Artistic nudity versus pornography

[NeedImprovement]

As recommended/suggested by @TheLittleLady , from the CCC # 2354:
Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Fr. John Hardon, S.J. served as a consultant for the drafting of The Catechism of The Catholic Church. His Modern Catholic Dictionary defines pornography this way -

PORNOGRAPHY. A description or portrayal of any person or activity that is consciously intended to stimulate immoral sexual feelings. (Etym. Greek porne , prostitute + graphe , writing.

So technically, for the purposes of definition and to provide its point of departure, it appears the clearest difference between pornography and nude art is found in intention. But that isn’t the end - only the beginning, because it is simply an effort to define what pornography is (or is not).Ultimately for the purposes of practicality we will have to consider how it affects us - be it pornography or nude art primarily because we are not describing an inanimate object, but rather human perceptions, intentions and reactions which are considerably subjective in their uniqueness and which carry with them a whole load of dynamics with at least partially unpredictable consequences.

@Le_Crouton mentions Matt Fradd - who also has more than a few exceptionally good videos up on Youtube now . About seven years ago Matt posted a reply on his blog to a question he is often asked - Porn and Naked Art : What’s the Difference? He said:

“In this post I want to offer the beginning of an answer and then ask you to help me flesh out (pun intended) the answer.
It seems to me that the difference between porn and religious art is, in a word, the intention; both of the artist/pornographer and the viewer.”

So far so good

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . But a little further into dear Matt’s blog , I found myself unable to completely agree with that quote from Dr. Michael Waldstein (only my own limited opinion here). The hmmm. . . factor enters into it for me at this point where Dr Waldstein is quoted:

“Some images [of the naked body] push us to concupiscence, others do not. . . . Going to the Sistine Chapel and looking at the naked women on the ceiling is for this reason a very different experience than watching a pornographic movie. It is not presumption, but the experience of many men, that one can look with purity at Michelangelo’s nudes and take delight in their beauty.

Michelangelo himself must have looked at his naked models in a pure way in order to be able to paint nudes in that pure way. . . . Of course, if one does feel a slide into concupiscence when looking at Michelangelo’s nudes, it is a good idea to look away. That need to look away should also be a trumpet blast for recognizing . . . that one is in need of a serious transformation.”

If the maxim of the beauty being in the eye of the beholder (and by extension the mind and heart of the beholder) is true, and let’s just say for a moment that Dr Waldstein did have a way to read Michelangelo’s mind and heart back when Michelangelo was looking at his nude models, the rest of what he says may not be “presumption” but it is still largely speculation . Even if he were able somehow to take a poll and walk up to each and every man gazing upward in the chapel and ask them if they felt “pushed to concupiscence” with what they were viewing without getting arrested or at least kicked out of the Sistine Chapel, there is no guarantee that any of the men would answer honestly - especially to a question of that nature. He would surely get more reliable results with a different question. . . maybe one like, “Excuse me, is your neck getting sore yet?”

 

[St.Leonard]

For me artistic nudity is more appealing sexually than pornography.

Sorry.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Back in February 2011, Prof. Jill Burke - a senior lecturer in Renaissance Art History at the University of Edinburgh, and the Associate Editor of the journal Renaissance Studies ; author of several books including The Italian Renaissance Nude (Yale University Press) , spoke of “the aesthetic of androgyny” in her brief 2-part piece posted on her blog entitled Men with Breasts (Or Why are Michelangelo’s Women so Muscular?) .

Hmmm . . .

Part 2 concludes with a logical well-informed insight by Prof. Burke:

“What we need to do when looking at this type of renaissance nude is to disassociate ourselves from expectations of naturalism and to recalibrate our understanding of what is beautiful.”

Which , upon reflection, raises the possibility - in light of of this thread’s topic/question, that when we refer to Michelangelo’s nude art, we may be bound to equally acknowledge that what might pass as nude art in our present culture ( where women and girls are frequently sexualized - particularly by the media ) might just as easily have been seen as pornography - even back in the Renaissance.

 

[PetraG]

The part where having sex is drawn in sacred art (I’m not familiar with any such drawings).

There has been honest disagreement over whether nudity has any place in sacred art.

Michelangelo's Last Judgment—uncensored - About JSTOR

Whether or not it does, I don’t find the original rendition of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment to be pornographic in the least. Pornography objectifies the subjects as objects of lust. (Now, there may be people who have difficulties with lust such that they can’t see nudes purely at all.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

For me artistic nudity is more appealing sexually than pornography.

A lot of us have that problem with certain art works. Most porn is frankly just gross and disgusting, and the people in most porn movies are physically unattractive to me. But certain Renaissance or Japanese art works, and certain movie scenes that were not intended to be pornographic (some of them are simply very suggestive without showing anything graphic, which is an art form in itself), I unfortunately cannot look at for too long or at all because it’s a near occasion of sin.

It doesn’t make the art pornographic, it simply means I personally can’t go looking at it. Even if it’s in the Doge Palace in Venice or some other legit art place.

 

[TK421]

There has been honest disagreement over whether nudity has any place in sacred art.
Michelangelo's Last Judgment—uncensored - Artstor

Right, but that’s because people are unique and different people have different dispositions. Objectively speaking: it is still established that nudity in sacred art has a very, very different intent from nudity in pornography.

If I’m being honest with myself: it wouldn’t be a stellar idea for me to keep a statue of Venus around in my living room or my mind might go places. But, in the Sistine Chapel it is different because that’s a religious setting and I’m in a religious mindset. If I’m reading an anatomy book I’m in an academic mindset. If there’s just a picture or a statue sitting around somewhere in a casual setting, I might be more vulnerable. Not that I winch if I happen to see breasts in a painting somewhere, such as in a restaurant, but it’s not something I’d hang up in my room. That would be arrogant of me to think I’m beyond such temptations, especially if it’s 8 in the evening and I have my feet propped up with a glass of wine.

 

[PetraG]

I would actually say “is it art?” and “is it pornography?” are two separate questions.

A piece of art could one or the other or both or neither. That goes for photography, paintings, films and sculpture.

An additional consideration is that some of us have to realize that what is merely art for some of us is pornography for others, so much so that we can’t even see the piece for its artistic merit. Maybe Sister Wendy Beckett could have looked at a piece of art and only see a piece of art, even when as an art historian she recognized and described the sensual intention of the artist, whereas someone else might not be able to look at the same piece of art without experiencing the sensuality of it in an inappropriate way. If Sister Wendy always saw the person and never saw a personal invitation to lust in the art she looked at, she might have to see something that was unquestionably demeaning to the subject before she’d call it pornographic. (This is only an example; I have no idea what her attitude towards nudity in art was.)

Mileage varies. I think this is a reason that maybe keeping most nudity out of sacred art is probably a good idea, especially in places where members of the faithful who are at all levels of self-mastery could go without feeling concerned about being tempted by art that was only meant to edify.

 

[NeedImprovement]

For the sake of argument , say, it were a woman who posed for some artistic depiction or portrayal whether it was now, during the renaissance, or anytime in between. What if one were to ask the question:
Who’s mother, or sister, or daughter posed for this photo/painting/sketch (etc.), and who ultimately decided that it would be okay/good/fine to disseminate these images of their nude daughter, sister or mother , or to make them available for viewing by the general public ?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

who ultimately decided that it would be okay/good/fine to disseminate these images of their nude daughter, sister or mother

Assuming that the daughter, sister or mother in question is an adult, then her relatives don’t have a say in whether she chooses to pose nude for art work that will be shown to the public. It’s her choice.

I agree that if the daughter or sister is a minor, then the parents or legal guardians should be making these decisions, and perhaps the law should also contain some protections, and that no woman of any age should be made to pose nude against her will.

Edited to add, I would note that there are plenty of male nude models and male nude art also.

 

[goout]

Objectification for selfish pleasure is the key thing to consider.
Medical textbooks do not present the person or an act as an object to be used for selfish pleasure.

Some art can be a study in the human form, or it might express a greater truth and not be pornographic.

Is the model intended to be used for selfish pleasure? That is the question.
Is the activity presented as an object for selfish pleasure. If a picture presents genitalia etc…that serves no purpose other than as an object for titillation.
The person producing these images or words is objectifying the human being.

If a person is aroused by what is otherwise non-pornographic, that arousal is not sinful per se, until it is entertained as…an object merely for one’s own pleasure. It’s easy to get overly scrupulous about some of this.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Edited to add, I would note that there are plenty of male nude models and male nude art also.

The reason I asked, “. . . say it were a woman” in my latest post, proceeds from the previous post of mine linking Prof. Jill Burke’s mention of reasonable speculation concerning who posed for Michelangelo’s nudes : " . . . artists just juxtaposed the head and breasts of women on men’s bodies."

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

When does artistic nudity become pornography?
Is there such thing as moral nudity in the arts?

And a very specific question, if I write a story in white there is a society that is borderline nudist, is that immoral?

Just don’t do it. It should not be much of a sacrifice, but if it is I would try to find another interest of suitable substitute. If this is just a question without purpose, then all you can hope for is opinions. My thoughts would be to just avoid what isn’t necessary which is presumably all of it. There are no clear guidelines anyways so it’s not possible unless a specific definition is used, but chances are that such a definition would be in no way binding or even represent the common usage of the term.

The church seems to disagree, given the presence of the Song of Solomon in the canon . . .

The Song of Songs is ambiguous and it can be pretty innocent or a complete scandal depending on the interpreter and it isn’t verifiable.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Assuming that the daughter, sister or mother in question is an adult, then her relatives don’t have a say in whether she chooses to pose nude for art work that will be shown to the public. It’s her choice.

I agree that if the daughter or sister is a minor, then the parents or legal guardians should be making these decisions, and perhaps the law should also contain some protections, and that no woman of any age should be made to pose nude against her will.

I apologize. I didn’t mean to imply who’s choice it was or who’s permission it depended on - rather, who could be most hurt by it - and by extension : If the siblings, spouse or parents could be deeply dismayed by such an occurrence/incident, might it therefore also be displeasing to God ? We would then begin to have a clearer idea of the “morality” of such an act, by considering its consequences -regardless of civil legalities.
I entirely agree with @PetraG 's post

I would actually say “is it art?” and “is it pornography?” are two separate questions.

A piece of art could one or the other or both or neither. That goes for photography, paintings, films and sculpture.

An additional consideration is that some of us have to realize that what is merely art for some of us is pornography for others, so much so that we can’t even see the piece for its artistic merit

When the question is already framed as “When does artistic nudity become pornography”, the entire morality of the question becomes constricted. And the separation between pornography and nude art is an extremely difficult one to attempt to define - because , as PetraG has posited, it will always be relative to the one who is viewing, hearing, or reading it, and no two of us will react to it or be affected by it in exactly the same way. . . part of why I can’t agree with Dr. Waldstein’s statement:

"Of course, if one does feel a slide into concupiscence when looking at Michelangelo’s nudes, it is a good idea to look away. That need to look away should also be a trumpet blast for recognizing . . . that one is in need of a serious transformation.”

As far as I can tell, we are all in need of “serious transformation” and it may take us a lifetime to get there.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If the siblings, spouse or parents could be deeply dismayed by such an occurrence/incident, might it therefore also be displeasing to God ?

Well, one would have to consider what the art work in question is, and why the family members are dismayed by the woman’s posing for it. Is it out of true concern for their daughter/ sister/ mom, or because they see negative changes in her lifestyle, or is it out of some selfish motive like the family think it reflects badly on them socially or they want to keep controlling their adult daughter.

Family members’ approval or disapproval often doesn’t provide a good gauge for an adult’s personal morality. We’re all aware that there are families who are too controlling and other families who are too lax, and still other families whose motives are selfish.

 

[NeedImprovement]

(Note -I accidentally deleted the post, now am obliged to try and paraphrase a bit so that what I’m trying to post doesn’t too closely resemble what I accidentally deleted . . . )

Those are all valid points, which I agree with. Typically we might find some families divided on such an issue as well.

And you’re right: the pertinent family members’ approval or disapproval often doesn’t provide a good gauge for an adult’s personal morality.

The truth is, works of art don’t come with a complete list of (moral) contents depicting all the conditions and circumstances which went into their making - like the packages of food we buy. Life might be a little easier if we could read beforehand:

• This androgynous figure is a composite of 82% male modelling and 18% female
• who actually posed for this work,
• how old they were when they posed,
• how they were paid, (were they paid?),
• (and perhaps most tellingly), Why they did pose.
• Moral fiber :Still unascertainable according to the Eye of the Beholder index

Rather, we’re left largely open to speculate on (or “interpret”) the artist’s intention - what they meant to convey.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

There’s plenty of other Renaissance art that has erotic themes, although it’s not outright porn, because porn is generally considered to be made for the primary purpose of turning somebody on and also considered to have little or no artistic value. Once you get erotic material with some actual artistic value, and I mean some value that isn’t phony-looking and put there to get past the obscenity censors, it’s less clear whether whatever it is, is porn.

I think it has been said before on this forum (by others, who can express this better than I can), but this is in itself worrisome.

Many 1950s style pin up girl photos and calendars which at the time were considered pornographic and scanadalous are now being traded as artistic collectibles. You can find books collecting such images in the art section of major bookstores, and renomated art museums are hosting exhibitions of such work, without even age restricting admission.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Eh, if you want to be worried about exhibitions of 50s pin-ups not being “age restricted”, when the Internet is much more accessible and interesting to kids, and full of outright porn, I guess that’s your worry to deal with.

I’m not really big on “think of the children” arguments. Parents are largely responsible for policing their children, as whether there are age restrictions or not, kids are curious and will try to see things they shouldn’t; when the kids get into their teens they should have absorbed enough good moral values to control their own viewing habits. I also think pin-ups can contain significant artistic and cultural value. That’s not to say all of them do contain that value, but it’s at least possible.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Eh, if you want to be worried about exhibitions of 50s pin-ups not being “age restricted”, when the Internet is much more accessible and interesting to kids, and full of outright porn, I guess that’s your worry to deal with.

I agree. But that wasn’t the point i was trying to make.

I was trying to show that there has been a shift in perception, that something that was once considered scandalous smut is now considered (in some circles) to have artsitic merit and be worthy of study, commentary and preservation, and that people can pore over this stuff and talk for hours making academic remarks about the styles of different photographers and the cultural intercontextuality without any inappropriate thoughts even coming into their minds.

In other words, something has shifted in people’s minds. This is a development that has happened within a lifetime, and when we look at the 1950s from today’s perspective, it can be hard to see how people thought the way they did. The shift is not necessarily a one way street. If you look at the development of art over the centuries I think there is evidence of an ebb and flow, of high and low tides. How much more difficult is it to fathom the mores and morality of Micheloangelo’s day without totally studying that period and its thinking?

 

[NeedImprovement]

Aletia has a good (nice & brief - a little less than a page I think) article written by Philip Kozloski in 2017 entitled Nudes in Art Convey 4 Different Types of Symbolism.
His focus is primarily but not exclusively on the Sistine Chapel.
Mr. Kozloski lists the 4 symbolisms:

First there is nuditas naturalis, representing the natural state of humanity before the Fall, often depicted in scenes connected to Eden or Paradise.

Then there is nuditas temporalis, depicting poverty, sometimes voluntary in nature, and the reliance of humanity on God for all that we receive.

Third there is nuditas virtualis, symbolizing purity and innocence. Depictions of “the penitent Magdalene,” for example, often show her naked, clothed only in her hair, as a symbol of the soul’s return to innocence after repentance.

Last of all there is nuditas criminalis, representing the horror of lustful passions and vanity.