Nudity in art.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' post='956560' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
Ah, go start another David Hasselhoff thread.[/quote]
Mmmmm.....someone likes to keep tab on my interests. Now, I don't mind a stalker or two...regardless of their batting preferences....so the next time you watch my house, feel free to drop off a couple bottles of hard liquor. I'm sure you'll know what I like.
[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
Let's face it, you're out of your league here.
[/quote]
Apparently so. I just can't seem to manage to slow my brain function down enough to engage in any sort of meaningful exchange with you. My apologies.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='956675' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:32 PM']
Mmmmm.....someone likes to keep tab on my interests. Now, I don't mind a stalker or two...regardless of their batting preferences....so the next time you watch my house, feel free to drop off a couple bottles of hard liquor. I'm sure you'll know what I like.

[/quote]
Sure, we could drink ourselves blind in celebration of my wisdom on the political threads!

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='956675' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:32 PM']
Apparently so. I just can't seem to manage to slow my brain function down enough to engage in any sort of meaningful exchange with you. My apologies.
[/quote]
Oooohhhhh! Cow just said I'm dumber than a bovine!

Say, you don't happen to be kin to Chris Zewe, do you?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='956560' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
So would you disagree?
[/quote]
I would.

I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" but I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." I admit I'm not a connoisseur of art nationwide or globally, and am no student of modern art, but I do love art and am fairly involved in the arts scene in my community. I've spent a lot of time in galleries, in museums, and with artist friends. The vast majority of pieces I've seen would not fall into the "cheap publicity and political propaganda." I think that's a overgeneralization that shows you would rather coin a label ("cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda") than logically defend a position.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 05:49 AM']
I would.

I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" but I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." I admit I'm not a connoisseur of art nationwide or globally, and am no student of modern art, but I do love art and am fairly involved in the arts scene in my community. I've spent a lot of time in galleries, in museums, and with artist friends. The vast majority of pieces I've seen would not fall into the "cheap publicity and political propaganda." I think that's a overgeneralization that shows you would rather coin a label ("cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda") than logically defend a position.
[/quote]
I said "much of modern art" - I did not say "all of modern art." I know that there are good artists out there.
I myself happen to know a number of artists. I have heard lectures and read articles by artists with much more knowledge of the art world than myself, who have made the same observations as myself on the modern art world. I even once dated a woman who was a professional artist. I have also seen and read about quite a bit of crappy mod art.
While this observation may be somewhat subjective, it seems clear that the amount of modern art work that falls under the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" is much more than a small handful.
I'm referring to such things as
A photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine
Photographs of people in a variety of perverted sex acts
"Performance art" in which HIV-positive "artists" cut each other up and sprinkle their blood on the audience
An ugly "madonna" with elephant dung and cut-outs of porno pics
Fruits and vegetables aranged on a bed to look like human body parts
People doing absurd and pointless stunts as "performance art"
A collage of photos of human genitals
Endless sexually-oriented art with the stated purpose of advancing feminist or homosexual political agendas

And some oldies but goodies:
Selling jars of one's feces as "art"
Hanging a urinal on a wall and calling it "found art"

These are only a very few examples that I can recall off the top of my head.
Read any art history and compare the art prior to the end of the 19th Century, and that afterwards.

The point of art was once to portray beauty or give honor and glory to God. Since the end of the nineteenth century, there have been major strains in art whose main purpose is to shock, offend, and provoke traditional sensibilities.

I am not "coining labels," but making what I believe to be accurate observations. My original post was agreeing with someone involved in art about the politicization of art.
Note also that this thread was was a civil and intelligent discussion about the role of nudity in art, with no personal attacks, until "Cow of Shame" and yourself came in and chose to turn it into a stupid insult thread.

You are extremely quick to accuse me and other conservatives of being shallow and irrational, yet I do not say things arbitrarily, and usually provide sources and arguments to back myself up.
It's clear that you have issues with some of us here, but it would be best that you either address them privately or keep them to yourself.

[Snarf]

Nothing disproves allegations of being "shallow and irrational" better than pulling ex nihilo the claim that someone has personal issues.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' post='957314' date='Apr 22 2006, 05:09 PM']
Nothing disproves allegations of being "shallow and irrational" better than pulling ex nihilo the claim that someone has personal issues.
[/quote]
She knows to what I refer. But I'm not going to discuss that any further here.
Let's keep to the subject of art.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' post='957314' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:09 PM']
Nothing disproves allegations of being "shallow and irrational" better than pulling ex nihilo the claim that someone has personal issues.
[/quote]

lol

[img]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c398/Cow_of_Shame/owned.jpg[/img]

[jasJis]

There's nothing wrong with nudity unless you have a dirty mind. Since we're all depraved, they should paint some fig leaves in the Sistine Chapel.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='956560' date='Apr 21 2006, 07:21 PM']
Ah, go start another David Hasselhoff thread.

Let's face it, you're out of your league here.


And - wow! - check out who Sojourner has quoted on on her signature!
You gotta admit, that lady's got true taste and class!
[/quote]
hahaha, what a well-mannered individual our Socrates is.

dude, Snarf got you.


PEACE


ughhh...Sunday has been spent well

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
You are extremely quick to accuse me and other conservatives of being shallow and irrational, yet I do not say things arbitrarily, and usually provide sources and arguments to back myself up.
It's clear that you have issues with some of us here, but it would be best that you either address them privately or keep them to yourself.
[/quote]
the problem with some of the conservatives on this board is that they are shallow and irrational. And even when they are being rational and wise, they are so smug it's unbearable. I'm no liberal, but I operate under the old saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps conservatives would not be so put upon if they were a bit less unpleasant.

Moderates have it the worst anyway.

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
You are extremely quick to accuse me and other conservatives of being shallow and irrational, yet I do not say things arbitrarily, and usually provide sources and arguments to back myself up.
It's clear that you have issues with some of us here, but it would be best that you either address them privately or keep them to yourself.
[/quote]
the problem with some of the conservatives on this board is that they are shallow and irrational. And even when they are being rational and wise, they are so smug it's unbearable. I'm no liberal, but I operate under the old saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps conservatives would not be so put upon if they were a bit less unpleasant.

Moderates have it the worst anyway.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957917' date='Apr 23 2006, 12:12 PM']
There's nothing wrong with nudity unless you have a dirty mind.
[/quote]

Exactly, it's when it is pornographic and degrading that it becomes a problem.

[Craftygrl06]

YAY FOR MY POST GOING OVER ONE PAGE!

So I think we are all agreed that nudity in art has it's place, so long as it is tasteful not tacty....

So here's the next issue: What's wrong with modern art these days? It seems that it's all trying to be witty to address an issue...what ever happened to the concept of making something that's beautiful?

Edited April 24, 2006 by Craftygrl06

[MichaelFilo]

Modern art is all about the emotion and feelings it provokes, not it's content. At least thats the arguement for the pagan form of art, just like nudity is a pagan element of art, which understandably comes out of a pagan Renassance... (insert pagan wherever you may please).

At any rate, nudity is shameful, and only when we have our glorified bodies will it cease to be such.

And as for modern art, there was a woman who had her 5 year old paint on a paper and her art critic friend took it to his friends, and they treated it as they would other modern art. Again, it is false emotionalism, not beauty. Emotionalism is the realm of paganism (compare the pentacostal 1st century Christians to the men and women who followed Bacchus, the god of wine for a good example).

God bless,
Mikey

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:49 AM']
I would.

I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" but I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." I admit I'm not a connoisseur of art nationwide or globally, and am no student of modern art, but I do love art and am fairly involved in the arts scene in my community. I've spent a lot of time in galleries, in museums, and with artist friends. The vast majority of pieces I've seen would not fall into the "cheap publicity and political propaganda." I think that's a overgeneralization that shows you would rather coin a label ("cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda") than logically defend a position.
[/quote]


[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
I said "much of modern art" - I did not say "all of modern art." [/quote]
[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:49 AM']
... but [b]I don't think that's a phrase that could be applied in general to "much of modern art." [/b] [/quote]
I never said you said "all of modern art."

I disagree with your contention that [b]much[/b] of modern art is cheap publicity and political propaganda.

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
I myself happen to know a number of artists. I have heard lectures and read articles by artists with much more knowledge of the art world than myself, who have made the same observations as myself on the modern art world. I even once dated a woman who was a professional artist. I have also seen and read about quite a bit of crappy mod art.

While this observation may be somewhat subjective, it seems clear that the amount of modern art work that falls under the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" is much more than a small handful.
[/quote]
I am aware of all the pieces you've listed, and I could agree that those would fall into the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda." As I said:
[quote name='Sojourner' post='956939' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:49 AM']
I think there are a handful of pieces that are "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" ... [/quote]

I'm well aware that art styles have changed over the centuries. And I'm well aware that there are pockets in the art community in which artists' main purpose is to shock, offend, and provoke traditional sensibilities. But painting the whole of modern art with such broad brushstrokes discredits the vast majority of artists producing works today.

And, glorifying pre-19th Century art as being intended to "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" glosses over the less-than-savory aspects of art from those times. And, you intimate by this statement that modern art does NOT "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" -- that's something I'd definitely take issue with. I find many ARE intended to portray beauty, to call attention to beauty in areas in which we might miss it. It may not look like a Renaissance painting ... but then again, we are not Renaissance people.

[quote name='Socrates' post='957303' date='Apr 22 2006, 06:50 PM']
I am not "coining labels," but making what I believe to be accurate observations. My original post was agreeing with someone involved in art about the politicization of art.
Note also that this thread was was a civil and intelligent discussion about the role of nudity in art, with no personal attacks, until "Cow of Shame" and yourself came in and chose to turn it into a stupid insult thread.
[/quote]
How is "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" not a label?

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='958426' date='Apr 23 2006, 09:22 PM']
Modern art is all about the emotion and feelings it provokes, not it's content. At least thats the arguement for the pagan form of art, just like nudity is a pagan element of art, which understandably comes out of a pagan Renassance... (insert pagan wherever you may please).

At any rate, nudity is shameful, and only when we have our glorified bodies will it cease to be such.

And as for modern art, there was a woman who had her 5 year old paint on a paper and her art critic friend took it to his friends, and they treated it as they would other modern art. Again, it is false emotionalism, not beauty. Emotionalism is the realm of paganism (compare the pentacostal 1st century Christians to the men and women who followed Bacchus, the god of wine for a good example).

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]
So ... art that evokes emotion is pagan?

[Seven77]

[quote name='Era Might' post='954545' date='Apr 19 2006, 07:47 PM']
While it's not wrong in itself, I'll be honest: I don't understand why the renaissance cats were so obsessed with nudity. Serious. Everything is in the buff in the Vatican. It's overwhelming, and I don't like looking at it, even if it is a nice painting.
[/quote]

sometimes i dont understand this either. it's like concupiscence didn't exist for those artists.

hmm.. i think maybe thats what they are trying to get across---when concupiscence didnt exist and when it will no longer exist.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='958783' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:19 AM']
I never said you said "all of modern art."

I disagree with your contention that [b]much[/b] of modern art is cheap publicity and political propaganda.
I am aware of all the pieces you've listed, and I could agree that those would fall into the category of "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda." As I said:
I'm well aware that art styles have changed over the centuries. And I'm well aware that there are pockets in the art community in which artists' main purpose is to shock, offend, and provoke traditional sensibilities. But painting the whole of modern art with such broad brushstrokes discredits the vast majority of artists producing works today. [/quote]

Well obviously we disagree about the scope of the problem in modern art. I just know that there are those knowledgable and active in art who agree with me. And of course, when dealing with artistic matters, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. Not all mod art goes to extremes of blasphemy or obscenity or other depravity, but in my opinion, most of it is at best ugly or silly, particularly when compared with great artwork of the past.

[quote]And, glorifying pre-19th Century art as being intended to "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" glosses over the less-than-savory aspects of art from those times. And, you intimate by this statement that modern art does NOT "portray beauty or give honor and glory to God" -- that's something I'd definitely take issue with. I find many ARE intended to portray beauty, to call attention to beauty in areas in which we might miss it. It may not look like a Renaissance painting ... but then again, we are not Renaissance people.
How is "cheap publicity stunts and political propaganda" not a label?
[/quote]
It's not clear exactly what "less than savory aspects," you are talking about here. I'm not claiming that classical, medieval, or rennaissance art was all perfect, but in general it was intended to truthfully portray people and nature or to glorify God or to instruct or illustrate. Art had many purposes, but prior to the 20th Century, it was never intended to shock, enrage, or engage in ugliness for its own sake.

While it may be true that "we are not Renaissance people," human nature does not change. What does change is the culture, and the increasingly godless and nihilistic viewpoints of recent centuries are reflected in our art. While once art portrayed and glorified order and beauty an sought to lift the observer to higher level, modern art often reflects nihilism or despair.
This is reflected in all aspects of art and culture - sculpture, painting, music, and architecture.

Where is the modern equivalent of the monuments and statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Gothic Cathedrals, or the masterworks of Michaelangelo?