A common Misunderstanding of TOB

[ballin]

From reading around the forum on some threads on nude art and nude modeling, there seems to be a grave misunderstanding of Bl. John Paul II 's teaching regarding nude art and the nude body it-self.

Most on this forum seem to reduce the determining of the morality (or the question of whether it is pornographic) of a given piece of nude art to the artistic intent and whether what is communicated causes lust or not. I even stumbled across a thread which talked about how nude modeling was perfectly ok since the nude body was not inherently sexual or sinful. But the ones who make such statements seem to be missing (at least) some sections of the teachings on TOB.

I specifically created this account with the hope of informing others who might have been mislead on this topic.

Blessed John Paul II, in TOB, chapters 60 - 63, deal with the topic of Art that captures the nude body and also Art in general.

In Chapter 61, he brings forth an important problem dealing with “Personal Sensitivity”. This concept is described as the very reason why person’s with developed “Personal Sensitivity” would even find it ‘uncomfortable to get undressed for a medical examination or surgery’. Blessed John Paul II does not then move on to dismiss it as just a mere prudish in-built concept. Rather, he goes on to elaborate how this is an ESSENTIAL part of the truth about the human person.

Certain things are reserved for the communion of person’s. He further explains how the violation of personal sensitivity is felt when what is reserved, only to be shared in the communion of two persons, is now made public property through or in the name of piece of art.

He goes on to state

1. We cannot forget this, not even when it is a question of the broad sphere of artistic culture, particularly that of visual and spectacular character, as also when it is a question of mass culture. This is so significant for our times and connected with the use of the media of audiovisual communication. A question arises: when and in what case is this sphere of man’s activity—from the point of view of the ethos of the body—regarded as pornovision, just as in literature some writings were and are often regarded as **pornography **(this second term is an older one).

Both take place when the limit of shame is overstepped, that is, of personal sensitivity with regard to what is connected with the human body with its nakedness.

So is nude modeling in a college class problematic? That would have to be answered as a clear YES. It violates the personal sensitivity with respect to the person engaged in nude modeling and those who are observing him/her. Bl. John Paul II even explains how people were required to be in the nude in concentration camps just to make them and the soldiers loose their personal sensitivity and in turn, be considered as without human dignity.

Now some might say, what about ART? One needs to be able to capture the nude form first. That might well be true, but if it does violate the personal sensitivity, it would be unacceptable. In Bl. John Paul II’s own words in TOB

At this point it is not possible to agree with the representatives of so-called naturalism. They demand the right to “everything that is human” in works of art and in the products of artistic reproduction. They affirm that they act in this way in the name of the realistic truth about man. It is precisely this truth about man—the whole truth about man—that makes it necessary to consider both the sense of the privacy of the body and the consistency of the gift connected with the masculinity and femininity of the body itself, in which the mystery of man, peculiar to the interior structure of the person, is reflected. This truth about man must also be considered in the artistic order, if we want to speak of a full realism.

So this also means that one cannot simply reproduce a nude form of another person based on Artistic merit or based on the idea that the ‘nude body is not inherently sexual/sinful’.

Does this mean “No nude Art”?

Bl. John Paul II answers “NO”. It just means that one cannot violate the personal sensitivity of person’s in the name of art.

So when someone feels that they will not like their husband or wife’s nude body (or that of their future husband or wife’s) to be public property, or that of themselves, it is not prudishness, or some puritanical feeling. It is a rightful position that stems from the personal sensitivity of a human being. However, a serious question arises about ones culture and values with respect to those who do not feel this personal sensitivity.

I just thought that some poor soul who might come stumbling on to this forum will find this useful.

Have a Happy Easter!

 

[irishOntarian]

To me, the question seems, then, to be: If we decide that nude modelling isn’t ok, then how are artists to learn to draw the human body realistically. Since JPII condoned Michelangelo’s work, he obviously didn’t have a problem with realism. As a young learner of art myself, I am hesitant to examine most sources for learning figure drawing, since I know that they usually contain material that does not respect human dignity, but when all is said and done, artists simply can’t draw if they don’t study. Any ideas people?

 

[thewanderer]

I think its a difficult matter to answer, butt it certainly seems as though it cannot always be wrong for someone to be a nude model, or else how could anyone think nude art is ok? appreciating nude art would become a participation of the guilt on the part of the painter and model that had the model pose nude in the first place. However, since the vatican clearly thinks nude art is ok, the question is to determine under what circumstances it is ok for someone to pose nude for art.

 

[LilyM]

To me, the question seems, then, to be: If we decide that nude modelling isn’t ok, then how are artists to learn to draw the human body realistically. Since JPII condoned Michelangelo’s work, he obviously didn’t have a problem with realism. As a young learner of art myself, I am hesitant to examine most sources for learning figure drawing, since I know that they usually contain material that does not respect human dignity, but when all is said and done, artists simply can’t draw if they don’t study. Any ideas people?

You think Michelangelo ALWAYS used nude models? You reckon he had a bunch of nekkid guys and gals traipsing around the Sistine Chapel with him so that whenever he painted a nude body he had a realmone to look at?

From memory, plenty of artists of the day tended to gain their knowledge of human anatomy from the same science classes and texts that medical students did, rather than looking at real live nekkid people under the guise of ‘life’ classes or whatever.

 

[Marybeloved]

To me, the question seems, then, to be: If we decide that nude modelling isn’t ok, then how are artists to learn to draw the human body realistically. Since JPII condoned Michelangelo’s work, he obviously didn’t have a problem with realism. As a young learner of art myself, I am hesitant to examine most sources for learning figure drawing, since I know that they usually contain material that does not respect human dignity, but when all is said and done, artists simply can’t draw if they don’t study. Any ideas people?

Do you really think the only way an artist can draw the human body is by watching nude models? Really?