Sojourner Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 OK, so we've been talking a ton about modesty with regard to clothing (specifically bikinis). On a separate yet related topic, what about nudity in art? Is it appropriate? If so, when? If not, why not? Does nudity in art incite lust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Sociology. Fun stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxk Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 here we go again...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Ask willguy....Maybe he'll make a poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I do NOT think nudity in art today, 21st century, is moral. I would say it also depends on what kind of art. And the audiance viewing the art... Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 What about art from when nude art was the norm, such as the era of artists like DaVinci? Surely that wouldn't be immoral, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) [quote]I do NOT think nudity in art [b]today, 21st century[/b], is moral. I would say it also depends on what kind of art. And the audiance viewing the art...[/quote] I would agree...what I said was "in art today, 21st century" meaning any kind of pornography. Nudity in this century has become something of entertainment, rather than art (like during Davinci and Micalangelo.) I wouldn't say that it is because nudity in art back then was the 'norm' but because it wasn't perverted.(corrupted) The 'norm.' could be immoral...the norm today is immoral. But nudity in art wasn't immoral back then because it wasn't currupted. People respected another's body as a gift from God. Today (according to most of society) a body is just a form of entertainment. Lord have Mercy on Us. Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy Edited April 21, 2004 by thywillbedone7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Are you sure about that? The human heart has not changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willguy Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='thicke' date='Apr 21 2004, 05:39 PM'] Ask willguy....Maybe he'll make a poll. [/quote] Ouch. Anyways, my opinion is this- Nudity is acceptable in art if it is not meant to arrouse lust or desire. Roe example, nudity in Renaissance art was meant to show beauty. If you look at a Renaissance nude, you don't lust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 but in today's context w/ today's minds looking at the art, even though the purpose was to show beauty, some dirty guy (or girl) could look at it and lust so isn't it immoral to look at today? (i'm just playing devil's advocate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willguy Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 [quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 21 2004, 08:18 PM'] but in today's context w/ today's minds looking at the art, even though the purpose was to show beauty, some dirty guy (or girl) could look at it and lust so isn't it immoral to look at today? (i'm just playing devil's advocate) [/quote] I wouldn't say it is immoral to look at it [i]today[/i]. I would say it is immoral for that person to look at it. There were probably people in the 1400's who looked at it dirtily. It would be wrong for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 sorry to bring up the bikini thing over here, but if you're not supposed to wear bikini's b/c they could cause some people to sin, isn't it also immoral to show nude art to the public b/c it would cause some people to sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 i think that it is clear when a painting is made to incite lust, or for art. just because art is from the 21'st century doesnt rule out nudity. nudes are still one of the most beautiful artforms, and if you look at a nude sculpture you will notice they are not meant erotically. a local artist has done many nudes, and none of them insite lust. most crude pornography does not take place in paint, or scupture. it takes place on film. pornography, being a shady business, has nothing to be gained in art. pornography is striaghtforward. pictures, videos. nudity and pornography are two completely different things. the point of the 'venus de milo' is not an expression of sexuality, it is an expression of feminine beauty. beauty and lust are two separeate things and i think thats key to keep in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 But one could argue that leading one to sin is a sin...so by showing nudity in art that could possibly lead to sin (even if it isn't meant for lustful purposes) is a sin in it self. Is that true, or am I just a crazy son of a gun? Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now