Nudity In Art

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341731' date='Jul 26 2007, 08:01 PM']Would you put up a nude portrait of someone you knew? Please explain your answer.[/quote]

I don't know anyone hottt enough that I'd want them nekkid on my wall. Yeah, yeah...human body=God's beautiful creation, but let's be realistic here, eh?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1341746' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:20 PM']Of course I read the Creation story, dude. That was before the Fall.[/quote]
yeah but aalpha's point is that the moral law was instilled in man before the fall ... so covering nakedness was not part of that. The desire to cover nakedness arose out of fear of lust, sexual desire without true love ... it wasn't something that was done out of response to an innate moral directive.

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='1341750' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:24 PM']I don't know anyone hottt enough that I'd want them nekkid on my wall. Yeah, yeah...human body=God's beautiful creation, but let's be realistic here, eh?[/quote]
Obviously you have not met me ...

[kafka]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='1341750' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:24 PM']I don't know anyone hottt enough that I'd want them nekkid on my wall. Yeah, yeah...human body=God's beautiful creation, but let's be realistic here, eh?[/quote]

Lets be real, of course the body is beautiful and God's creation, a good thing, etc. but one of the aspects of original sin is the disorder of body and soul, wherein the soul is not directed solely towards God as our highest good and Heaven as our everlasting home, and wherein the body is not directed solely towards God by serving and obeying the soul.

So when we are talking of nudity in public and in general the disorder of the body is at risk thus making it immoral for us. Adam and Eve were completely directed towards God before the Fall so in a sense above certain aspects of morality.

In theory I agree with that theology of the body post above but I dont think its very practical nor realistic considering our state after the Fall and the enormous problem of chastity in the Church and modern secular society.

And no I am not a prud

[Groo the Wanderer]

I personally would not pose nude since it would probably disgust everyone but my wife. I also do not wear a speedo - not qualified!

As for hanging a nude pic of someone I knew...only a baby pic of my daughter or somesuch. Baby booty is soooo cute



Now to throw gas on the fire....the line between pr0n and art has already been defined as depending on reason for the nekkidness. We usually think of nudes in artwork in the mediums of sculpture, paintings, mosaics, and sketchings.

How would you fit in nude photographs, specifically of the type not meant to be blatantly sexual but taken to highlight the beauty of the natural human form?

3..2..1....go!

[saint_wannabe]

i belive the kids these days call it poronography.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341539' date='Jul 26 2007, 03:25 PM']well, we could start by looking through similar discussions [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=51067"]here[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44625"]here[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=11094"]here, [/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=2091"]here.[/url][/quote]
Good times!

[quote]My view is that it is OK as long as it's not erotic. There is a difference between portraying the body in a way that is intended to elicit lustful desire in the viewer (i.e., pornography) and portraying it in a way that is intended to elicit an appreciation for the inherent goodness and beauty of God's creation (i.e., Michelangelo's David).[/quote]
I agree.

Tasteful nudity in art, as found in much of classical and renaissance art (Venus de Milo, Michaelangelo's David, etc.) focuses on the beauty of the human body as a magnificent work of creation, rather than specifically on its sexuality.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1341533' date='Jul 26 2007, 03:08 PM']is nudity in art good or bad? explain your position.[/quote]

The human body in and of itself is not bad. It's a beautiful thing. But we changed since the fall and God has made it so that we are to be covered. It's not the body that is bad, it is how we now perceive of it. I think that the decision of Paul IV to have the paintings covered up is important to consider. I think that while nudity in itself is not bad, it at the very least presents a problematic scenario. Especially in public works of such artistic renderings where such a piece is viewable to anyone of any moral or immoral disposition. Making them available publicly to anyone who wishes to view I think is irresponsible at least.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1341539' date='Jul 26 2007, 05:25 PM']well, we could start by looking through similar discussions [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=51067"]here[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44625"]here[/url], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=11094"]here, [/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=2091"]here.[/url]

My view is that it is OK as long as it's not erotic. There is a difference between portraying the body in a way that is intended to elicit lustful desire in the viewer (i.e., pornography) and portraying it in a way that is intended to elicit an appreciation for the inherent goodness and beauty of God's creation (i.e., Michelangelo's David).[/quote]

:applause: I couldn't have said it better myself.

[catholicinsd]

In the bar of my workplace, we have hanging a painting of two topless Lesbian mermaids holding a large globe with an eagle on it, trying to sell alcholol.

[Cow of Shame]

How do you [i]know[/i] they're lesbians? Or are all mermaids lesbians? I mean, you don't hear of mermen all that often. Huh...you're right. Odds are, they [i]are[/i] lesbians.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Cow of Shame

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1341757' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:43 PM']Lets be real, of course the body is beautiful and God's creation, a good thing, etc. but one of the aspects of original sin is the disorder of body and soul, wherein the soul is not directed solely towards God as our highest good and Heaven as our everlasting home, and wherein the body is not directed solely towards God by serving and obeying the soul.

So when we are talking of nudity in public and in general the disorder of the body is at risk thus making it immoral for us. Adam and Eve were completely directed towards God before the Fall so in a sense above certain aspects of morality.

In theory I agree with that theology of the body post above but I dont think its very practical nor realistic considering our state after the Fall and the enormous problem of chastity in the Church and modern secular society.

And no I am not a prud[/quote]
[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1341780' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:52 PM']The human body in and of itself is not bad. It's a beautiful thing. But we changed since the fall and God has made it so that we are to be covered. It's not the body that is bad, it is how we now perceive of it. I think that the decision of Paul IV to have the paintings covered up is important to consider. I think that while nudity in itself is not bad, it at the very least presents a problematic scenario. Especially in public works of such artistic renderings where such a piece is viewable to anyone of any moral or immoral disposition. Making them available publicly to anyone who wishes to view I think is irresponsible at least.[/quote]
While it's true that lust impairs our ability to see the body rightly, we are all being transformed by grace, and by grace can develop the ability to see one another without lust, to appreciate the goodness of God's creation in one another lovingly rather than lustfully.

Of course someone who struggles with lust should maintain purity, but the goal is not to achieve purity by avoiding the beauty of the human body, but to achieve purity by an inner transformation by God's grace -- and that [i]is possible and should be encouraged by the church.[/i] By all means someone who lusts should avert his or her eyes, but don't stop with aversion ... true purity comes from grace transforming the heart to enable an individual too see rightly, and this should always be our goal.

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1341760' date='Jul 26 2007, 06:54 PM']How would you fit in nude photographs, specifically of the type not meant to be blatantly sexual but taken to highlight the beauty of the natural human form?

3..2..1....go![/quote]
I don't have a problem with a tastefully done nude photo. It is in the same category as other forms of art, imo.

[quote name='saint_wannabe' post='1341762' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:11 PM']i belive the kids these days call it poronography.[/quote]
He was specifically referring to non-pornographic art works.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1341777' date='Jul 26 2007, 07:43 PM']Good times!
I agree.

Tasteful nudity in art, as found in much of classical and renaissance art (Venus de Milo, Michaelangelo's David, etc.) focuses on the beauty of the human body as a magnificent work of creation, rather than specifically on its sexuality.[/quote]
I may die of shock ... :

[Seven77]

Our society has devalued the dignity and beauty of human body so much that some people may have valid difficulty with nudity in art even if it is done tastefully. I'm kind of weak myself.

1. I think the female human body is very beautiful...why the 'need' for a Renaissance type nude painting?

2. Isn't having a woman pose for tasteful nude art like treating her like an object---how can she "be naked without shame" in this context.

3. We will all be [i]wearing[/i] white robes in Heaven, right?

[Ash Wednesday]

Being that I have studied art up to the master's level, I have no problem with nudity -- it is not an occasion for scandal for me.

I remember as a small fry at 18, seeing a nude male model for the first time ever in a college watercolor class -- and I was so shocked (*!!!HE'S NEKKID!!!*) I dropped my water glass and it shattered on the ground. Looking back now I totally laugh.

[goldenchild17]

I can see the other side of the argument, but for me I just can't quite accept it. I mean, there are other things that are quite good and beautiful in they're own right, but are not to be broadcast to the world - sex within marriage. It's a good and holy thing, so why would it be bad if two married people showed their act to the world? Some things, though beautiful and good, are to be kept sacred and private imho. I personally think the human body falls into this as well.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1342903' date='Jul 28 2007, 01:13 AM']I can see the other side of the argument, but for me I just can't quite accept it. I mean, there are other things that are quite good and beautiful in they're own right, but are not to be broadcast to the world - sex within marriage. It's a good and holy thing, so why would it be bad if two married people showed their act to the world? Some things, though beautiful and good, are to be kept sacred and private imho. I personally think the human body falls into this as well.[/quote]


but the whole point is that it isn't erotic, the art shouldn't display people having sex. and also if it's good enough for the vatican it's good enough for me. i can't really say anything i haven't said before because i'm not well versed in this subject. however american society and general american morals (not pop culture) are very puritan still. in europe they consider it more acceptable to have nudity in art. And, again, adam and eve were quite naked until the fall...morals didn't change after that....