Back to the question of nude modeling

[GEddie]

This is really a garbled post. It sounds like there is a point, but I don’t know what it is. Your tone is obviously against nude modeling, but you cite “a percentage of cases” which suggests that you believe its not intrinsically immoral. But the main question is what “circumstances” are you talking about “in this case”? Notice the main question to which you replied was general, and devoid of circumstances, so if you are arguing against a given scenario, please spell it out first.

He’s referring to the body scanners in the airports of the USA; evidently he considers the shadowy body-images generated in this context to be wrong, in the same way that others have argued that nude modelling is wrong.

I don’t agree. And in any case, 21st-century transportation policy has nothing to do with nude modelling.

ICXC NIKA

 

[AdamP88]

In that case can we get back to the topic.

For the record…I would tend to agree that airport security is becoming a bit too invasive if they are scanning us like that. Were X-ray scanners not enough??

Might start that discussion in another thread…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Adam Peter wrote: A]irport security is becoming a bit too invasive if they are scanning us like that. Were X-ray scanners not enough??​

At the insane and inane rate that this kind of thing is occurring, frequent flyers will be glowing in the dark and dying decades early from elevated cancer risk . There alread was too much abuse of X-ray technology before all of this Bush-Obama paranoia and madness set in!

 

[AdamP88]

Adam Peter wrote: A]irport security is becoming a bit too invasive if they are scanning us like that. Were X-ray scanners not enough??​

At the insane and inane rate that this kind of thing is occurring, frequent flyers will be glowing in the dark and dying decades early from elevated cancer risk . There alread was too much abuse of X-ray technology before all of this Bush-Obama paranoia and madness set in!

Agreed

 

[edwest2]

edwest2 - I must ask you if you would be willing to provide samples of your own artistic work.

If you claim that it is possible to capture the full anatomy of a human being through merely looking at books I would be interested in seeing the results of this.

I cannot provide any samples under a non-disclosure agreement with my employer. I’ve said my peace about this matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AdamP88]

I cannot provide any samples under a non-disclosure agreement with my employer. I’ve said my peace about this matter.

Peace,
Ed

You mean to tell me you have no personal sketches at all??
You’re the first professional artist I encountered who doesn’t keep a notebook. Even I keep a sketchbook.

 

[edwest2]

You mean to tell me you have no personal sketches at all??
You’re the first professional artist I encountered who doesn’t keep a notebook. Even I keep a sketchbook.

You misunderstand. I am expressly not allowed to post any samples of my work.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AdamP88]

You misunderstand. I am expressly not allowed to post any samples of my work.

Peace,
Ed

Ok…rubbish…you have officially lost all credibility with me.

 

[jmcrae]

You misunderstand. I am expressly not allowed to post any samples of my work.

Peace,
Ed

You are not a slave. Your studio work should be available to the public. It is only the work that you do for your employer that belongs to him; not the work you do in your own studio. (And if you are depending on your employer to provide all your needs for the rest of your life, and you aren’t keeping a personal studio, then you aren’t living in the real world - in the real world, people get downsized and need to fall back on their studio work until they find another job.)

 

[bbentrup]

Ed, I want to agree with you, I really do. On a pragmatic level, there’s so much abuse and sin, and even temptation and near occasion of sin. If this were just a frivolous waste of time, I would be forced to agree. The ends don’t justify the means.

But I just can’t find the logic to say that nude modelling is intrinsically evil, and it even has a certain sanctioned historical pedigree within the church (so I believe).

So, I’m forced to conclude that if the end is good enough, the means are justifiable, even if a gamble for most. Maybe you disagree that the end is good enough. The nude body is so beautiful and it seems like a true path to drawing nearer to loving and understanding God for some people. Perhaps your rejoinder is that there are other safer paths to God, and that this beauty, while real, is pure excess (as relates to the necessities of salvation), and that people risking that path are being imprudent. If it’s a good, we’ll have all eternity to appreciate it in heaven. I can appreciate that kind of argument.

I just don’t think that some people are there at that ideal yet. They need a path that will allow them to know and appreciate God in a medium that is more accessible to them. I am reluctant to close off a permissible means (even if risky).

Also, even if I agree with you on certain ideals, I don’t want to submit my wisdom as Church teaching on the matter. I don’t believe the Church has spoken thoroughly on this issue. So, who am I to close doors on people’s path to knowing God through the body. I do believe that it is very possible and perhaps even the most likely way of understanding God by a study on the theology of the body using both the mind and the senses.

I think you’ve used a lot of illogical arguments in this thread that have seriously undermined your main thesis which deserves a lot of considered respect. People who argue against absolute prohibitions such as myself are playing with fire (though I would argue a holy fire), and you need to remind us of that. Just stay intellectually honest.

 

[AdamP88]

You misunderstand. I am expressly not allowed to post any samples of my work.

Peace,
Ed

jmcrae is correct…you must have some sort of studio work somewhere. Only commissioned work belongs to the employer. If you keep a sketchbook and you decide to post it online that’s your own business.

Get real.

The more this goes on the more I realise you don’t know a thing about real art. In order to actually study the human figure you need to study the nude. This is vital to get a realistic grasp on ho to actually draw.

If you want to draw a bird…you need a bird as a study.

If you want to draw an apple…you need an apple as a study.

If you want to draw a horse…you need a horse as a study.

And if you want to draw the human figure correctly in it’s beauty…you need to study the art of the nude.

That is art. Not Pornography. Simple and true.

 

[GEddie]

jmcrae is correct…you must have some sort of studio work somewhere. Only commissioned work belongs to the employer. If you keep a sketchbook and you decide to post it online that’s your own business.

Get real.

The more this goes on the more I realise you don’t know a thing about real art. In order to actually study the human figure you need to study the nude. This is vital to get a realistic grasp on ho to actually draw.

If you want to draw a bird…you need a bird as a study.

If you want to draw an apple…you need an apple as a study.

If you want to draw a horse…you need a horse as a study.

And if you want to draw the human figure correctly in it’s beauty…you need to study the art of the nude.

That is art. Not Pornography. Simple and true.

And I’d add that there is just no substitute for the live human nude in study. Diagrams, or anatomical photographs of the dead body, cannot teach about the interaction of light and the live human skin and form. Only real light on a real live nude can do that.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[AdamP88]

And I’d add that there is just no substitute for the live human nude in study. Diagrams, or anatomical photographs of the dead body, cannot teach about the interaction of light and the live human skin and form. Only real light on a real live nude can do that.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

Someone who gets art! Correct…

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I want to agree with you, I really do. On a pragmatic level, there’s so much abuse and sin, and even temptation and near occasion of sin. If this were just a frivolous waste of time, I would be forced to agree. The ends don’t justify the means.

But I just can’t find the logic to say that nude modelling is intrinsically evil, and it even has a certain sanctioned historical pedigree within the church (so I believe).

So, I’m forced to conclude that if the end is good enough, the means are justifiable, even if a gamble for most. Maybe you disagree that the end is good enough. The nude body is so beautiful and it seems like a true path to drawing nearer to loving and understanding God for some people. Perhaps your rejoinder is that there are other safer paths to God, and that this beauty, while real, is pure excess (as relates to the necessities of salvation), and that people risking that path are being imprudent. If it’s a good, we’ll have all eternity to appreciate it in heaven. I can appreciate that kind of argument.

I just don’t think that some people are there at that ideal yet. They need a path that will allow them to know and appreciate God in a medium that is more accessible to them. I am reluctant to close off a permissible means (even if risky).

Also, even if I agree with you on certain ideals, I don’t want to submit my wisdom as Church teaching on the matter. I don’t believe the Church has spoken thoroughly on this issue. So, who am I to close doors on people’s path to knowing God through the body. I do believe that it is very possible and perhaps even the most likely way of understanding God by a study on the theology of the body using both the mind and the senses.

I think you’ve used a lot of illogical arguments in this thread that have seriously undermined your main thesis which deserves a lot of considered respect. People who argue against absolute prohibitions such as myself are playing with fire (though I would argue a holy fire), and you need to remind us of that. Just stay intellectually honest.

“intellectually honest”?

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TB61.HTM

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

And I’d add that there is just no substitute for the live human nude in study. Diagrams, or anatomical photographs of the dead body, cannot teach about the interaction of light and the live human skin and form. Only real light on a real live nude can do that.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

Light and shadow are taught in basic drawing class. The most difficult aspect, for most, is perspective drawing. If you can’t properly render light and shadow on a sphere, cone or cube, you’ll have a hard time rendering most things. And then there’s light and shadow on objects that have a color other than white. I don’t need a live model to draw a giant robot or Bugs Bunny.

Peace,
Ed

 

[GEddie]

Light and shadow are taught in basic drawing class. The most difficult aspect, for most, is perspective drawing. If you can’t properly render light and shadow on a sphere, cone or cube, you’ll have a hard time rendering most things. And then there’s light and shadow on objects that have a color other than white. I don’t need a live model to draw a giant robot or Bugs Bunny.

Peace,
Ed

Well, no. If you don’t draw the human form, you have no need of the nude. But most artists incorporate human life into their subject matter.

The human form emBODIES most if not all of geometry. So while simple geometrics are crucial in the visual arts, you won’t get the human image right except in the nude.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[bbentrup]

Ed, thanks for your link of John Paul’s words - much food for thought there, thanks for sharing. I read it about five times.

He makes two apparent conclusions. First "By means of works of art and the activity of the audiovisual media, all those contents and values can be modeled and studied. But they can also be distorted and destroyed in the heart of man. As can be seen, we find ourselves continually within the orbit of the words Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount. Also the problems which we are dealing with here must be examined in the light of those words, which consider a look that springs from lust as “adultery committed in the heart.” Second, that this study is indispensable to all of his previous thoughts in creating a climate favorable to the education of chastity.

He makes a wonderful analysis of the problem, better than I’ve ever read, but in the end, his words appear to amount to extreme caution rather than to proscription. At least to the extent it’s not a naturalistic argument which he expressly condemns. It would seem unfortunate that if his words connoted proscription, he was not more explicit. And you hold that the proscription is in place, right? Can you please write a paragraph of explanation please? I might be able to do so myself, but I’d rather see someone else do so at this point. Thanks.

But the link doesn’t address the full scope of the original question which is nude modeling in all possible circumstances where the image is not being transferred through the social media, and is merely for the artist’s private use. Still, it’s a good start.

 

[AB_Juney]

Ed WEst is never right when it comes to the arts. He wants to live in a sanitized world where all we see on TV is happy little saints smiling and perfect, happy smiling families.

Sorry if it sounds harsh or spiteful, but that’s what i see.

In any case, as a professional artist (who ISN"T afraid to show their work) I can attest; there is no substitute for the human body. I think if it’s a choice or personal morality, it’s possible to gain posing and shape from a model in a leotard, for example, but it’s still not perfect.

Nudity is not the devil. The Vaticans list of notable films includes movies like The Mission, which showcases ethnic nudity.

 

[bbentrup]

Ed WEst is never right when it comes to the arts. He wants to live in a sanitized world where all we see on TV is happy little saints smiling and perfect, happy smiling families.

Sorry if it sounds harsh or spiteful, but that’s what i see.

In any case, as a professional artist (who ISN"T afraid to show their work) I can attest; there is no substitute for the human body. I think if it’s a choice or personal morality, it’s possible to gain posing and shape from a model in a leotard, for example, but it’s still not perfect.

Nudity is not the devil. The Vaticans list of notable films includes movies like The Mission, which showcases ethnic nudity.

I’m not saying that nudity’s the devil - Pope John Paul II certainly isn’t, clearly distancing himself from puritanism or Manicheism. And yet, for example, in the link that Ed provided in his penultimate post (heretofore), the Pope talks about the danger of removing the nude image (be it art or photographic reproduction), begotten from a nude model, from its interpersonal dimension, its gift-ness, its personhood, and transmitting it, especially by mass communications (increasing the danger), to an unknown, anonymous audience that might easily abuse it.

I don’t know what Ed is arguing against exactly. He seems to have taken an absolutist position, but the Pope’s words do not address nude modelling in the art studio where the image is not transmitted beyond the studio. Ed would have to provide further documentation or reasoning for that. And even for the image moving beyond the studio, the Pope’s words are seemingly strong admonitions and not absolutist proscriptions. User beware! So if Ed’s position is defending the Pope’s of utmost caution, I can appreciate it. I can even appreciate an extension into an outright ban, although I think this needs a lot more discernment. (None of this endorses some of his arguments which I have noted I find silly.)

Another question, and possibly beyond the scope of the topic, is what responsibility the visitor has in visiting an art museum with regards to nudity. St. Therese teaches us (see previous page) that we don’t have to avoid the museum, but that’s not the same as avoiding the images themselves. However, I suspect the same teaching applies.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not saying that nudity’s the devil - Pope John Paul II certainly isn’t, clearly distancing himself from puritanism or Manicheism. And yet, for example, in the link that Ed provided in his penultimate post (heretofore), the Pope talks about the danger of removing the nude image (be it art or photographic reproduction), begotten from a nude model, from its interpersonal dimension, its gift-ness, its personhood, and transmitting it, especially by mass communications (increasing the danger), to an unknown, anonymous audience that might easily abuse it.

I don’t know what Ed is arguing against exactly. He seems to have taken an absolutist position, but the Pope’s words do not address nude modelling in the art studio where the image is not transmitted beyond the studio. Ed would have to provide further documentation or reasoning for that. And even for the image moving beyond the studio, the Pope’s words are seemingly strong admonitions and not absolutist proscriptions. User beware! So if Ed’s position is defending the Pope’s of utmost caution, I can appreciate it. I can even appreciate an extension into an outright ban, although I think this needs a lot more discernment. (None of this endorses some of his arguments which I have noted I find silly.)

Another question, and possibly beyond the scope of the topic, is what responsibility the visitor has in visiting an art museum with regards to nudity. St. Therese teaches us (see previous page) that we don’t have to avoid the museum, but that’s not the same as avoiding the images themselves. However, I suspect the same teaching applies.

Well - consider that the Pope does his speaking in a Church whose ceiling is covered in nude paintings, most of which have been reproduced and distributed as photographs in books and on postcards all over the world. If he were outright banning nudity in art, he’d start by painting over the ceilings in his own chapel, don’t you think?