Nudity In Art

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1342388' date='Jul 27 2007, 05:59 PM']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?[/quote]

Perhaps to help restore the dignity of women through proper art.

[quote]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]

Well, that's a good point. I don't think it's treating her like an object, though, if she is participating actively in portraying feminine beauty. Participation makes her a subject. That isn't always true in other areas, of course...if a woman is participating in a man's lust, for instance, she remains an object, but I would venture to say that if a second party (the woman, the artist being the first party) were participating in the same way as the first party and in an intrinsic good (and I would propose that some nude art can be intrinsically good), then it is moral (analogously, if instead of lusting a man sought union and procreation with his wife [an intrinsic good] AND she participated in the same way and to the same degree he did [i.e. they both were totally self-giving], THEN it would be moral).

Of course, the question remains whether it would be an occasion of sin for a man to see a woman nude, even for art, and I would say, IMHO, that some (few) men may have the grace of seeing women in the right light in order to do this (keep in mind that Pope John Paul the Great said that lust and pornography was a problem of seeing too little of a woman, not of seeing too much), but personally, I would rather artists portrayed women as they are portrayed classically: seeing breasts is fine in certain contexts, art being one, so long as it's not a near occasion of sin for the particular individual, but seeing female genitalia is usually glossed over in classical art (i.e. the area is blank, without any sign of anything being present), which I think is a reasonable concession to men.

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

I tend to think that's just a symbol. Why will we need robes where there is no lust and no undesirable weather?

God bless,

Micah

[Lil Red]

thanks micah

[thessalonian]

JP II had all the loin clothes that had been painted over the artwork in St. Peter's removed. The body is not covered because it is bad but because allowing the lust of others to disrespect it is bad. Nudity in itself is not bad. Lust is and degrads and makes the human body a matter of consumption. Christopher West goes through this in some detail in his Theology of the Body series.

Blessings

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1344277' date='Jul 30 2007, 01:51 AM']Why will we need robes where there is no lust and no undesirable weather?[/quote]


no bad weather and no robes...I'm gonna get a suntan! (or would that be a Sontan?) ba-dum-ching!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1344481' date='Jul 30 2007, 12:56 PM']no bad weather and no robes...I'm gonna get a suntan! (or would that be a Sontan?) ba-dum-ching![/quote]

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1343759' date='Jul 29 2007, 07:11 PM']i sr. wendy! she has great art books with beautiful catholic art, and some are even for kids! [/quote]

Haha... Sister Wendy RULES! "LOOK at the BUTTOCKS!!!"

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1344481' date='Jul 30 2007, 12:56 PM']no bad weather and no robes...I'm gonna get a suntan! (or would that be a Sontan?) ba-dum-ching![/quote]
I was going to say "I'll burn first" then realized that sounded a little weird in the context ...

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1343044' date='Jul 28 2007, 10:38 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]

Great post, for sure. Is there any Youtube videos on some of her lectures?

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1344481' date='Jul 30 2007, 01:56 PM']no bad weather and no robes...I'm gonna get a suntan! (or would that be a Sontan?) ba-dum-ching![/quote]

[Innocent]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1342388' date='Jul 28 2007, 05:29 AM']3. We will all be [i]wearing[/i] white robes in Heaven, right?[/quote]

Somehow, when I read this, I was reminded of C.S. Lewis' [i]The Great Divorce[/i] .


[quote]THE REASON why I asked if there were another river was this. All down one long aisle of the forest the under-sides of the leafy branches had begun to tremble with dancing light; and on earth I knew nothing so likely to produce this appearance as the reflected lights cast upward by moving water. A few moments later I realised my mistake. Some kind of procession was approaching us, and the light came from the persons who composed it.

First came bright Spirits, not the Spirits of men, who danced and scattered flowers-soundlessly falling, lightly drifting flowers, though by the standards of the ghost-world each petal would have weighed a hundred-weight and their fall would have been like the crashing of boulders. Then, on the left and right, at each side of the forest avenue, came youthful shapes, boys upon one hand, and girls upon the other. If I could remember their singing and write down the notes, no man who read that score would ever grow sick or old. Between them went musicians: and after these a lady in whose honour all this was being done.

I cannot now remember whether she was naked or clothed. If she were naked, then it must have been the almost visible penumbra of her courtesy and joy which produces in my memory the illusion of a great and shining train that followed her across the happy grass. If she were clothed, then the illusion of nakedness is doubtless due to the clarity with which her inmost spirit shone through the clothes. For clothes in that country are not a disguise: the spiritual body lives along each thread and turns them into living organs. A robe or a crown is there as much one of the wearer's features as a lip or an eye.[/quote]

That's from Chapter 12.

Of course, Lewis made it clear it was only his dream about Heaven, but the first time I read it, it somehow seemed to make sense.

AMDG,
Innocent

Edited August 22, 2007 by Innocent

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1367734' date='Aug 22 2007, 09:36 AM']Somehow, when I read this, I was reminded of C.S. Lewis' [i]The Great Divorce[/i] .
That's from Chapter 12.

Of course, Lewis made it clear it was only his dream about Heaven, but the first time I read it, it somehow seemed to make sense.

AMDG,
Innocent[/quote]
Always seemed to make sense to me as well.

[Lil Red]

beautiful passage!

[jeffpugh]

Yeah, that was wonderful.