Craftygrl06 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I had a critique in my Acreenprinting class tonight. There is this one guy in there who I really don't like (he's just really bitter toward religion, and has decided that making fun of it in his art is an acceptable way of dealing with that), the past 3 projects he's done have had naked women in them. He apparently uses his friends as his models and does all sorts of nude photography. His art seriously offends me and makes me wonder if he really has any respect for woman at all....so no more ranting ...this semester is almost over anyway.... My question is: When, if ever, is it appropriate to use nudity in art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 (edited) The human body is not 'bad' or 'depraved' it is good, as God created it. We can appreciate sex - the female and the male, without being immoral about it. I love Peter Kreeft's sermon "Sex in Heaven" (available online) on just that topic. Nude art, as it is found in the Vatican is not painted to evoke sexual pleasure or arosual as pornography does. It often depicts salvation history. Edited April 20, 2006 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craftygrl06 Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 I wasn't really considering the early stuff when I wrote this post. In some cases (esp. michaelangelo; the old greats), the nude is simply a depiction of how good the artist is. There was an obcession with the human body and recreating it in painting and sculpture. I guess I was thinking more like modern art. Which is mostly political these days. It seems that artists have become promoters for all sorts of causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 [quote name='Craftygrl06' post='954575' date='Apr 19 2006, 08:05 PM'] I wasn't really considering the early stuff when I wrote this post. In some cases (esp. michaelangelo; the old greats), the nude is simply a depiction of how good the artist is. There was an obcession with the human body and recreating it in painting and sculpture. I guess I was thinking more like modern art. Which is mostly political these days. It seems that artists have become promoters for all sorts of causes. [/quote] True. There is a great difference between classical and renaissance art and much of modern art. Classical art emphasized the beauty and nobility of the human body in a way that did not draw excessive attention to sexuality. It was very different from pornography and much of modern art which seeks to shock or provoke, rather than create beauty. Much of modern "art" is a travesty - it has degenerated into cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda. Most of it will be quickly forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avemaria40 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nudity in art in and of itself is not sinful. it's when it gets pornographic and degrading that it is sinful, IMO anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 1. JPII's Theology of the body covers a bit of this topic. It is a very good read. He states it is the responsibility of the artist to ensure nude art does not cross the line into porn (as per Christopher West CD). West also discusses the JPII's decision to remove the loin cloths on the Sistine Chapel during the restoration. The loin cloths had previously been added after completion of the chapel. 2. Agony and the Ecstacy. It is an older movie about the painting of the Sistine Chapel. The pope is engaged in a struggle with Michaelangelo. The nude figures comes up as a topic. The pope conceeds to the artist after he finds Michaelangelo believes God sees the nude figure as good. In the beginning (Eden), we were naked without shame. God saw us as good. We should strive be see the beauty of our creation as God did and does see us (not that we should promote exibitionism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspen2005 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 it is the same line we arrive at when separating pornography from legitimate film. Pornography takes the human body and makes it the sole subject; the acme of human gratification and nothing more. When we see art that is depicting a nude, what is it doing? is it poised in an obscene manner, or is it highlighting the intrinsically good aspects of the human body (God saw that it was very good). I think it is best to use our common sense. Even those that paint and create such pieces of offensive art, know that it is offensive -- that is why they do it: to get a reaction from the onlooker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 [quote name='avemaria40' post='954806' date='Apr 20 2006, 06:44 AM'] Nudity in art in and of itself is not sinful. it's when it gets pornographic and degrading that it is sinful, IMO anyway [/quote] Yeah, but if you haven't noticed, a large portion of phatmassers equate nudity with pornography. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 [quote name='Cow of Shame' post='955314' date='Apr 20 2006, 01:58 PM'] Yeah, but if you haven't noticed, a large portion of phatmassers equate nudity with pornography. lol [/quote] Thank you, Cow of Shame, for this insightful piece of information. I myself was unaware of this. How did you come up with this statement? Did you take a survey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' post='955493' date='Apr 20 2006, 07:49 PM'] Thank you, Cow of Shame, for this insightful piece of information. I myself was unaware of this. How did you come up with this statement? Did you take a survey? [/quote] Perhaps the Cow gleaned this information in the same manner that you found that "Much of modern 'art' is a travesty - it has degenerated into cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda. Most of it will be quickly forgotten." lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I agree with previously expressed statements saying that nudity can be entirely appropriate in a work of art given the proper presentation. I have pieces from 14 different artists in my place, the majority of whom are contemporary. Many of them I know personally. Of those, there's one piece of art that's approaching nudity, although it's far from being anatomically graphic. It uses the suggestion of nudity to convey a sense of vulnerability in relationship. Quite a beautiful piece. I had a friend in college who did a self-portrait of her naked back. Again, it was beautifully and tastefully done. Modern art isn't devoid, by any means, of appropriate presentations of the body and sexuality. I've seen several beautifully moving pieces involving nudity. I've also seen pieces I believe are inappropriate in their portrayal of the human body ... and not all of these pieces involve nudity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' post='955493' date='Apr 20 2006, 07:49 PM'] Thank you, Cow of Shame, for this insightful piece of information. I myself was unaware of this. How did you come up with this statement? Did you take a survey? [/quote] Apparently all those self-congratulatory parties you threw for yourself in the political threads have made you go blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccator Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 No, I do not see anything wrong per say with nudity in art. There's a huge difference between nudity and pornography... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 [quote name='Cow of Shame' post='955779' date='Apr 20 2006, 11:09 PM'] Apparently all those self-congratulatory parties you threw for yourself in the political threads have made you go blind. [/quote] Ah, go start another David Hasselhoff thread. Let's face it, you're out of your league here. [quote name='Sojourner' post='955634' date='Apr 20 2006, 08:12 PM'] Perhaps the Cow gleaned this information in the same manner that you found that "Much of modern 'art' is a travesty - it has degenerated into cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda. Most of it will be quickly forgotten." lol [/quote] So would you disagree? And - wow! - check out who Sojourner has quoted on on her signature! You gotta admit, that lady's got true taste and class! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarf Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 And here I thought that irony was a lost art here on Phatmass. 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