Back to the question of nude modeling

[Debora123]

Yes, but every now and then you read about doctors sexually abusing patients when they are under anesthesia. Every situation is different.

Soooo are we not supposed to go to the doctor anymore because perhaps 1 out of every 1,000,000 are sick perverts?

Should we not go to confession with priests anymore either for the same reasons?

Getting undressed in front of your doctor for an exam is still way different than getting undressed in front of any random man.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Soooo are we not supposed to go to the doctor anymore because perhaps 1 out of every 1,000,000 are sick perverts?

Should we not go to confession with priests anymore either for the same reasons?

Getting undressed in front of your doctor for an exam is still way different than getting undressed in front of any random man.

My point is there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on the context of the individual situation and those involved.

 

[epan]

All who work in the art field, including myself, need to remember a few things.

“People can be aroused by anything.”? That statement is pure nonsense. The last issue of Popular Science I bought? Or the last newspaper? Give me a break. Stop with the excuses.

Peace,
Ed

I almost hesitate to mention this. There is a sexual fetish called scatology, which is an attraction to feces. People get aroused touching it, eating it, and so on. This if proof enough to me that anything is possible, thought it might be rare. There is also infantilism, where people get aroused by being in diapers. There is a very long list of things that people get aroused by.

 

[epan]

Yes, but every now and then you read about doctors sexually abusing patients when they are under anesthesia. Every situation is different.

Sure. I was speaking in general.

I spent a month in Holland a while back. I was the guest of a family with two college aged men. I was surprised how casual they are about nudity. For example, one was out of a shower, and the other was changing. They started wrestling, and soon were naked with the bedroom door open. It was not sexual behavior. Dinner was ready, and the mom came into the room and told them to hurry to the dinner table. Nobody thought anything of it. I certainly don’t think that anything sinful was happening.

I found that their attitude was not out of the ordinary.

It would be very unusual to see anything like that happen in the US, at least among the families that I know.

 

[epan]

My point is there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on the context of the individual situation and those involved.

The risk from the anesthesia is probably greater than the risk of being molested. For one thing, it is rare to be put under without at least two people in the room. Even if someone is aroused by the sight of a patient, the patient has done no wrong. That is on the healthcare provider to handle professionally.

When I was 19 years old, I went to an endocrinologist. The endocrinologist approached me from behind, and reached around to do the testicular exam. Then made an inappropriate comment, which was clearly the opening to a possible seduction attempt. I was more shocked than anything, and I am not sure if I even said anything. I am sure that my posture stiffened. It was a very uncomfortable feeling. Then the physician returned to acting professionally, and we both pretended that nothing had just happened. If that happened to me today, I would have taken some action. At least I would have said something. Not sure if I would have reported it. I probably would, because I was probably not the only patient who experienced that with this provider.

But if the discussion is turning to risk analysis, there probably is more risk for a woman of being assualted, and certainly more likelihood of being hit on by guys, if she is scantily clad. That is why women don’t frequent nude beaches in the US as much as they do in Europe, where a topless woman does not cause problems for guys.

 

[stewstew03]

I never said context doesn’t matter.

I was specifically referring to this silly picture,:

differentphotographystyles.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/imsirreal_1.jpg

…and the completely nude paintings in the Sistine chapel.

If someone is sensitive enough (and perhaps strange enough) to become aroused by a picture such as the one I showed them above, there is no reason why they wouldn’t get aroused by completely naked female bodies painted all over the walls of a building. Neither of anything I mentioned is anyone’s family member.

You’re missing the point. The context of your “silly picture” is quite different than the context of the nude paintings in the Sistine Chapel.

 

[feed_me]

 

[Debora123]

You’re missing the point. The context of your “silly picture” is quite different than the context of the nude paintings in the Sistine Chapel.

You’re missing my point. What I’m trying to say is, they are both probably equally likely to actually arouse anyone normal.

One is a random picture of a weird (non seductive pose) in which no private parts are shown, the other is a nude painting on a Church wall.

But whatev’s, I suppose we can agree to disagree on how likely that picture is to cause arousal.

 

[scameter18]

I think context is very important. This does not exclude the possibility of sin, of course, as with the instance of perverted doctors, priests, and even some parents/siblings, etc. Perversion can occur anywhere, but we can’t avoid the good things - medicine, confession, family, art - simply because of the sinful perversions people do. Pornography is a perversion of the art of modeling, whether photography or otherwise (since photography is not the only kind of pornography; look at the Kama Sutra), but despite this perversion modeling is still an art.

The real question is, when does human art, any art that attempts to replicate the human person (nude or not) become pornographic? And how can we know? I think these are very difficult to answer. Sometimes it is quite obvious, such as the difference between Sistine Chapel nude art or Playboy. But when someone composes a photograph of a naked woman, is it necessarily pornographic simply because it shows breasts or genitalia? The body is not necessarily always sexual when it is exposed, as nudity in the doctor’s office or while taking a bath indicates. And, even if a work of art elicits sexual arousal, does this mean it is pornographic? By definition, pornography objectifies the person or persons involved by portraying sex outside of its marital context, and if it intends to elicit lust. But, how can these intentions be discerned? I think it is quite difficult, especially in certain circumstances, and using quick or pat answers is a bit imprecise, I think.

 

[Baelor]

You’re missing the point. The context of your “silly picture” is quite different than the context of the nude paintings in the Sistine Chapel.

What role does context play? Say that the photographer had innocent motives. Is his picture permissible?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

What about a picture of a woman in a dental-floss bikini? Technically, it isn’t nudity but it will most likely cause arousal.

 

[stewstew03]

You’re missing my point. What I’m trying to say is, they are both probably equally likely to actually arouse anyone normal.

One is a random picture of a weird (non seductive pose) in which no private parts are shown, the other is a nude painting on a Church wall.

But whatev’s, I suppose we can agree to disagree on how likely that picture is to cause arousal.

I don’t think we’re too far apart in our views. Personally, I don’t find the random nude picture “titillating” but I do see the potential for its eroticism (which is why I brought up the example of the 15-year old boy). That’s all…

 

[Debora123]

What about a picture of a woman in a dental-floss bikini? Technically, it isn’t nudity but it will most likely cause arousal.

It depends on what you mean by “dental floss bikini.” If you simply mean a string bikini, I’d say it really depends on the nature of the photo.

There’s a big difference between a string bikini picture like this:

static.igossip.com/photos_2/november_2011/6101_taylor_swift_bikini.jpg

And a string bikini picture you’d see in Sports Illustrated… even if they were the exam same bikini.

However, if by “dental floss bikini” you mean a thong bikini, then the answer is most likely yes, it probably is pornographic in nature the vast majority of the time.

 

[Paint101]

I teach figure drawing. The Church has a long tradition of using the nude in sacred art. With very few exceptions drawing the nude is completely non-sexual in nature. It’s like problem solving. Striving to become better. (not unlike playing a round of golf). Drawing the nude has been a mainstay of Western art since ancient Greece. To me it bears no relationship at all to the other highly sexualized aspects of popular culture.

 

[OurBeloved]

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.

Actually nude modeling is not exactly accepted in the church. When a person poses in the nude, that person’s body is at risk of being used. The person can also lead the artist to lust due to concupiscence.

There is also the issue of the person’s body which is a gift to be shared with ones spouse now turning in to public property to be shared over living rooms, art galleries and where ever someone might think fit.

It is also worth asking if a husband/wife is happy with ones wife/husband being presented in the nude for an artist so that she can be reproduced as an object for pleasure for others.

In short, disorder has existed from the very days of the fall. The fact that Michaelangelo used nude models is not reason to think nude modeling is ok. Neither is it ok to think that because nude art exists in Vatican’s possession that it implies nude modeling is ok. To give a better example to understand, one might approve and possess a drug which was tested inhumanely but still condemn the inhumane nature of the tests.

So as Bl. JP II makes clear in his Theology of the Body, art doesn’t give license to possess, portray, or see anything in the name of art. It must respect the personal sensitivity of the person. No person with a healthy degree of personal sensitivity would want to show themselves naked to random persons (unless out of necessity for their own well being like in a medical situation). Even if the artist was a super self controlled person who has triumphed victoriously over concupiscence, it does injustice to the person modeling in that it leads to desensitizing of the personal sensitivity.

There are also many today who try to use Bl. JP II to try and back their ideas but we would do well to actually read Bl. JP II’s writings than jump in to erroneous conclusions. Beware also of the common argument I addressed above “Nude art Piece X is owned by the church, therefore Nude modeling is good”.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually nude modeling is not exactly accepted in the church. When a person poses in the nude, that person’s body is at risk of being used. The person can also lead the artist to lust due to concupiscence.

It would be very difficult to lust in a typical drawing class. If you aren’t focused on doing your work, the instructor will fix that problem in a hurry. The vast majority of nude drawing is for the purpose of learning anatomy. Also, the majority of artist models are not “sexy” and bear very little resemblance to the naked bodies found in pornographic magazines.

 

[OurBeloved]

It would be very difficult to lust in a typical drawing class. If you aren’t focused on doing your work, the instructor will fix that problem in a hurry. The vast majority of nude drawing is for the purpose of learning anatomy. Also, the majority of artist models are not “sexy” and bear very little resemblance to the naked bodies found in pornographic magazines.

Well the problem is not just the artist lusting. However, its worth pointing out that the lust does not also need to occur during the art class itself. It might carry over to outside the class once the session is over. In the biblical case of King David, the lust continued even after the episode of temptation.

But apart from it, there is a certain responsibility of safe guarding the personal sensitivity of the person. This is certainly not achieved by asking a person to pose in the nude and it can in-fact lead to desensitizing the person’s healthy personal sensitivity with repetition.

 

[jmcrae]

Well the problem is not just the artist lusting. However, its worth pointing out that the lust does not also need to occur during the art class itself. It might carry over to outside the class once the session is over. In the biblical case of King David, the lust continued even after the episode of temptation.

Bathsheba was beautiful, for starters, and the King wasn’t taking an art class - he was gazing idly out the window, which is an entirely different circumstance.

But apart from it, there is a certain responsibility of safe guarding the personal sensitivity of the person. This is certainly not achieved by asking a person to pose in the nude and it can in-fact lead to desensitizing the person’s healthy personal sensitivity with repetition.

No one is forced to be an artists’ model, and in fact a lot of people only do it temporarily, while between normal jobs, rather than take welfare or work in the service industry.

Question for you: have you ever been to art school?

 

[OurBeloved]

Bathsheba was beautiful, for starters, and the King wasn’t taking an art class - he was gazing idly out the window, which is an entirely different circumstance.

The circumstance is seeing a nude person of the opposite sex. In that sense there is no difference.

Also, is there a caveat in nude modeling that “beautiful” people may not participate?

No one is forced to be an artists’ model, and in fact a lot of people only do it temporarily, while between normal jobs, rather than take welfare or work in the service industry

It is not a matter of forcing. It is a matter of what it entails. Whether we do it willingly or unwillingly, it leads to the desensitizing of personal sensitivity. This is a great harm which may not be compromised as Bl. JP II clearly states in his Theology of the Body.

Question for you: have you ever been to art school?

Without answering the question, I would like you to ponder whether a priest needs to have been married before they give advice or teach doctrine on it.

Along the same lines, I do not feel that me having been to art school or not would help you in considering the morality or immorality, prudence or imprudence of the act we have been discussing

 

[jmcrae]

Along the same lines, I do not feel that me having been to art school or not would help you in considering the morality or immorality, prudence or imprudence of the act we have been discussing

I think that if you have never attended formal art classes, you haven’t experienced the level of intellectual and academic problem-solving that is involved. It’s a bit like accusing medical students of necrophilia when they have to study and dissect dead bodies. (Which artists also have to do, but on a much more limited scale; this is also part of the standard anatomy program, as well. Artists are allowed to ask the medical technician to remove the organs and lay them out on the table, rather than doing it ourselves, though.)

When the mind is occupied with academic problems that must be solved in the open, with the critic/instructor observing and with 20 other people also engaged in the same problem-solving, and critiquing one another, it’s impossible for the mind to, at the same time, become idle and start indulging in lustful fantasies about the model on the stand, even if one is sexually attracted to the sort of people who typically become artists’ models - these are not fashion models, and there is no air-brushing involved.

In fact, I would propose regular attendance at figure study as a cure for lust, in general - the academic study of a real human being, coupled with the requirement to reproduce it in exact realistic detail in the space of 90 minutes blows away pretty much every lustful fantasy - there simply isn’t time for that.

Of course, if we want to do away with realistic art permanently, the perfect way to do it would be to forbid figure study classes. If you want all art from now and henceforth to be abstract only, then go ahead and forbid any teaching of realism (of which figure study is an essential component). But you can’t have it both ways. If you want realistic art, then you need to allow figure study classes in art schools.