Artistic nudity: Work of art or occasion of sin?

[The_Otaku]

I’m an artist (as some of you may know if you’ve read some of my previous threads here). Recently, something crossed my mind, and I thought of it in a new light I hadn’t thought of before. Or rather, I thought about it in a more moral way.

When viewing nudity in artwork, whether that is in sketch form, paintings, or in digital form on the computer/internet, etc, where is the line drawn between artistic expression, artistic nudity, and vulgarity?

At first glance, you’d think the line is very clear since something is either smut or it’s not, but as with many things, art has so many nuances, and the individual artist puts certain emotions or intents into his or her work that shows through their ability or skill to express it, and sometimes, we either receive that visual information spot on, or we perceive it incorrectly.

I recently downloaded a drawing of an anime character who was topless. The picture was a bust (for those of you who don’t know what a bust is, a bust is a picture or statue of a figure from the head to the shoulders/chest/torso area). I downloaded the picture because I liked the artists personal drawing style and how he drew the character, it was unique. I also liked the way he drew her breasts and nipples. With anime, there’s almost always exaggerated proportions, or the body is made to be more sensual than it really is. But this picture, despite it being sexy in it’s own way, was cute, and the character was not posed in a sexual manner (it’s just a bust, how could she be XD) and she had a cute smile on her face which was kinda of serene, which made the nudity feel liberating more than an exploitation. It wasn’t a tempting, dirty, provocative, come hither smile. It seemed innocent, fun, and carefree. Keep in mind, though, this is MY interpretation and how it made me feel. If you were to see it you might feel completely different.

However, my concern is whether admiring this picture further, or any future pictures that may or may not have nudity, would lead to an occasion of sin, or that nudity in artwork IS an occasion of sin in and of itself. If the picture were clearly pornographic, I don’t think I would have downloaded it and would probably feel ashamed to look at it. I like the style the most, more than the nudity actually, and the expression on her face sells it for me, not her bare breasts. Although, I do like the way the artist drew the breasts. It’s probably how I would draw them or consider drawing them if I was into drawing anime style nudes (which I’m currently not though have considered drawing some for fun).

I don’t think it’s a problem to have this picture, but, being scrupulous as I can be sometimes, I worry that the reality is I’m putting myself at risk by subjecting myself to nudity that I would become attached to it or desensitized to it, and that the beauty or respect for the human form would be lost or tarnished somehow.

In all seriousness, I want the catholic church’s stance on artistic nudes as well as your opinions on this and any situation where this could be a problem for someone and how it could be so. Naturally you’d say “if the picture causes you to lust or to masturbate, etc” then you could conclude it’s pornography for you, either in that it was created to entice you to begin with, or you find yourself sexually attracted to the image of the figure. On the other hand however, one could argue that this and other artworks are fictional characters who do not exist, so things like coveting and adultery may not apply, though may admittedly dilute your imagination and pervert it when looking at nudes. Perverted thoughts can lead to perverted behaviors.

Provided I can look at artistic nudity, whether it’s subtle or right in my face and high-detail, and not be tempted to sin, it shouldn’t be a problem, right? And what if I draw it myself? Do I have a moral responsibility to make sure that I draw nudity, either partial or whole, completely void of any attempt at sensuality? Is it my fault if another person becomes sexually aroused by my artwork or commits sins due to it, especially in instances where that was certainly not my intention? Am I an occasion of sin for them?

Almost anything can become someone’s pornography when it comes to art, especially considering that many people have fetishes and preferences for certain things (especially when it comes to anime style drawing which can become very specific), and if your work or someone else’s inadvertently pleasures them in the wrong way, where do you fit in? Of course, the catch is, how would you even know what’s going on in the lives of a complete stranger? Is the fact you’re completely ignorant to what goes on in a stranger’s home and on his/her computer keep you from sharing in any sin that might come from their interaction with your artwork?

I’d like to say that because it’s none of my business what someone does during or after they see my artwork and in their personal life, that it’s not my responsibility either, but if the work might have had a sexy element of some kind that they picked up on and enjoyed too much, then aren’t I at fault in some regard and should analysis how I draw, why I draw that way, and why I’m drawing that stuff at all? This is of course assuming there is something subjectively or even objectively sensual about it or that it’s the wrong kind of sensuality or appeal.

One man’s art might be another man’s porn, and it’s a touchy and uncomfortable subject for many, especially when you consider addictions or fetishes people might have for particular art or art themes. It’s amazing the hold art can have over people.

Thanks for your responses!

 

[Trishie]

Hi,

It’s a joy to be an artist. I’m one also, with a preference for water color pencils, graphite, and oil painting. I also take much care in composing photographic studies and landscapes.

Regarding your question…The fact that there has been a long history of nudes in art doesn’t make right the representation of the naked form as art. Would anyone invite Jesus in to view a nude painting, sculpture, photograph? Would you usher Jesus in your door and rush him to view such and item? I think not. Would you draw Mary His mother over to view you picture, photo of and naked man or woman? Really think about that…although the modern conscience has been inured by familiarity.
“Do not model yourself on the behaviour of the world around you, but let your behaviour change, modelled by your new mind. [Romans 12:2]

You ask, "Do I have a moral responsibility to make sure that I draw nudity, either partial or whole, completely void of any attempt at sensuality? Is it my fault if another person becomes sexually aroused by my artwork or commits sins due to it, especially in instances where that was certainly not my intention? Am I an occasion of sin for them?"

When you stand before God you will be required to take responsibility for the effects of your choices on others.
“The life and death of each of us has it’s influence on others…you should make up you mind never to be the cause of your brother tripping and falling….if that means the downfall of someone for whom Christ died.” [Romans 14: 7,13] “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves…For Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’” [Romans. 15:1-3]

Jesus said, "anyone who is an obstacle to bring down one of these little ones who have faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone around his neck.” [Matthew 18:5-7]

He also said, “I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.” [Matthew 25:37-40]

“There will be judgement without mercy for those who have not been merciful themselves.” eg to the needs and weaknesses of others. [James 2: 13] “since if I do not love the brother I can see, then I cannot love You, whom I have not seen.” [1John 4:20]

I’m sorry this doesn’t fit in with your preferences, but that is sometimes the price of being a Christian and a moral person.

I ask God’s bountiful blessings on your talents and creativity.

Trishie

 

[Ron_Conte]

It doesn’t matter if something is classified as art or not.
What matters is morality. Some art may be immoral.

As you have already indicated, it would be immoral to deliberately make a work of art
which the artist intended to be used in a sinful manner,
or which the artist knew would be used in a sinful manner.
The former is explicit formal cooperation in sin,
the latter is implicit formal cooperation in sin.

Art may contain nudity and still be moral. The Vatican has on display
a number of works of art that contain some nudity.

If an artist creates an artistic work which is not intended to be used in a sinful manner,
and which does not lend itself inherently to be used in a sinful manner,
but which for most persons who view it would be moral and even edifying,
creating and displaying that work would be moral.
If some persons use that work for sinful purposes, the sin is not with the artist.
This is mediate material cooperation, which is justified because

1. the intention of the artist is good,
2. the work does not inherently lend itself to sinful purposes, so creating the work is good,
3. and the good effects of the work of art outweigh the bad effects,
   since the work is good for most persons.

See this page:
ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

 

[The_Otaku]

Hi,

It’s a joy to be an artist. I’m one also, with a preference for water color pencils, graphite, and oil painting. I also take much care in composing photographic studies and landscapes.

Regarding your question…The fact that there has been a long history of nudes in art doesn’t make right the representation of the naked form as art. Would anyone invite Jesus in to view a nude painting, sculpture, photograph? Would you usher Jesus in your door and rush him to view such and item? I think not. Would you draw Mary His mother over to view you picture, photo of and naked man or woman? Really think about that…although the modern conscience has been inured by familiarity.
“Do not model yourself on the behaviour of the world around you, but let your behaviour change, modelled by your new mind. [Romans 12:2]

You ask, "Do I have a moral responsibility to make sure that I draw nudity, either partial or whole, completely void of any attempt at sensuality? Is it my fault if another person becomes sexually aroused by my artwork or commits sins due to it, especially in instances where that was certainly not my intention? Am I an occasion of sin for them?"

When you stand before God you will be required to take responsibility for the effects of your choices on others.
“The life and death of each of us has it’s influence on others…you should make up you mind never to be the cause of your brother tripping and falling….if that means the downfall of someone for whom Christ died.” [Romans 14: 7,13] “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves…For Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’” [Romans. 15:1-3]

Jesus said, "anyone who is an obstacle to bring down one of these little ones who have faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone around his neck.” [Matthew 18:5-7]

He also said, “I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.” [Matthew 25:37-40]

“There will be judgement without mercy for those who have not been merciful themselves.” eg to the needs and weaknesses of others. [James 2: 13] “since if I do not love the brother I can see, then I cannot love You, whom I have not seen.” [1John 4:20]

I’m sorry this doesn’t fit in with your preferences, but that is sometimes the price of being a Christian and a moral person.

I ask God’s bountiful blessings on your talents and creativity.

Trishie

Thank you for the biblical quotes Trishie. I’ll keep those in mind if I ever draw nudes.

 

[The_Otaku]

It doesn’t matter if something is classified as art or not.
What matters is morality. Some art may be immoral.

As you have already indicated, it would be immoral to deliberately make a work of art
which the artist intended to be used in a sinful manner,
or which the artist knew would be used in a sinful manner.
The former is explicit formal cooperation in sin,
the latter is implicit formal cooperation in sin.

Art may contain nudity and still be moral. The Vatican has on display
a number of works of art that contain some nudity.

If an artist creates an artistic work which is not intended to be used in a sinful manner,
and which does not lend itself inherently to be used in a sinful manner,
but which for most persons who view it would be moral and even edifying,
creating and displaying that work would be moral.
If some persons use that work for sinful purposes, the sin is not with the artist.
This is mediate material cooperation, which is justified because

1. the intention of the artist is good,
2. the work does not inherently lend itself to sinful purposes, so creating the work is good,
3. and the good effects of the work of art outweigh the bad effects,
   since the work is good for most persons.

See this page:
ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

Thanks for the technical answer, I was hoping for one. Thank you for the link also. I’ve never heard of some of these technical terms before used on that site, but I’ll digest them properly eventually.

So, allow me to create a hypothetical so I can verify that what you’ve told me is right in this circumstance.

For example, lets say I go ahead and draw a bust of a nude woman. Lets say the breasts are very highly detailed and I looked at references, as it was my attempt to capture, lets say, realism or semi-realism, and I was so thorough with my work that the end product looked very realistic despite the fact it’s an anime character.

So long as my mindset is capturing the realism of the female form and I’m not drawing this or painting it with the intention to pleasure myself or to pleasure others and objectify the female (even though she’s fictional and just paint on paper), I’m not doing anything sinful or committing a sin, right even if other people do because of the picture?

I know this seems like an obvious answer and I’m being needlessly redundant, and I’m a smart guy in my own way, but the reason I ask again to make sure is because one has to realize that there’s a stylistic difference between realism and semi-realism, especially where manga or anime style art is concerned. Anime, as an artform, tends to take realism and exaggerate it, either to deemphasize the human anatomy or emphasize it. This provides artists, such as myself, various means and options in which to approach the human form when we draw figures. Unfortunately, some artists tend to over exaggerate their characters by giving them unrealistically large breasts, big butts, perfect hour glass figure, etc. Realism is thrown out the window, and with these people you can tell the intention is to draw the human form to their specific tastes, which might mean bigger breasts, for instance, if they have a preference for women with large breasts.

My concern for myself is that I might eventually fall into this trap whether I decide to draw nudes or not. Right now, my style is just a style, and I’m not settled on how I want to draw what I see. I’m wondering if there’s a moral responsibility for me to draw figures (ie- people) as close to realistic as possible, or that it’s ok to exaggerate the human anatomy for the sake of style and uniqueness or my own personal tastes.

A reason, I gather, many catholic wouldn’t complain about those old portraits and paintings of history, like those that are in the Vatican, etc, are because the artists of that time went for complete realism in their subjects and people saw this as only right, that is to say, if they drew a penis, it wasn’t exaggerated and was deemphasized or that if they drew women’s breasts they were drawn in perfect proportion to her build and frame. What many of those artists did exaggerate, however, was the muscular definition of the male figures. They were often muscle-bound with six packs and they looked like greek gods, etc, and that’s exaggerated reality.

Anime is exaggerated reality most of the time. Males might have extra muscles that real people either don’t have, or muscles that aren’t pronounced that way, and females might have proportions that, lets say, defy gravity.

My overall concern, in being an anime artist and a catholic, is that what if anime itself is wrong to draw in the overall scheme of things, since it’s exaggerated and often exaggerated for the purpose of being more sensual. I do what I can to include various amounts of realism in my work, and I try not to emphasize the female form more than I have to to draw the figure.

 

[The_Otaku]

continued:

My conflict is in wanting to be able to find my own style that’s unique and my own way of drawing figures and their features and proportions, but that it’s moral and doesn’t tempt anyone else. How do I know it’s moral? How do I know it’s tempting somebody else? Do I make that decision myself? Is it evident only if other people sin or tell me things like “awesome job, she’s really sexy!”? Isn’t it a matter of my own personal conscience and what I decide is right and wrong for me to draw at any given point in time in regards to nudity?

We’re not talking stick figures. Part of being a good anime artist, or any artist, is having a thorough understanding of the human anatomy and THEN figuring in your own style and way of drawing that anatomy so that it’s unique and represents your style and personal tastes and preferences and that you’re able to express it. How do you know whether your personal tastes are ok or not? If it’s wrong, will it be obvious? And what if it’s not?

And what about contradictions and things where people mix good and bad elements. Like, lets for example I draw a comic of a girl whose got a really attractive body with ideal proportions, but she’s conservative, shy, modest, and dresses modestly? What then? Is it wrong to draw her because she possesses physical beauty or exaggerated beauty, or is it ok because I’m not flaunting or sexualizing that beauty despite the fact I intentionally made her hot and thought it was a good balance with her modesty and made her more well-rounded as a character (ie- attractive and pure)? And what about if I were to later draw that same character naked to appreciate that beauty? Is that wrong too, given that I’ve established her as a pure character?

Assuming my only reason for drawing her nude was to appreciate her beauty and that I didn’t make a habit of doing this, and she was by herself and no one was watching (unless you count the reader of the comic ), am I in the wrong?

If I’m annoying you I’m sorry, I really am. You can laugh at me too, if you want. I laugh myself at the level I can take these things and beat myself up over them and wonder “what if” for any situation. I can’t help but be scrupulous like this. I want to do what’s right but I want to know where the limit to my creative or personal expression lies in matters of nudity (and this is just one topic out of many I could fish out due to being scrupulous and an artist). People who are not moral or religious would say there is no limit, and to impose a limit on yourself is punishing yourself and being sadistic towards yourself mentally. The immoral person would say draw whatever you want without reserve and enjoy it however you want to enjoy it and on whatever level you want to enjoy it.

I don’t listen to those type of people.

 

[Ron_Conte]

For example, lets say I go ahead and draw a bust of a nude woman. Lets say the breasts are very highly detailed and I looked at references, as it was my attempt to capture, lets say, realism or semi-realism, and I was so thorough with my work that the end product looked very realistic despite the fact it’s an anime character.

It is not your intention alone that determines if it is a sin. For any act to be good, all three ‘fonts of morality’ must be good. The first is intention. In the example that you give, your intention is good. The second, the act itself, must be good. So in this example, the drawing is merely a realistic rendering of breasts. Making such a drawing would not be intrinsically evil. But the third is that any good consequences outweigh any bad consequences. Nudity has a certain (limited) place in art. As for whether it is appropriate in anime, you could judge that yourself.

So long as my mindset is capturing the realism of the female form and I’m not drawing this or painting it with the intention to pleasure myself or to pleasure others and objectify the female (even though she’s fictional and just paint on paper), I’m not doing anything sinful or committing a sin, right even if other people do because of the picture

So, in your post quoted above, you cited good intention, and that the act is good (realism in art). But you also have to consider how it will be used. If it is used in a work that is entertaining, perhaps even edifying, you would anticipate that the good consequences outweigh the bad. But if it were to be used in a work that perhaps does more harm than good (hentai, or perhaps ecchi), then the bad might outweight the good.

I know this seems like an obvious answer and I’m being needlessly redundant, and I’m a smart guy in my own way, but the reason I ask again to make sure is because one has to realize that there’s a stylistic difference between realism and semi-realism, especially where manga or anime style art is concerned. Anime, as an artform, tends to take realism and exaggerate it, either to deemphasize the human anatomy or emphasize it. This provides artists, such as myself, various means and options in which to approach the human form when we draw figures. Unfortunately, some artists tend to over exaggerate their characters by giving them unrealistically large breasts, big butts, perfect hour glass figure, etc. Realism is thrown out the window, and with these people you can tell the intention is to draw the human form to their specific tastes, which might mean bigger breasts, for instance, if they have a preference for women with large breasts.

So you are noting certain trends within art as applied to anime that perhaps do more harm than good. As an artist concerned about morality, you would then want to draw characters that are not exaggerated or overly-sexualized. Some nudity can be moral. I think you generally have the correct approach.

My concern for myself is that I might eventually fall into this trap whether I decide to draw nudes or not. Right now, my style is just a style, and I’m not settled on how I want to draw what I see. I’m wondering if there’s a moral responsibility for me to draw figures (ie- people) as close to realistic as possible, or that it’s ok to exaggerate the human anatomy for the sake of style and uniqueness or my own personal tastes.

Realism is not required by morality. One can imagine any number of unrealistic characters drawn in animation, such as animals that talk, robots that think, etc. Such is not inherently immoral. Also, concerning nudity in art, excessive detail might tend to lend itself more readily to immoral use of the art. So, again, realism is not required.

A reason, I gather, many catholic wouldn’t complain about those old portraits and paintings of history, like those that are in the Vatican, etc, are because the artists of that time went for complete realism in their subjects and people saw this as only right, that is to say, if they drew a penis, it wasn’t exaggerated and was deemphasized or that if they drew women’s breasts they were drawn in perfect proportion to her build and frame. What many of those artists did exaggerate, however, was the muscular definition of the male figures. They were often muscle-bound with six packs and they looked like greek gods, etc, and that’s exaggerated reality.

Again, realistic art is not the same as moral art. Some realism in art is good, but no one would condemn a Picasso painting as immoral merely because it is not realistic. Then again, the departure from realism must not lend itself to immorality, nor should the realism be so detailed as to lend itself to the same.

 

[Ron_Conte]

My conflict is in wanting to be able to find my own style that’s unique and my own way of drawing figures and their features and proportions, but that it’s moral and doesn’t tempt anyone else. How do I know it’s moral? How do I know it’s tempting somebody else? Do I make that decision myself? Is it evident only if other people sin or tell me things like “awesome job, she’s really sexy!”? Isn’t it a matter of my own personal conscience and what I decide is right and wrong for me to draw at any given point in time in regards to nudity?

You know if any act is moral by applying the three fonts of morality:

1. intention must be good
2. the act itself must be good
3. any good effects must outweigh any bad effects

When you ask, how you can know if the effects are good or bad, you are asking about the third font. This is the more difficult of the three fonts to judge. If you are merely drawing art for yourself to appreciate beauty, and you know that for yourself it does not lead to sin, then you know that the third font is good. You seem to have a good awareness about how this particular type of art (anime) may be used. Yes, you make that decision yourself, with your own conscience. I think that over time an artist who cares about morality will develop a good sense for whether the art is used in a way that does more good or more harm.

We’re not talking stick figures. Part of being a good anime artist, or any artist, is having a thorough understanding of the human anatomy and THEN figuring in your own style and way of drawing that anatomy so that it’s unique and represents your style and personal tastes and preferences and that you’re able to express it. How do you know whether your personal tastes are ok or not? If it’s wrong, will it be obvious? And what if it’s not?

What happens is that, over time, over the course of caring about right and wrong, and making decisions of conscience, you develop a better sense for what is moral and what is immoral within your own work.

And what about contradictions and things where people mix good and bad elements. Like, lets for example I draw a comic of a girl whose got a really attractive body with ideal proportions, but she’s conservative, shy, modest, and dresses modestly? What then? Is it wrong to draw her because she possesses physical beauty or exaggerated beauty, or is it ok because I’m not flaunting or sexualizing that beauty despite the fact I intentionally made her hot and thought it was a good balance with her modesty and made her more well-rounded as a character (ie- attractive and pure)? And what about if I were to later draw that same character naked to appreciate that beauty? Is that wrong too, given that I’ve established her as a pure character?

What you are discussing is not intrinsically immoral, that is, it is not always wrong. But you would have to weigh the good of appreciating art and beauty versus any immoral uses to which some persons might put your art.

Assuming my only reason for drawing her nude was to appreciate her beauty and that I didn’t make a habit of doing this, and she was by herself and no one was watching (unless you count the reader of the comic), am I in the wrong?

You would have to judge that based on the three fonts of morality.

 

[GailMac]

Dear The Otaku - I’m an artist as well. Amateur yes, but still an artist. The key is “what does it say?” Not so much how much is too much to show…what is the point of a bust of a nude female? How does it move the viewer? I’d say the person making it let his neighbor down and had not any thought of the viewer’s salvation in making such nonsense.

To me the more important feature of art is to say something, to move someone. So, where does an artist want someone to move to or what is he or she saying when he glorifies the flesh with his work? Certainly not someplace I’d like to go.

Trash the nudie pics and get on with the business of being an artist. Don’t waste your talents on trash. Work for God’s glory! Give your work to Him! And pray to St. Luke!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Antrim]

The late Holy father Pope John Paul II did an excelent job on this subject with his weekly talks on Theology of the Body. It is a lot of reading and some of it is hard to understand. It is worth investing the time as you get the proper church teaching on the issue.

It is on this Form under Philosophy and posted by Little Debbie.

I have read about half of it and I need to finish it.

Antrim

 

[fannypanny]

how about performance art??
im not a performance artist however, i know that many performance artists like to perform their pieces in a natural way - nude or close to provocative. I think jill ore is one artist who does that sort of work.
I would honestly draw the line there but the visual/fine art scholars who write the, equivalent of A-level or SATs, examination papers for the whole state include this type of content.
what do you think? Do you reckon a catholic kid should be analyzing this sort of stuff??
i personally dont think so.

• fanny

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I have an uneasy feeling that many of our fellow Catholics would very happily take up their brushes and paint boxers on Michelangelo’s Adam.

Sadly, judging by the ‘modesty’ threads, some of them would add a full elbows to ankles jumpsuit.

My personal feeling is that we aren’t held responsible for every reaction to our actions, because some of those reactions are just plain crazy. If the ‘Jesus fish’ on my car tempts someone else to key the paint as an act of protest, that is his responsibility, not mine.

And I think a deliberately salacious work, whether fully clothed or parially nude; is far more sinful than a nude painting that is, for lack of a better word, chaste. Too many people judge such things solely on square inches of skin on view, which isn’t really the issue.

 

[GailMac]

Well, I think I’ll chime back in. As an artist I am insulted whenever I encounter that which is trash trying to claim it is “art” and therefore somehow free of the societal norms of interpretation and purpose. Or to put it plainly, porn isn’t art and it drives me nuts when some try to make that claim. I take it very personally in that some will claim as an artist, I approve or am party to the making of porn. I don’t, can’t, couldn’t and wouldn’t. The purpose in art of anatomical studies is to grasp the human form. This is purely academia and any serious artist knows that. I’ve made my own anatomical stuides and even will be encountering a model or two this semester again. All of us as artists and the arts in gereral are harmed and cheapened when porn tries to slip in under the wire. When other artists allow this snake to slither into our doings, it denegrates all art forms and us as artists. I wish all of us would make a concerted effort to beat this snake out of our grass and let it sell itself in the library as a “literary” form for a while. Let’s see how long that one will go over! (Did Dewey come up with a decimal for the porn isle?)

Peace,

Gail

P.S. As for the OP’s level of culpability and/or sins in creating cartoons of nudes, I would say he needs to dicuss his “art” with a priest and put his talents to better use. I don’t know of many men who can spend hours staring at or creating female nude figures without sin entering in. I don’t think his fortitude or temperance is at that level yet. He’d be better off sticking to clothed figures. That is after the purpose of anatomical studies to learn how to create art of everyday people and most folks have clothes on. He ain’t working on the replacement for the David, so why waste the time and resources. And if he’s allowed himself to get roped into making a living doing such nonsense in hopes of being the next Hogarth, well, then he really should find a better way to make money.

 

[seagal]

Not an artist but an art lover. Just had to throw in my :twocents: .

As the poster above noted, all nudity is not pornographic. In fact, if you’ve ever caught a glimpse of what passes for music videos these days all you’ll see is porn, and the women are fully clothed!

All of God’s creation is beautiful, including the human body. If we can admire the beauty of a garden full of flowers or a magnificent landscape then we should be able to admire the divine hand in the beauty and wonder of the human body without there being occasion for sin. We should even be able to admire the skill and talent of an artist in rendering a nude.

That being said, being fixated on a woman’s breasts (or any other part of her anatomy) as the OP seemd to (never mind how well they were drawn) be would IMHO go beyond mere admiration for art.

 

[Antrim]

The late Pope John Paul II in his weekly talks clearly stated that Porn is forbidden.

I agree with you children should not be exposed to any kind of provocative performance no matter what the reason.

The people who allow it will be held responsible for giving scandel and bad example.

God made that very clear.

Antrim

 

[mini_me640]

The late Pope John Paul II in his weekly talks clearly stated that Porn is forbidden.

Antrim

Since the OP was asking about artistic nudity, are you suggesting that all depicted nudity is porn?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Mini - I really don’t think anyone here has said ALL depicted nudity is porn. Some is, some isn’t. My beef is when porn is presented as art. It cheapens art. I also think artist’s have a responsibility to those who view their art to create pieces that won’t lead them to sin. The OP was interested in finding out how far is too far. My personal observation is if you have to ask that question, then you’ve probably already gone too far! I should add I am an artist and take it kinda personal. Go back and read the OP’s first posts and subsequent posts and you get a better understanding of his dilemma.

Peace,

Gail

 

[The_Otaku]

The OP was interested in finding out how far is too far. Go back and read the OP’s first posts and subsequent posts and you get a better understanding of his dilemma.

Peace,

Gail

In my defense, I’m a scrupulous person and possibly obsessive compulsive in some areas. So if I seem fixated on a particular issue it’s probably due to this, rather than me not knowing better or whatnot or lacking good judgement. A part of me makes threads here and asks questions already knowing the answering sometimes, but, being scrupulous, needs validation from others so as to appease any uncertainties. This works out for me, because in the process of having my questions answered, I find a new answer or fact I didn’t know before and I’m better off.

Getting back to the topic since people have bumped this thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that if I were to draw nudes, my morality and desire to be in good standing with Our Lord would stop me from drawing something indecent. I’m not really into the whole full out there nudity thing like some artists are. I’d rather give the illusion of nudity in a picture (like silk sheets wrapped around the private areas) than to actually display the privates.

Being meticulous though, perhaps to a fault, I’d want to learn to draw any particular aspect of nudity really well. It wouldn’t be enough for me to draw a breast and say “well, I’ve drawn a breast I don’t ever have to do that again”. I’d probably keep drawing them, at various angles, etc., until I’m satisfied I have a thorough understanding of that part of the female anatomy. What makes it enjoyable isn’t that they’re nude, so much as I’d be able to use the nudity to show the personality or individuality of each person. Some women have large breasts, others small, and different shapes or curvatures and this all adds to their character.

I understand that if you go in too deep, you could end up developing a fetish, and while it may not be sexual, a fetish is still a fetish, and in this case, it would be over what many consider a sexual body part, which, if you allow it, can develop into a sexual fetish and thereby get you into a mess and involved with other things, like porn and so forth.

I acknowledge it’s a slippery slope, but if you keep God in mind when drawing this stuff, and you only draw it sparingly (I think I’d be too embarrassed to draw it frequently), I don’t see the harm.

I think this is more about personal responsibility, integrity, and maturity, rather than the object/theme in question here. And then, lastly, there’s also the matter of class in nudity. Nudity can be drawn in a classy way, without any vulgarity, or like I said, you can give the illusion of nudity. How the figure is posed and what they’re doing is just as important as the fact they are nude to begin with, and their postures can lend heavily or completely to the air of eroticism, which is what a well-intentioned artist should be trying to avoid. If they’re keeping this in mind, then they’re drawing these nudes with the intention to appreciate the female form, and even if other people sin over it or are tempted, I don’t feel the artist is responsible for that. If the effort is made to make it as non-erotic as possible, and people still derive sexual pleasure from it in the privacy of their own home, that’s their own temptation and weak will and they shouldn’t be looking at it. Also, once it’s clear the artist has only draw a few of such pictures in his gallery, the person that was tempted will realize there’s no gravy train and will find his filth elsewhere, which then completely takes me out of the equation.

Yes, it’s true a person could look at the same picture over and over again and perhaps, masturbate lets say, and they only need that one picture, but then they’ve perverted my picture in their mind to mean more and be more than it was intended to be. I’m not accountable for that either, I believe.

What I am accountable for is if I drew nudity and didn’t care how or in what capacity that I did, or if I drew something which had it’s value artistically, but was somehow morally uncouth or scandalous or given to scandal. Like others have pointed out, a moral, religious person, is likely to know when they’re stepping out of bounds anyways, and I thank God for that. It’s like a moral compass really. And, to an extent, being scrupulous has it’s advantages in that I analyze things from different perspectives until I tire all options before settling on one. When you add that in with prayer and spiritual discernment, it’s a powerful combination.

 

[The_Otaku]

One more thing. Some of you may notice I keep mentioning breasts or focusing on breasts when I discuss the nudity issue. Well, that’s because I equate nudity with being topless, regardless of whether or not the rest of the body is. So even if she were otherwise fully clothed, but topless, that’s nudity to me. If it’s nudity to you too, great. I just wanted to clear that up.

Believe it or not, some people will make this a technical issue and would insist that nudity can only be considered nudity if the whole body is nude, which would technically mean a leaf could be covering the genitals, but you cannot consider the figure nude.

I don’t agree with that.

 

[Nickkname]

As an artist, I am not fond of nude art. I find it to be tempting, though that is me. Pornography objectifies the art and has as its end lust, so if the picture makes you focus on the individual’s body parts with lust, than you know it’s smut, pornographic, adult, etc. But if the picture makes you focus on the beauty of the art - it’s colors, it’s style, etc. - and raises your mind to truth, love, peace, etc., than you know it’s art and not pornography. That’s my artistic opinion.

In brief, porn brings your mind down to the gutter. Art raises your mind up to the heavens.