Oh Man This Is A Can Of Worms...

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1941634' date='Aug 5 2009, 11:26 PM']Why would people in heaven need clothes?[/quote]

"After this, I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."

In the book of the Apocalypse, St. John has a vision of the saints in heaven wearing robes. Obviously this does not need to be interpreted in a literalistic manner, but it should influence the our depictions of the saints in heaven.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1941626' date='Aug 5 2009, 11:18 PM']Slightly off topic, but...

I don't like how Michelangelo depicted our Lord and the saints as being mostly nude in the Last Judgment. Obviously I can understand why our Lord would be depicted as mostly nude in a painting of His crucifixion or in when depicted as an infant, but I don't see what the purpose of depicting Him as mostly nude in a painting of the Last Judgment is. Similarly, I can see why St. Peter would be depicted as mostly nude in a painting of his martyrdom, but I don't understand why someone painting the general judgment would depict St. Peter as mostly naked.[/quote]
It was more the style of art of the time, I believe. I don't think it was a particularly theological statement.
Just like your painting of St. Louis that I think looks a little dorky and some people think looks a bit feminine.

[InHisLove726]

I'm not saying that St. Paul is wrong, but if we are supposed to be perfect in heaven, like Adam and Eve before their fall, then clothing, it would seem, would be unnecessary. There is no fear or shame if we are perfect beings, right?

But if St. Paul was right, I can understand continuing the wearing of robes. Of course, St. Paul was always very modest after his conversion...

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='InHisLove726' post='1941534' date='Aug 5 2009, 09:38 PM']I think nudity in art is fine as long as it's tasteful.[/quote]
Watch out, a lot of folks consider Playboy to be "tasteful".


As for nudity in art IMO it depends on the intent of the work and it's context.

To earn my BFA I had to take figure drawing classes in which I drew naked people. Sometimes from pictures but mostly from models. I've also created some nude works in 2d and 3d.
I had no issues at the time, now I'm wary on how I use or view nudity in art.

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='Maximilianus' post='1941686' date='Aug 6 2009, 01:12 AM']Watch out, a lot of folks consider Playboy to be "tasteful".[/quote]

Yes, but Playboy is not art. It's meant to be erotic.

[Luigi]

In the Brancacci (sp?) chapel in the Church of the Carmine in Florence, there are some extremely impressive frescoes by Masaccio (sp?). One that really struck me was his Baptism of Jesus (it might be The Baptism of the Neophytes, but I feel sure it's St. John baptizing Jesus). At any rate, the Jesus figure is wearing a sort of underwear that's not too different from what is still available, so on first glance it looks pretty modest. When you get a little closer you can see that Masaccio added some hairy details, and it kind of freaked me out - I mean, it's kind of suggestive, and is it really necessary, and so forth. But after I thought about it a while, I think Masaccio's point was to emphasize the human-ness of Jesus - I mentioned this in another thread the Rexi started - I think it was a kind of reaction to the just-previous Greek style which emphasized the divinity of Jesus; the Renaissance was the being of humanism, so Masaccio was probably emphasizing the physicality of Jesus as a real human being who submitted to John's form of public repentance.

Another of those frescoes depicts Adam and Eve being expelled from Eden, and they're completey nude even though according to the Biblical description they had already begun the fig leaf fad.

The Orvieto cathedral has some Signorelli frescoes that depict the last judgment, too - the saved are just as naked as the damned; the difference is that the damned are grey/green and being bedeviled (literally) - the saved are shown as skeletons climbing up through clouds into heaven... as they enter into the Kindom of Heaven, their bones are re-enfleshed, and they have new perfect bodies. That fits with theology of the time and the idea that there will be no disease or decay in heaven. Dante's Inferno and Heaven are shown similarly in the Florence cathedral, but it's not as good as the Signorellis.

One thing that all of these, and lots of others artworks of that period, have in common is that the people are not engaged in anything lewd - they're going about their business of leaving Eden, or rising into Heaven, or fleeing from a pursuing devil or whatever, so while they are, in fact, naked as jaybirds, that's not the focus of the painting.

I've also seen a B&W photo by a woman photographer from the 1930's or so - I forget her name but she's quite well-respected - of a nude young woman standing in front of tree. The woman is covering her chest & crotch with her hands. It's a fascinating photo because it's a study in contrasts: two natural forms, one human & one not, one soft & fleshy and th other not, one vulnerable & one strong, one rooted & one mobile - and again, there's nothing lewd going on.

Ultimately, I've got no problem with nudity in art; I do have a problem with lewdity in art (to make a bad rhyme).

[Hassan]

[quote name='InHisLove726' post='1941694' date='Aug 6 2009, 12:17 AM']Yes, but Playboy is not art. It's meant to be erotic.[/quote]


Something being ironic does not necessarily disqualify it as art. For example Ovid's erotic poems

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1941703' date='Aug 6 2009, 01:22 AM']Something being [b][i]ironic[/i][/b] does not necessarily disqualify it as art. For example Ovid's erotic poems[/quote]

Freudian slip.


[quote name='Hassan' post='1941612' date='Aug 5 2009, 11:52 PM']I mean let's be honest. You never were of the highest caliber of character. [/quote]


Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.