Nudity In Art

[Matty_boy]

i think nudity in art is fine as long as it's art and not pronography. a friend of mine is a sculptor and asked me to model nude for a crucifiction scene. i haven't done it yet, but i think i may as soon as we figure out a time.

[Sojourner]

[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]
Yeah, this is probably more along the lines of what I was considering. In the other thread, we've got folks saying we should never be naked in front of anyone but our spouses (I assume an exception would also be in place for healthcare-related folks).

And there are folks talking about how nudity incites lust, which is undeniably true. (I struggle with saying nudity [i]causes [/i]lust ... I think it just makes it easier to get to that point. My good buddy and atheist co-worker tells me that for him and his friends clothing fit and coverage makes little difference in whether or not they lust).

But can't the nude form -- and I'm speaking here of that of someone not your spouse, portrayed in an artistic manner (now or centuries ago) -- can't the nude form also be seen with holy eyes?

I think of Titus 1:15: "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted."

Is this not the goal to which we should aspire, to be able to view the nude form with pure eyes and through it to see something of the holy? Obviously, if viewing nudity brings you to a point of sin, avert your eyes, by all means. But even then, can we not be working toward this goal, of seeing with regenerate eyes?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that women should start walking around in bikinis in order to display that which is holy. It's clear that we should dress modestly (however that ends up being defined) in order to protect that which is good and beautiful from lust.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Apr 21 2004, 05:51 PM'] 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? [/quote]
Nudity is not art. It has no place in art. Even when it was the norm.

There is no need for nudity in art.

Remember, the devil is cunning and manipulative; his attacks are subtle and take many years, he has the time.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 22 2004, 09:41 AM'] Nudity is not art. It has no place in art. Even when it was the norm.

There is no need for nudity in art.

Remember, the devil is cunning and manipulative; his attacks are subtle and take many years, he has the time.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Ever been to the Vatican? Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel includes a lot of nudes. Does this mean that it is not art? That the entire chapel is an occassion of sin?

[cmotherofpirl]

Sin is in the eye of the beholder.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Apr 22 2004, 10:30 AM'] Ever been to the Vatican? Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel includes a lot of nudes. Does this mean that it is not art? That the entire chapel is an occassion of sin? [/quote]
If you notice, only men are nude. Maybe Eve is, but I believe the privates are covered.

I still think there is no need for nudity in art whatsoever.


[b]Genesis 2:25[/b]
The man and his wife were both naked, [b]yet they felt no shame[/b].

...Before the fall.

[b]Genesis 9:18 [/b]
The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)
[b]19 [/b]These three were the sons of Noah, and from them the whole earth was peopled.
[b]20 [/b]Now Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.
[b]21 [/b]When he drank some of the wine, he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent.
[b]22 [/b]Ham, the father of Canaan, [b]saw his father's nakedness, and he told his two brothers outside about it[/b].
[b]23 [/b]Shem and Japheth, however, took a robe, and holding it on their backs, they walked backward and covered their father's nakedness; [b][u]since their faces were turned the other way, they did not see their father's nakedness[/u][/b].
[b]24 [/b]When Noah woke up from his drunkenness and learned what his youngest son had done to him,
[b]25 [/b]he said: "[b]Cursed be Caanan! The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers[/b]."


[b]Genesis 3:7 [/b]
Then [u]the eyes of both of them were opened[/u], and [b]they realized that they were naked[/b]; [b]so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves[/b]
...
[b]10 [/b]He answered, "I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because [b][u]I was naked, so I hid myself[/u][/b]."




It is clear that there is never a need for nudity in art. It is wrong.

Nothing can be said in defense of any art that contains nudity. It is clear that we should NOT view others nakedness outside of wedlock.

Venial or Mortal --- another matter. Some "art" may be venial...

God Bless,
ironmonk