnificent work of creation, rather than specifically on its sexuality.[/quote]
I may die of shock ... :

[Seven77]

Our society has devalued the dignity and beauty of human body so much that some people may have valid difficulty with nudity in art even if it is done tastefully. I'm kind of weak myself.

1. I think the female human body is very beautiful...why the 'need' for a Renaissance type nude painting?

2. Isn't having a woman pose for tasteful nude art like treating her like an object---how can she "be naked without shame" in this context.

3. We will all be [i]wearing[/i] white robes in Heaven, right?

[Ash Wednesday]

Being that I have studied art up to the master's level, I have no problem with nudity -- it is not an occasion for scandal for me.

I remember as a small fry at 18, seeing a nude male model for the first time ever in a college watercolor class -- and I was so shocked (*!!!HE'S NEKKID!!!*) I dropped my water glass and it shattered on the ground. Looking back now I totally laugh.

[goldenchild17]

I can see the other side of the argument, but for me I just can't quite accept it. I mean, there are other things that are quite good and beautiful in they're own right, but are not to be broadcast to the world - sex within marriage. It's a good and holy thing, so why would it be bad if two married people showed their act to the world? Some things, though beautiful and good, are to be kept sacred and private imho. I personally think the human body falls into this as well.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1342903' date='Jul 28 2007, 01:13 AM']I can see the other side of the argument, but for me I just can't quite accept it. I mean, there are other things that are quite good and beautiful in they're own right, but are not to be broadcast to the world - sex within marriage. It's a good and holy thing, so why would it be bad if two married people showed their act to the world? Some things, though beautiful and good, are to be kept sacred and private imho. I personally think the human body falls into this as well.[/quote]


but the whole point is that it isn't erotic, the art shouldn't display people having sex. and also if it's good enough for the vatican it's good enough for me. i can't really say anything i haven't said before because i'm not well versed in this subject. however american society and general american morals (not pop culture) are very puritan still. in europe they consider it more acceptable to have nudity in art. And, again, adam and eve were quite naked until the fall...morals didn't change after that....

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341731' date='Jul 26 2007, 05:01 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]

I wouldn't pose nude. But I'm spotty and lumpy, and have weird hair patches in odd places. Not very purdy.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1342909' date='Jul 28 2007, 02:28 AM']I wouldn't pose nude. But I'm spotty and lumpy, and have weird hair patches in odd places. Not very purdy.[/quote]

Perhaps you'd be best suited for a medical journal illustration, eh?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1342907' date='Jul 28 2007, 12:18 AM']but the whole point is that it isn't erotic, the art shouldn't display people having sex.[/quote]
I was using sex as a second example, not implying that all nude pictures/"art" is sexual. Sex is a good and holy thing, yet is not something to be publicly displayed. Thus I think just because it is good and even holy, doesn't mean it is okay to show it to the public. I personally believe the body falls into the category.

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1342907' date='Jul 28 2007, 12:18 AM']and also if it's good enough for the vatican it's good enough for me.[/quote]
no comment

[quote]i can't really say anything i haven't said before because i'm not well versed in this subject. however american society and general american morals (not pop culture) are very puritan still.[/quote]
I've heard this said many many times, and no matter how many times I hear it, I will never be able to believe it. If american society is puritan then I am officially frightened of the world (though I was already, but this would doubly confirm it).

[quote]in europe they consider it more acceptable to have nudity in art.[/quote]

Super-crazy liberalism and lesser-super-crazy liberalism is still crazy liberalism. Being less immoral than somebody else is not sufficient. It's not good enough to point to your neighbor and say that you are okay because at least you are doing better than he.


[quote]And, again, adam and eve were quite naked until the fall...morals didn't change after that....[/quote]
The morality of people certainly did. This gets repaired to a good degree with baptism, and with staying in grace. But for most of the world, this grace is not been given to them. Adam and Eve both saw and realized "and were ashamed" that they were naked. Clearly their viewpoint on it changed. The body didn't become less beautiful or less holy. It was the people who were changed, and changed we still are, and changed we will be until the end. Because of the fall it is much harder to fight sin, though we have help in the sacraments. It became a matter of morality to keep the body covered. We are no more advanced morally then anybody before us. There is no more moral reason to accept nudity than there ever has been before. Again, just my opinion...

[cathoholic_anonymous]

This exact question has been addressed by Sister Wendy Beckett, a hermit nun who lives in the woodlands near a Carmelite monastery in south-eastern England. She is also an art critic and has written several books on art, in addition to featuring in television documentaries. In one of her books she points out that nudity in art is never used to divorce the body from the soul and mind, to turn it into an object for lust. When that happens it ceases to be art and becomes pornography. Instead, nudity is used as a vehicle of expression, to capture fully the subject's beauty - mind, soul, personality, not just flesh. Her commentary on the painting [i]The Rape of Lucretia[/i] is particularly thought-provoking, as she points out that in this painting the would-be rapist is avoiding eye contact with his victim. This, she says, is the hallmark of lust: bloodthirsty desire for power and unwillingness to look at the victim as a person. The same is true of pornography. Artwork will always be distinct from this attitude.

[cmotherofpirl]

I LOVE that show!

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1343044' date='Jul 28 2007, 11:38 AM']This exact question has been addressed by Sister Wendy Beckett, a hermit nun who lives in the woodlands near a Carmelite monastery in south-eastern England. She is also an art critic and has written several books on art, in addition to featuring in television documentaries. In one of her books she points out that nudity in art is never used to divorce the body from the soul and mind, to turn it into an object for lust. When that happens it ceases to be art and becomes pornography. Instead, nudity is used as a vehicle of expression, to capture fully the subject's beauty - mind, soul, personality, not just flesh. Her commentary on the painting [i]The Rape of Lucretia[/i] is particularly thought-provoking, as she points out that in this painting the would-be rapist is avoiding eye contact with his victim. This, she says, is the hallmark of lust: bloodthirsty desire for power and unwillingness to look at the victim as a person. The same is true of pornography. Artwork will always be distinct from this attitude.[/quote]

That was an awesome post.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1343044' date='Jul 28 2007, 08:38 AM']This exact question has been addressed by Sister Wendy Beckett, a hermit nun who lives in the woodlands near a Carmelite monastery in south-eastern England. She is also an art critic and has written several books on art, in addition to featuring in television documentaries. In one of her books she points out that nudity in art is never used to divorce the body from the soul and mind, to turn it into an object for lust. When that happens it ceases to be art and becomes pornography. Instead, nudity is used as a vehicle of expression, to capture fully the subject's beauty - mind, soul, personality, not just flesh. Her commentary on the painting [i]The Rape of Lucretia[/i] is particularly thought-provoking, as she points out that in this painting the would-be rapist is avoiding eye contact with his victim. This, she says, is the hallmark of lust: bloodthirsty desire for power and unwillingness to look at the victim as a person. The same is true of pornography. Artwork will always be distinct from this attitude.[/quote]
amazing post! thank you!!

[kateri05]

i sr. wendy! she has great art books with beautiful catholic art, and some are even for kids!

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1342388' date='Jul 27 2007, 07:59 PM']2. Isn't having a woman pose for tasteful nude art like treating her like an object---how can she "be naked without shame" in this context.[/quote]

Sounds like the kind of reasoning that might have been used back in the day to ban dissecting human bodies, even to advance learning about human anatomy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Nudity in art is good if it upholds the dignity of the human person. Otherwise, it's unnecessary and probably immoral.