Nudity in art.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
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. [/quote]
I know that there are those knowledgeable and active in art who agree with me, too. It appears we're at an impasse.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
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]
Of course there is subjectivity when it comes to portrayals of beauty.

Perhaps my definition of beauty is slightly more broad than yours, because I happen to find a great deal of beauty both in modern art and in older works. I think modern art tells the same truths that the great masters of the past did, only using different forms. The greatest stories never change, although the words used to tell them may.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
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. [/quote]
I'd argue that much of modern art carries the same intent.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
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.
[/quote]
Art prior to the 20th century was [b]never[/b] intended to shock, enrage, or portray ugliness? Even though I'm no art scholar, I'm quite certain that's not the case. You yourself say "human nature does not change." Artists 200, 300, 500, or 1,000 years ago were motivated by the same things that artists today are motivated by. Erotic art, as one example, has been around for millenia ... if that's shocking today, I'm sure it was no less shocking 500 years ago. And the old theme of seeing beauty and truth in ugliness was as compelling then as it is now. The forms have changed, but the messages haven't.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
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.
[/quote]
I'd definitely agree that human nature does not change. The modes through which we communicate and understand truth do, however, change. I have seen plenty of modern art I'd say is quite beautiful and uplifting. I've also seen art that's more somber, or despairing ... but there's some dark, depressing stuff from other centuries too. Human nature doesn't, apparently, change.

[quote name='Socrates' post='959585' date='Apr 24 2006, 09:18 PM']
Where is the modern equivalent of the monuments and statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Gothic Cathedrals, or the masterworks of Michaelangelo?
[/quote]
I'd hate to think that Indiana is the mecca of good art in the world, but I can think of several beautiful works of art we have here. Perhaps we are the last bastion of good art here.

Then again, I'm not convinced that our culture can produce only ugliness and despair, so I'm sure that my overall view of our culture affects my perception of the art I see.

[toledo_jesus]

If modern art simply aped the classics it would not be art.

Modern art can in fact be meaningful and speak to us. What is dangerous is when modern art is part of a fad, and will not speak to future generations as the classic works do.

The measure of art is that it speaks to timeless humanity, not to a small segment of history. That sort of art can be appreciated for intellectual value but to last beyond its immediate relevance it must strike a chord with people.




My college education has made me perhaps the world's best Art Museum Security Guard.

[praying4patience]

we all know when nudity is vice and when nudity is art.
We can discern between the 2.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='960080' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:28 AM']
I know that there are those knowledgeable and active in art who agree with me, too. It appears we're at an impasse.
Of course there is subjectivity when it comes to portrayals of beauty.

Perhaps my definition of beauty is slightly more broad than yours, because I happen to find a great deal of beauty both in modern art and in older works. I think modern art tells the same truths that the great masters of the past did, only using different forms. The greatest stories never change, although the words used to tell them may.
I'd argue that much of modern art carries the same intent.[/quote]
Perhaps, though I's say the intentional perversity intent ot shock or be subversive of traditional mores, and over-politicization which characterize much (not all) of "modern art" are historically recent developments.

Pick up an art history book and look through it. Do you honestly think that most 20th-21st century artists are really trying to "say" the same things as say, Raphael or Michaelangelo? (The Renaissance artists, not the ninja turtles)

[quote]Art prior to the 20th century was [b]never[/b] intended to shock, enrage, or portray ugliness? Even though I'm no art scholar, I'm quite certain that's not the case. You yourself say "human nature does not change." Artists 200, 300, 500, or 1,000 years ago were motivated by the same things that artists today are motivated by. Erotic art, as one example, has been around for millenia ... if that's shocking today, I'm sure it was no less shocking 500 years ago. And the old theme of seeing beauty and truth in ugliness was as compelling then as it is now. The forms have changed, but the messages haven't.[/quote]

I stand with what I've said. Read any art history. In Western art, there was a truly revolutionary change in the purpose of art in the early 20th century. The first forms of modernism began in the late 19th century, but truly revolutionary artistic movements began during the first world war with the "dada" movement, the ancestor of much of modern art. This was a deliberately subversive movement which sought to tear down the whole idea of art, and expressed a nihilistic philosophy by creating deliberately absurd and nihilistic compositions. (The urinal and feces examples I gave earlier were examples of dada, as well as painting a goatee and moustache on a print of the Mona Lisa). Many of the dadaists, surrealists, and other avante-gard artists were involved in revolutionary politics.

These movements have been very influential on later art.

While it is true that "erotic art" (pornography) has existed through the ages, it was always something seperate from "legitimate" art, and was found inside whorehouses and the like, not put on public display to "shock the burgoise" or for similar purposes.
The using of art to subvert or challenge public morality is a modern idea, as well as seeing the primary purpose of art as being to promote a political cause (popular in "post-modern" artistic movements).

[quote]I'd definitely agree that human nature does not change. The modes through which we communicate and understand truth do, however, change. I have seen plenty of modern art I'd say is quite beautiful and uplifting. I've also seen art that's more somber, or despairing ... but there's some dark, depressing stuff from other centuries too. Human nature doesn't, apparently, change. [/quote]
The point I was trying to make is not so much about uplifting vs. depressing as about reflecting a worldview where truth, goodness, and beauty do exist vs. a nihilistic worldview which sees the universe and human exististence as ultimately meaningless (expressed in many modern artistic movements.)

This can be seen in the countless debates here concerning "modern" Church architecture vs. traditional forms, and their appropriateness to sacred worship.

[quote]I'd hate to think that Indiana is the mecca of good art in the world, but I can think of several beautiful works of art we have here. Perhaps we are the last bastion of good art here.[/quote]
Can't say I know much about art in Indiana, but take a stroll through D.C., and you'll see all kinds of truly hideous "modern" sculptures in front of buildings that look like they were hauled fresh out of the local dump!

[quote]Then again, I'm not convinced that our culture can produce only ugliness and despair, so I'm sure that my overall view of our culture affects my perception of the art I see.[/quote]
I never said that is all our culture can produce. I am saying that it is what it tends to produce, at least much more so than in earlier times.
As our culture has lost faith in God, and in a sense of truth, virtue, and beauty, this is reflected in its art.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='960889' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM']
Perhaps, though I's say the intentional perversity intent ot shock or be subversive of traditional mores, and over-politicization which characterize much (not all) of "modern art" are historically recent developments.

Pick up an art history book and look through it. Do you honestly think that most 20th-21st century artists are really trying to "say" the same things as say, Raphael or Michaelangelo? (The Renaissance artists, not the ninja turtles)
[/quote]
Michelangelo was pretty shocking in his day. People then weren't all that happy with genitalia in the papal chapel ... some of which are still covered today. Let's not forget that Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities followed close on the heels of the great Renaissance masters.

And yes, I'd say artists today are exploring the same things that Raphael and Michelangelo were. Human nature doesn't change. I think it's easy to paint past cultures as being more pure than our own, that somehow our time is more difficult than any which has come before us, that our ancestors were more pure of heart than we are, more apt to glorify God. But the follies of the human heart don't change.

[quote name='Socrates' post='960889' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM']
I stand with what I've said. Read any art history. In Western art, there was a truly revolutionary change in the purpose of art in the early 20th century. The first forms of modernism began in the late 19th century, but truly revolutionary artistic movements began during the first world war with the "dada" movement, the ancestor of much of modern art. This was a deliberately subversive movement which sought to tear down the whole idea of art, and expressed a nihilistic philosophy by creating deliberately absurd and nihilistic compositions. (The urinal and feces examples I gave earlier were examples of dada, as well as painting a goatee and moustache on a print of the Mona Lisa). Many of the dadaists, surrealists, and other avante-gard artists were involved in revolutionary politics.

These movements have been very influential on later art.
[/quote]
I'm familiar wtih the dada movement and its effects on modern art. While the dada effect is undeniable, I think dada-ism in its purist form is not very prevalent. In my opinion, it's something like Protestantism. In its early stages, Protestants were making a clear statement against the Catholic Church. Today, many people are Protestant simply because that's what they grew up as, not out of any well-thought-out antagonism against the Catholic church. Are there anti-Catholic Protestants? Sure. But the majority of Protestants are seeking to know and understand the same God we do. Are there subversive artists today? Sure. But the majority of artists use their work as a form of expressing their own meditiations on something greater than themselves.

[quote name='Socrates' post='960889' date='Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM']
The using of art to subvert or challenge public morality is a modern idea, as well as seeing the primary purpose of art as being to promote a political cause (popular in "post-modern" artistic movements).
[/quote]
Tell that to Savonarola.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote]I've been thinking about art a lot this week-- the HSkids are in an art class and I am looking at curriculum for next year... I was pretty interested in the curriculum that this particular art teacher was selling. He's very well-known in the HSworld... and he has one book on art history and Christianity and I was skimming through it. He has a section on whether or not one should use art examples containing nudes. And, well, I don't agree with his POV, so... I'm still looking.[/quote]

Posted in the wrong thread...

[Sojourner]

Is it Leland Ryken? He has a good book on Christianity and the arts.

[homeschoolmom]

I've never heard of him... I'm googling him now.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='961941' date='Apr 26 2006, 02:37 PM']
I've never heard of him... I'm googling him now.
[/quote]
The book I have is from my aesthetics class ... it's called "The Liberated Imagination."

Leo Tolstoy has an interesting [url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html"]essay on art, called "What is Art." [/url] (that's excerpts of the essay)

[quote]#10. To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. [/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='961732' date='Apr 26 2006, 10:41 AM']
Michelangelo was pretty shocking in his day. People then weren't all that happy with genitalia in the papal chapel ... some of which are still covered today. Let's not forget that Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities followed close on the heels of the great Renaissance masters.[/quote]
You seem to be missing a very important distinction here.
Michaelangelo did not create his artwork with the purpose of offending religious or moral sensibilities, and the nudity in his paintings, while it may have offended some, was not done for the purpose of shock value, but rather to display the beauty of the human form, and his skill in portraying it.
It's not as though Michaelangelo was some modern "shock artist" seeking to tick off religious folk by painting genitalia in a church!

Let us not forget that Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel and created other artwork (including his famous "Pieta" and "Moses") at the commission of the Church.

Savonarola, on the other hand, was denounced by the Church, and excommunicated.

All indications are that Michaelangelo was a pious and religious man. He is quoted as saying: "True art is made noble and religious by the mind portraying it," and that the soul becomes enobled by "the endeavor to create something perfect, for God is perfection, and whoever strives after perfection is striving after something divine."

To suggest that Michaelangelo had similar motivations in his relgious art as the Dadaists or an artist putting a crucifix in urine is beyond absurd.

There is unfortunately a prominent strain in modern art which seeks to offend or provoke as a goal in itself. This goal was largely absent in art before around 100 years ago.

While it is true that some have found great art offensive in its day, there is a distinction between art which happens to shock or offend some, and art which [b]has as its purpose [/b] to shock and offend.

[quote]And yes, I'd say artists today are exploring the same things that Raphael and Michelangelo were. Human nature doesn't change. I think it's easy to paint past cultures as being more pure than our own, that somehow our time is more difficult than any which has come before us, that our ancestors were more pure of heart than we are, more apt to glorify God. But the follies of the human heart don't change.
I'm familiar wtih the dada movement and its effects on modern art. While the dada effect is undeniable, I think dada-ism in its purist form is not very prevalent. In my opinion, it's something like Protestantism. In its early stages, Protestants were making a clear statement against the Catholic Church. Today, many people are Protestant simply because that's what they grew up as, not out of any well-thought-out antagonism against the Catholic church. Are there anti-Catholic Protestants? Sure. But the majority of Protestants are seeking to know and understand the same God we do. Are there subversive artists today? Sure. But the majority of artists use their work as a form of expressing their own meditiations on something greater than themselves. [/quote]
I am under no illusion that past ages were perfect and completely "pure." However, any Catholic who has studied history will have to agree that modern times are in many ways singularly evil. Note the unprecedented loss of Faith and apostacy in the West, the rise of atheism, the horrors of Communism and Nazism, and the widespread evil of abortion.
The godlessness and nihilism found in the modern world is often reflected in its art.

To say that things are no different now than they always were shows ignorance of history.

Your comparision with protestantism is actually quite apt. For, though most protestants may not be wilfully evil, the Protestant Revolt has done untold damage to Christendom and the Church, which has never been repaired.
So too have early twentieth-century nihilistic artistic movements done damage to the world of art.

[Jaime]

Holy Cow Socrates is lauding praises on a sodomite..



Somebody get a weather report from Hell!!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='962132' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:16 PM']
You seem to be missing a very important distinction here.
Michaelangelo did not create his artwork with the purpose of offending religious or moral sensibilities, and the nudity in his paintings, while it may have offended some, was not done for the purpose of shock value, but rather to display the beauty of the human form, and his skill in portraying it.
It's not as though Michaelangelo was some modern "shock artist" seeking to tick off religious folk by painting genitalia in a church!

Let us not forget that Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel and created other artwork (including his famous "Pieta" and "Moses") at the commission of the Church.
[/quote]
Right. Michelangelo wasn't attempting to shock his audience. That, I'm sure, is not at ALL why he painted his enemies in hell in "The Last Judgement." Never did ANYTHING to shock or offend his audience. And you are aware, aren't you, that he flatly refused orders from the church to cover up some of the nude figures ... which is why they hired someone else to do it after he died.

[quote name='Socrates' post='962132' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:16 PM']
Savonarola, on the other hand, was denounced by the Church, and excommunicated.
[/quote]
True. But there are those who think his excommunication and subsequent execution were unwarranted and support his canonization.

But regardless of his status in the church, the point of my mentioning Savonarola was to illustrate the fact that Michelangelo was not as uncontroversial a figure as you seem to believe.

[quote name='Socrates' post='962132' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:16 PM']
All indications are that Michaelangelo was a pious and religious man. He is quoted as saying: "True art is made noble and religious by the mind portraying it," and that the soul becomes enobled by "the endeavor to create something perfect, for God is perfection, and whoever strives after perfection is striving after something divine."

To suggest that Michaelangelo had similar motivations in his relgious art as the Dadaists or an artist putting a crucifix in urine is beyond absurd.
[/quote]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Human nature does not change. People today are motivated by the same things that motivated people 500 years ago. This is why we can still be moved by artworks produced 500 years ago.

[quote name='Socrates' post='962132' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:16 PM']
There is unfortunately a prominent strain in modern art which seeks to offend or provoke as a goal in itself. This goal was largely absent in art before around 100 years ago.

While it is true that some have found great art offensive in its day, there is a distinction between art which happens to shock or offend some, and art which [b]has as its purpose [/b] to shock and offend.
[/quote]
Please see my comments re:Michelangelo's seeking to offend or provoke by painting his enemies in hell. This is not an isolated instance.

[quote name='Socrates' post='962132' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:16 PM']
I am under no illusion that past ages were perfect and completely "pure." However, any Catholic who has studied history will have to agree that modern times are in many ways singularly evil. Note the unprecedented loss of Faith and apostacy in the West, the rise of atheism, the horrors of Communism and Nazism, and the widespread evil of abortion.
The godlessness and nihilism found in the modern world is often reflected in its art.

To say that things are no different now than they always were shows ignorance of history.
[/quote]
To quote the great Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire/It was always burning/Since the world's been turning/We didn't start the fire/No we didn't light it/But we tried to fight it." (I would sing this for you if you were here, but as you're not you'll just have to try to imagine.)

People have been godless and evil to one another since the Fall. Killing children is nothing new. Killing one another in huge numbers is nothing new. To say differently shows ignorance of history.

[quote name='Socrates' post='962132' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:16 PM']
Your comparision with protestantism is actually quite apt. For, though most protestants may not be wilfully evil, the Protestant Revolt has done untold damage to Christendom and the Church, which has never been repaired.
So too have early twentieth-century nihilistic artistic movements done damage to the world of art.
[/quote]
My point, as I'm sure you well know, was that artists today, while they may be influenced by dadaist forms, are nonetheless not "formal heretics" in the art world, and in fact are pursuing the same goodness, beauty and truth that their forebears did, albeit in different forms.

[Cow of Shame]

oh come on...all that we see in the classics is those guys were a bunch of chubby chasers

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='963034' date='Apr 27 2006, 02:33 PM']
oh come on...all that we see in the classics is those guys were a bunch of chubby chasers
[/quote]
Hater. Big girls need love too.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='962622' date='Apr 27 2006, 06:59 AM']
Right. Michelangelo wasn't attempting to shock his audience. That, I'm sure, is not at ALL why he painted his enemies in hell in "The Last Judgement." Never did ANYTHING to shock or offend his audience. And you are aware, aren't you, that he flatly refused orders from the church to cover up some of the nude figures ... which is why they hired someone else to do it after he died. [/quote]
You are again missing the point. No serious person would claim the main point of Michaelangelo's artwork was to shock or offend. His work had the approval of the Pope.
Some Church officials wanted the figures "covered," but the Pope himself was in favor of having them uncovered.

Putting one's enemies in hell of course creates controversy, but was part of an old artistic tradition (think Dante). It was hardly something original or shocking.

[quote]True. But there are those who think his excommunication and subsequent execution were unwarranted and support his canonization.

But regardless of his status in the church, the point of my mentioning Savonarola was to illustrate the fact that Michelangelo was not as uncontroversial a figure as you seem to believe.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Human nature does not change. People today are motivated by the same things that motivated people 500 years ago. This is why we can still be moved by artworks produced 500 years ago.
Please see my comments re:Michelangelo's seeking to offend or provoke by painting his enemies in hell. This is not an isolated instance. [/quote]
No one claimed he was "uncontroversial" nor that great art never creates controversy.
My point is that there is a huge difference between the great art work of past ages, which stood on its own artistic merit and had the primary purpose of glorifying God, and modern "shock art" which has little purpose beyond being deliberately offensive. Many modern artists pursue "shock" as a goal in itself, which was a foreign concept to classic art.

This is usually done through calculated and deliberate obscenity and/or blasphemy.

[quote]To quote the great Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire/It was always burning/Since the world's been turning/We didn't start the fire/No we didn't light it/But we tried to fight it." (I would sing this for you if you were here, but as you're not you'll just have to try to imagine.)

People have been godless and evil to one another since the Fall. Killing children is nothing new. Killing one another in huge numbers is nothing new. To say differently shows ignorance of history. [/quote]
I've heard the Billy Joel song, and it really proves nothing.

Of course, sin and evil has existed since the fall, but it exists in the modern world in an unprecedented scale (at least since the pre-Christian world). Compare the numbers involved in 20th-Century genocides to those in teh past. Also look at the unprecedented loss of Christian faith and growth in atheistic philosophies. And now all kinds evil and sin are becoming increasingly accepted and sanctioned by society. (Of course, liberals consider this "progress.")
I am not saying that everything now is evil, or that all was sweetness and light prior to the 20th century. However, to deny that thre has been a serious growth in evil and godlessness over the past hundred years or so is to be willfully blind to the facts.

[quote]My point, as I'm sure you well know, was that artists today, while they may be influenced by dadaist forms, are nonetheless not "formal heretics" in the art world, and in fact are pursuing the same goodness, beauty and truth that their forebears did, albeit in different forms.[/quote]
If they are, they are largely failing.

Which would you say is more conducive to reverence in worship, traditional church architecture, or "modernist" church designs?


[quote name='hot stuff' post='962161' date='Apr 26 2006, 05:41 PM']
Holy Cow Socrates is lauding praises on a sodomite..
Somebody get a weather report from Hell!!
[/quote]
There is no conclusive evidence that Michaelangelo was a sodomite. And even if he was, his personal vices have absolutely no relevence whatever to this discussion.

Please kindly take your trolling elsewhere.

And congratulations.
You are now on my "ignore" list.