Back to the question of nude modeling

[AB_Juney]

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.

I was speaking more to Ed in that regard to you, my apologies.

The human body is beautiful, and I think it’s possible to be able to appreciate such beauty without arising base instincts. of course, that’s harder for some, and some images ARE bets avoided. I have a book of photographs used as anatomical references. I use to have two. One, I decided to not use, because I found the poses to be enticingly provocative, and far more sensual than a reference guide need be. But the other is very straight forward.

 

[AdamP88]

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?

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paul II:

“On the basis of this logic in the context of the light that comes from God, the human body also keeps its splendour and its dignity. If it is removed from this dimension, it becomes in some way an object, which depreciates very easily, since only before the eyes of God can the human body remain naked and unclothed, and keep its splendour and its beauty intact.”

Source: catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=708

Peace,
Ed

 

[AB_Juney]

Pope John Paul II:

“On the basis of this logic in the context of the light that comes from God, the human body also keeps its splendour and its dignity. If it is removed from this dimension, it becomes in some way an object, which depreciates very easily, since only before the eyes of God can the human body remain naked and unclothed, and keep its splendour and its beauty intact.”

Source: catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=708

Peace,
Ed

You can quote and quote and quote, but words mean nothing when the actions of the vatican say dfferent.

Explain this. The Mission. Schindlers List. The Sistine Chapel. That is all.

Cept you won’t. You never do. You evade questions and never answer them.

 

[AdamP88]

AB Juney is correct.

There is no point speaking to Edwest on this topic. He claims to be an artist but won’t show examples of his work. He speaks from his extensive experience in the art world with nothing to back this up.

I have provided links to well known Catholic Artists who have exhibited worldwide. One of whom has met the Pope and received his blessing to open an art school in Florence, Italy.

Both these artists work with the nude form in sculpture and sketching.

Would Pope Benedict endorse a den of sin and iniquity…no. There you have it.

I think the answer from one of the Saints/Blesseds was appropriate - “Grow Up”

 

[thewanderer]

Pope John Paul II:

“On the basis of this logic in the context of the light that comes from God, the human body also keeps its splendour and its dignity. If it is removed from this dimension, it becomes in some way an object, which depreciates very easily, since only before the eyes of God can the human body remain naked and unclothed, and keep its splendour and its beauty intact.”

Source: catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=708

Peace,
Ed

I’m just gonna throw this out there, but if the Pope truly meant this to mean all nudity under all circumstances, then why wouldn’t this apply to married couples as well? Clearly this was not meant to say that a person should never allow themselves to stand in the nude in front of another human being. I’m sorry Ed, but it just doesn’t say what you want it to.

 

[bbentrup]

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?

Earlier in this thread I was advocating pure prudence in the proposed attainment of some spiritual good, which is largely a subjective argument. The pope’s words say there is an objective component to the analysis, that Ed is correct to pick up on, and which I had largely ignored. Unfortunately, in that link the Pope only lays out the foundation of the argument; he does not explore the full parameters of what the objective component entails/precludes, so we are left with some guesswork, to be informed by logic.

But your Sistine Chapel nudity argument may be claimed to be irrelevant. It’s only relevant if Michelangelo used and depicted live nude models as they really looked. Instead, the Chapel’s nudity may be generic, created in the artist’s mind. The Pope’s words from the link Ed posted talk about nude modeling, not depictions of nudity; often these overlap but not always. To the extent that the Pope believed Michelangelo did not use nude models, this argument won’t do to counter the Pope’s words, whatever they purport to mean (though some messages are clear).

 

[jmcrae]

Earlier in this thread I was advocating pure prudence in the proposed attainment of some spiritual good, which is largely a subjective argument. The pope’s words say there is an objective component to the analysis, that Ed is correct to pick up on, and which I had largely ignored. Unfortunately, in that link the Pope only lays out the foundation of the argument; he does not explore the full parameters of what the objective component entails/precludes, so we are left with some guesswork, to be informed by logic.

But your Sistine Chapel nudity argument may be claimed to be irrelevant. It’s only relevant if Michelangelo used and depicted live nude models as they really looked. Instead, the Chapel’s nudity may be generic, created in the artist’s mind. The Pope’s words from the link Ed posted talk about nude modeling, not depictions of nudity; often these overlap but not always. To the extent that the Pope believed Michelangelo did not use nude models, this argument won’t do to counter the Pope’s words, whatever they purport to mean (though some messages are clear).

It seems unlikely that Michelangelo could have rendered such realistic drawings without the use of the model - keep in mind, they had not yet invented either picture books or photography.

 

[AdamP88]

Earlier in this thread I was advocating pure prudence in the proposed attainment of some spiritual good, which is largely a subjective argument. The pope’s words say there is an objective component to the analysis, that Ed is correct to pick up on, and which I had largely ignored. Unfortunately, in that link the Pope only lays out the foundation of the argument; he does not explore the full parameters of what the objective component entails/precludes, so we are left with some guesswork, to be informed by logic.

But your Sistine Chapel nudity argument may be claimed to be irrelevant. It’s only relevant if Michelangelo used and depicted live nude models as they really looked. Instead, the Chapel’s nudity may be generic, created in the artist’s mind. The Pope’s words from the link Ed posted talk about nude modeling, not depictions of nudity; often these overlap but not always. To the extent that the Pope believed Michelangelo did not use nude models, this argument won’t do to counter the Pope’s words, whatever they purport to mean (though some messages are clear).

It is unlikely that any pope would argue with the historical fact that Nude models were used by Renaissance artists.

I also point to the earlier example of the Catholic artist who met with Pope Benedict regarding the establishment of an art school. This artist works with nude models.

I think if Pope Benedict XVI had a problem with Nude Art he would have mentioned it to my friend in his meeting.

donymacmanusstudios.com/

 

[jmcrae]

It is unlikely that any pope would argue with the historical fact that Nude models were used by Renaissance artists.

I also point to the earlier example of the Catholic artist who met with Pope Benedict regarding the establishment of an art school. This artist works with nude models.

I think if Pope Benedict XVI had a problem with Nude Art he would have mentioned it to my friend in his meeting.

donymacmanusstudios.com/

Thank you for the link - that looks like a wonderful school!

 

[AdamP88]

Indeed…the artist is a brilliant guy. he studied in New York Academy and has done various religious sculpture as well as secular art.

He is very passionate about his subject and constantly uses art to lecture on Theology of the Body.

 

[bbentrup]

It seems unlikely that Michelangelo could have rendered such realistic drawings without the use of the model - keep in mind, they had not yet invented either picture books or photography.

I did about 40 minutes of internet research before I posted - I couldn’t find any evidence he did - and plenty of suggestions he didn’t. Obviously inconclusive, but if he didn’t, then this argument is impermissible. I think we have to take JP’s words quite seriously. But my main point is, we don’t quite know what they mean as far as the problem of nude modeling goes, it only has suggestive value. And remember, whatever it is that he is saying, the nude modeling question is different from the nude art question.
AdamPeter:

It is unlikely that any pope would argue with the historical fact that Nude models were used by Renaissance artists.

This argument is much more relevant if there are non-Michelangelo nudes in the Sistine Chapel; if it’s just the one artist, the Pope may have allowed it on that basis, with the idea above that Michelangelo did not use nude models.

Bottom line: Sistine Chapel is only circumstantial evidence, not direct. Let’s try to use actual direct reasoning to get to the bottom of this. Of course, that probably involves a lengthy study of JPII’s ToB.

 

[thewanderer]

What about the school linked to above, endorsed by the Pope, that uses nude modelling?

 

[AdamP88]

So, I’m not looking to start a fire-war here, but just get some feedback. If you think nude modeling is ok, why, and under what circumstances. Likewise, if not, then for what reason, and do you know of an alternative an alternative way to learn nude art, since the Church says it is (well, can be) ok.

To go back to the OP’s original question. The answer is a definitive yes. Nude modeling is actually morally good for the purposes of art.

From the Catholic perspective, the body is in itself a work of art. For an artist to copy this on canvas can be seen as a form of prayer, a compliment to God and to the body that he created.

 

[AB_Juney]

WEll, if nude modeling is sinful, what other aspects of nudity are sinful? My best friend and I have seen each other naked when we change clothes at each others homes. My other friend saw me naked while helping me into my wedding dress. What’s the difference?

 

[Lady_Godiva]

I read through the entire thread and I would like to try to help refocus it in terms of charity for all in question.
I think what has happened here is that for the most part, the majority of people have focused on the question of whether or not nude modelling is in and of itself intrinsically sinful/immoral. I think what Ed has been doing, correct me if I’m wrong, is absorbing that question within the context of the spirit of the age, his experience of the art world, etc. (I will add here that I think it’s unfair to demand he produce his work to prove that figure drawing can be successfully done without nude models: there would have to be drawings by several artists of both groups compared to come to any sort of conclusion on that matter). He has recognized the delicate problem that JP2 alludes to, given all the factors in question, and I believe, given what he has experienced is suggesting and promoting maximum prudence given the myriad abuses that currently exist and our made possible by modern circumstances, which is not an unreasonable thing. He was trying to draw (no pun intended) the question into the bigger picture of what is currently the status quo in the world but as a result, his answers were not satisfactory for those who were looking at the argument on a more isolated level.

Ed, it would seem, is justly concerned with not only moral decay but a lukewarmness on the part of Christians about it (even if that lukewarmness is not objectively there). Others’ concerns seemed to be about avoiding puritanism, scrupulosity, and also the potential for good that may be achieved through legitimate artistic pursuits, etc. As a result, both “sides”, if you will, were not really hearing the other’s concerns and sadly, it seems that charity and hope, especially, were not prevailing.

I think it’s extremely important to understand what we are up against, so to speak, spiritually and practically, in the world around us. It is important that we realize we are all prone to self deception and being influenced by the spirit of the age, to indifference. It is also, however, important to recognize just who we are as Christians within that milieu. We are the light of the world and salt of the earth, ambassadors for Christ, sons and daughters of the most high God who has WON the victory over sin and death. Yes, our fallenness is a fact - but so is our redemption. When we forget that, our identity, we get into the culture war mentality, the “us vs them”. Are we at war? Yes. But what are our tactics? To go on the defensive and dismiss those who are not 100% in our camp? What is our goal? Is it not to “Go therefore and make disciples of ALL the nations”? To love our enemies?

Our response should neither be to avoid the world or imitate it but TRANSFORM it by being close to Christ. That transformation isn’t only done through our creative works, but by recognizing we are being made every moment, by allowing for and seeking out our own transformation by Christ. It is by being truly creative in relationship, oriented towards love, so that the viewers, the public, have at least the possibility of being changed, their eyes opened to see things as they really are and as they could be. If we do this, we will be able to rise above the rut of “this is how it is; we should have none of it”, and participate in His making all things new, in the restoration of all things to Him.

As of now, I think that the possibilities for serving God through all kinds of art, for proclaiming the truth about the goodness of God and creation are largely untapped because we’ve thrown in the towel, assumed that the evil that is truly present is more powerful and inevitable than the mercy of God.

I feel the section of TOB “Ethical Responsibilities in Art” says it best in this section:
“Our preceding reflections did not intend to question the right to this subject (i.e. man as model-subject. They aim merely at proving that its treatment is connected with a special responsibility which is not only artistic, but also ethical in nature. The artist who undertakes that theme in any sphere of art or through audiovisual media, must be aware of the full truth of the object, of the whole scale of values connected with it. He must not only take them into account in abstracto, but also live them correctly himself. This corresponds also to that principle of purity of heart, which in determined cases must be transferred from the existential sphere of attitudes and ways of behavior to the intentional sphere of creation or artistic reproduction.” www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb62.htm

In other words, we cannot be indifferent to very real moral and ethical questions that necessarily arise within art - both within the creative sphere, and taking into consideration the viewer’s sphere. While we cannot control all aspects of the work and how it will be received, we must be sure that not only our intentions are pure, but that our technique and end result truly communicates that pure intent and doesn’t betray the dignity of man.

I genuinely believe that the first creative work that needs to be done by artists is to go in the fields where the harvest is plentiful but labourers are few - the art world - and meet Christ there. Where is He? “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”. Who are more shepherdless, lost, least, the poorest of the spiritually poor than those who don’t even know they need Him? Who think they make themselves? Jesus loved some people who didn’t seem like they would be “likely” followers. Allow Him to transform you there. In other words, not only till the soil, but allow yourself to be the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies…perhaps after several seasons of this, the result will be a culture more able to receive the beauty we have to give which would have formerly been choked up with weeds.

 

[johndelacruz]

I’ve read much of this (old) thread, and have thought often on this issue besides - I’m curious what folks would think about a book like this:

The Nude Female Figure: A Visual Reference for Artists

"More than two hundred full-color photos of women in motion and at rest. Standing. Seated. Reclining. Kneeling. Bending. Crouching. Running. World-renowned photographer Mark Edward Smith has captured women of every age and form in every type of movement, then gathered his striking, unusual images into The Nude Female Figure. An indispensable reference for artists who have limited access to live figure models,
this remarkable book features striking images of shapely young women as well as elegiac photos of more mature women. The models in these full-color pictures include women of every type—slender women, not-so-slender women, pregnant women, and women of color. A special section shows closeups of the hands and feet. Each pose is beautiful, and the unparalleled attention to composition, lighting, and reproduction make it easy for artists to see the relationships between the parts of the body and to study the classic female figure.
• A must-have reference for all artists

Can a good Catholic man legitimately own and use such a book, artistically, aesthetically - given that he has worked through the Theology of the Body and can innocently view images of unclothed female persons, even very beautiful ones, without lust?

The “intent” of such a book appears clear, and it is not to incite arousal and lust…but has rather a true artistic view of the human body.

What of the women who consented to be published in this volume - did they commit a grave sin, or are they innocently posing for “artists”?

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

Indeed, dear friend, a doctor, who must sometimes examine his patients in a state of undress, can be at risk from being aroused by unchaste thoughts, but there is really no way around this as his *duty *is to preserve the life of those under his care. He must be jolly vigilant for sure and perhaps it is advisable, if at all possbile, for patients to be examined by a doctor of their own gender, so as to minimise any unprofessional misconduct. However, this is hardly the same as a model making a choice to pose nude for an artist. Any risk of stimulating impure thoughts can at least be avoided in this instance by the model simply making the choice not to pose, or for the artist making the choice not to paint nude models.

Dear Portrait,

I have been reading through this thread and now I came to your refreshing post.

I have to confess, this thread made me more and more depressed. The idea of a human being removing his or her clothes, getting naked in front of strangers, has been weighing heavily on my mind. I had to remove my clothes for medical examination in my life, but there I could see why it was necessary. I can also understand husband and wife being naked in each other’s company. If they want to draw/paint/sculpt each other, for their private enjoyment, in the privacy of their homes, I suppose that’s also perfectly fine between husband and wife, provided that no third parties get to see them naked, or their naked pictures.

But the idea of nude modeling in front of strangers, and the idea of exhibiting these naked pictures depicting personally identifiable models for the enjoyment of other people than their spouses, just strikes me as something profoundly saddening and incompatible with the human dignity of the person who served as the model.

Indeed, Portrait, I hope that models will simply make the choice not to pose nude in front of strangers (non-spouses), and I hope that artists will chose not to paint and exhibit such pictures.

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

I’ve read much of this (old) thread, and have thought often on this issue besides - I’m curious what folks would think about a book like this:

The Nude Female Figure: A Visual Reference for Artists

"More than two hundred full-color photos of women in motion and at rest. Standing. Seated. Reclining. Kneeling. Bending. Crouching. Running. World-renowned photographer Mark Edward Smith…

I wonder, how about someone else publishing a book, entitled

The Clothed Female: A Visual Reference for Artists

“More than two hundred full-color photos of women … tastefully clothed!”

I know one thing: none of my female (or male) family members would have consented to do this. To remove their clothes, for naked pictures in a book. Praise God. :bowdown:

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

I have been reading through this thread and now I came to your refreshing post.

I have to confess, this thread made me more and more depressed. The idea of a human being removing his or her clothes, getting naked in front of strangers, has been weighing heavily on my mind. I had to remove my clothes for medical examination in my life, but there I could see why it was necessary. I can also understand husband and wife being naked in each other’s company. If they want to draw/paint/sculpt each other, for their private enjoyment, in the privacy of their homes, I suppose that’s also perfectly fine between husband and wife, provided that no third parties get to see them naked, or their naked pictures.

But the idea of nude modeling in front of strangers, and the idea of exhibiting these naked pictures depicting personally identifiable models for the enjoyment of other people than their spouses, just strikes me as something profoundly saddening and incompatible with the human dignity of the person who served as the model.

Indeed, Portrait, I hope that models will simply make the choice not to pose nude in front of strangers (non-spouses), and I hope that artists will chose not to paint and exhibit such pictures.

Over the past 40 years, the secular media has removed privacy from its proper place and turned sexual intimacy into a plaything. Art is not a bulletproof shield or an excuse. “It’s art” should never remove from our minds the goal: lust. Today, that is too often the case.

The excuse consistently offered here are the Sistine Chapel and ancient statues. No one buys or looks at such photos or paintings or statues for their erotic value today.

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years. At times, parts of the body needed to be uncovered for the purpose of treatment. This was understood by the patient, doctor and nurses as necessary. There was no other motive.

“Art” is not a magic word. The media needs to be reformed. Part of that reform should involve not watching a lot of it. Human dignity begins with human decency and self-respect, and respect for others in word, and dress. I was taught that looking at a beautiful woman was OK, and if we were friends, to even compliment her on her beauty, but there was a line that was never crossed. For decades, the media has encouraged so many young women to cross that line and instead of being presented as feminine with dignity and a pleasant character, they are presented as objects not unlike strippers. And men were encouraged to be indifferent. That is someone’s daughter. That is someone’s niece or other relative. But the “I’m 18 and you can’t tell me what to do anymore” mentality was promoted as well.

Have hope. Trust in God. Mothers and fathers - raise up your children to respect themselves and others. Teach them right from wrong.

Peace,
Ed