Back to the question of nude modeling

[OurBeloved]

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.)

See, this is where you are making false equivocations. In the medical field, in the example you describe, it is done out of necessity and on a person whose life has already ended. It does not risk making the person become desensitized to ones personal sensitivity. In the case where medical examination is performed on the nude person who is alive, it is done for the sake of that very person out of necessity to save their lives. So your equivocation fails at this level.

Now if you read my original post, this is why I mentioned that even if we grant that Artists are super self controlled individuals, there is the issue of the person whose modeling and the effect on that person.

So far you have been neglecting this issue and concentrating solely on the artist.

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.

You seem to have a misplaced view here that only air brushed fashion models are liable to cause lust due to concupiscence. That is not a Catholic doctrine and I think there is good reason to think your belief false. Bethsheba was not an air brushed fashion model either.

You are also neglecting the fact that one does not immediately need to delve on the nudity that they see in order to cause lust. Human beings, as you know, have a memory. So it is very possible that after the class/lecture/examination their thoughts would turn to lustfully think about what they saw during the class.

I
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.

Your prescription of a cure is unfortunately not Church teaching and has in-fact been condemned by many saints who have spoken on the subject. Prescription for concupiscence has never been to put oneself in near occasion of sin.

I
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.

This is again unfortunate that the only realistic art that you are aware of is nude art. There is many other fields of realistic art that does not need individuals to be in the nude. In fact, in a normal grown human beings life span, the time they spend in the nude is minimal. So one could argue that you are perhaps nudity in art is not even required to be featured prominently.

But regardless, I would have to direct you at this point to read Theology of the Body by Bl. JP II. He clearly articulates how one may not violate personal sensitivity in the name of art. All artists, whether they have attended art school or not, would do well to keep this in mind.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Respectfully, then you don’t understand the history of pornography in the last half of the 20th Century. The linkage is clear and direct.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Oh please. You’ve done a survey? I’ve seen models that were almost copies of drawings by one of my favorite artists of the 1970s, who I later had to dump when he began going in an immoral direction.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To jmcrae,

"In fact, I would propose regular attendance at figure study as a cure for lust, in general "

There are men, for example, who are in their 60’s who are still lusting and still masturbating after seeing thousands of photos. Your idea is ridiculous - nothing personal. All those old guys they’re selling viagra to can be cured? Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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”.

Thank you. Well said. Today, we are encouraged to lack sensitivity towards others in so many ways - to our loss. On another forum where I am a moderator, someone wrote that porn had gone mainstream. It was part of the furniture and all negative attitudes toward it have melted away. How sad. Another poster wrote: “Does anybody remember when porn was considered dirty and hard to get?”

And internet forums. What could be pleasant and even sensitive discussion is reduced to yelling over the other guy with no regard to politeness, courtesy and decorum. I, for one, cannot see how anyone like that can call himself civil or civilized.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

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.

I would hope that simply seeing someone’s body would not prompt lustful thoughts in most people. If so, art museums everywhere should be shut down immediately!

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.

They become one flesh through sex. We give our body to our spouse in sex. Nude modeling is different than sex.

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).

Many persons with healthy degrees of personal sensitivity are fine with being nude models.

Please explain how you know that they are all unhealthy. Remember that you have not actually proved that nude modeling is inherently a violation of any person’s personal sensitivity.

In the case where medical examination is performed on the nude person who is alive, it is done for the sake of that very person out of necessity to save their lives. So your equivocation fails at this level.

This argument does not address the possibility of concupiscence. I assume, then, that you are admitting that examining corpses and live naked bodies even in a medical context can easily prompt lustful thoughts?

 

[atheistgirl]

Or this?

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

Would you personally consider these art or pornographic?

Art - and the second photograph is simply stunning. I love the female form, in all it’s shapes and sizes.

There is something, to me anyways, intrinsically beautiful and sublime about the female body.

Male bodies not so much.

I just think womens bodies are so much more interesting and beautiful, and some artists and photographers have the skill and talent to capture this for all our enjoyment - on an artistic level.

That some poor guy cant control himself around it is no reason to say it shouldn’t exist or be censored.

Sarah x

 

[jmcrae]

To jmcrae,

"In fact, I would propose regular attendance at figure study as a cure for lust, in general "

There are men, for example, who are in their 60’s who are still lusting and still masturbating after seeing thousands of photos. Your idea is ridiculous - nothing personal. All those old guys they’re selling viagra to can be cured? Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

Forget it then.

[SIGN1]Death to Realism!!

Apparently, it causes lust. [/SIGN1]

 

[jmcrae]

This is again unfortunate that the only realistic art that you are aware of is nude art. There is many other fields of realistic art that does not need individuals to be in the nude. In fact, in a normal grown human beings life span, the time they spend in the nude is minimal. So one could argue that you are perhaps nudity in art is not even required to be featured prominently.

You cannot graduate to landscape painting without first getting a passing grade in figure study. No reputable art school would allow it.

 

[Paint101]

I started drawing the nude when I was 14. At 19 I went through professional art school and
later went to grad school for an MFA. As I said in an earlier post I now teach it. (for the last 8 years) Drawing the nude is the backbone of drawing development for the professional level artist. It is essential.

Sin (in the case of lust) is between the ears not between the legs. I’ve lusted a lot more at the beach than I ever have in drawing class.

 

[OurBeloved]

You cannot graduate to landscape painting without first getting a passing grade in figure study. No reputable art school would allow it.

I started drawing the nude when I was 14. At 19 I went through professional art school and
later went to grad school for an MFA. As I said in an earlier post I now teach it. (for the last 8 years) Drawing the nude is the backbone of drawing development for the professional level artist. It is essential.

Sin (in the case of lust) is between the ears not between the legs. I’ve lusted a lot more at the beach than I ever have in drawing class.

Both of you have to remember that it is not a matter of just the Artist and his ability to not lust. It is also an issue of not violating or harming the personal sensitivity of a person.

As for drawing nudes being the backbone, perhaps it is time that the Artist’s decided to reevaluate it’s curriculum. One cannot simply say that “this is how art operated for centuries, so let us continue to do so”. Society used to operate in immoral ways for centuries. That is not reasons to continue to do so. Why should it be any different for art?

 

[OurBeloved]

I
Many persons with healthy degrees of personal sensitivity are fine with being nude models.

Please explain how you know that they are all unhealthy. Remember that you have not actually proved that nude modeling is inherently a violation of any person’s personal sensitivity.

This argument does not address the possibility of concupiscence. I assume, then, that you are admitting that examining corpses and live naked bodies even in a medical context can easily prompt lustful thoughts?

Aah, it is a pleasure to see you in action again my friend. We always seem to disagree when it comes to everything that deals with bearing skin, don’t we?

Anyway, as a result of my experience through our past arguments, I do not wish to continue any debates since it seems to be the case that at the end of a long and lengthy conversation, we just discover that you meant what I said all along.

So I will just leave you with the following.

As for proving nude modeling is contrary to personal sensitivity, it is rather trivial. If one has grown up in a culture that leads to forming a healthy personal sensitivity, then no man or woman would be comfortable with posing in the nude to a stranger. The ones who do, have a lack of inhibition since they grew up in an unhealthy culture.

Lets always think about what you are saying here as well and consider if it has proof (you are quick to request proof but very slow or ignorant in considering whether your own claims have proof). You say that persons with healthy degree of sensitivity would be perfectly find with nude modeling. What makes you think that they have a personal sensitivity to begin with? If you read Theology of the Body, you would understand that being perfectly fine with showing ones nude self to a stranger is actually a SIGN that the person has an unhealthy personal sensitivity.

 

[Portrait]

I would hope that simply seeing someone’s body would not prompt lustful thoughts in most people. If so, art museums everywhere should be shut down immediately!

They become one flesh through sex. We give our body to our spouse in sex. Nude modeling is different than sex.

Many persons with healthy degrees of personal sensitivity are fine with being nude models.

Please explain how you know that they are all unhealthy. Remember that you have not actually proved that nude modeling is inherently a violation of any person’s personal sensitivity.

This argument does not address the possibility of concupiscence. I assume, then, that you are admitting that examining corpses and live naked bodies even in a medical context can easily prompt lustful thoughts?

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Given man’s fallen estate and his propensity to sin, it is surely the height of folly, dear friend, to assume that he would not find the sight of an undraped body sexually arousing. Such a naive view hardly reckons with the whole issue of concupiscence and the need to continually subdue the baser instincts. Moreover, it admits of no doubt that the display of a naked body is a near occasion of sin, inasmuch as impure thoughts will in all probability be incited, given man’s innate sinfulness. Only a very inadequate view of the human condition would think or suggest otherwise, especially in view of the increasing sexualisation of contemporary Western culture and all the adulteries of modern art. Surely, if anything, there is need today for extra vigilance concerning matters of decency and good taste. Thus being against nude modeling cannot be blitheley dismissed as some sort of misplaced modesty verging on Puritan prudery. On the contrary, it is the appropriate and only Catholic response from those with a well-formed conscience and an elementary knowledge of moral theology.

Nude modeling is opposed to the virtue of modesty and therefore poses a serious threat to the preservation of chastity. ‘Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person. * It means refusing to unveil what should* remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness’; moreover, '…the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires" (CCC, paras. 2521, 2520, emphasis mine). How this can be squared with nude modeling is beyond me, old chap, and it most decidedly cannot make the ‘struggle against concupiscence of the flesh’, already an arduous task, any easier for fallen men.

As for art museums having to close down, dear friend, I think that is highly unlikely to happen in the decadent times in which our lot is now sadly cast, after all we pride ourselves today on living in an age of enlightenment which has cast off so called Victorian inhibitions.

Unless we have allowed ourselves to become so distracted and demoralized by the ungodly and worldly influences with which we are surrounded, and believe it to be healthily frank to represent and appreciate the beauty of human beings in a natural state of nudity, we will see nude modeling as shamefully offending against decency and the moral sense.

Certainly, dear friend, the good God designed our bodies, male and female and no healthly-minded man can regret that He devised the reproductive method that He did. Nevertheless, it is no accident that historically our genitalia have been termed our ‘private parts’. Several years ago I remember reading of a lady writing in forceful protest to the editor of some women’s journal, which was making its first venture into pictorial representation of near nudity. This lady did not say, ‘This is disgusting’ or ‘I am outraged’, she simply said, ‘Please leave something for my bedroom’. Jolly good point that. Sadly in our modern age we have lost the distinction between the public and the private. It is just one more of those ironings-out of distinctions which mark the godless post-Christian mentality. My fear is that far too many modern Catholics are getting caught up with this very unspiritual mindset, which is why they end up defending something as morally offensive as nude modelling.

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.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Lets always think about what you are saying here as well and consider if it has proof (you are quick to request proof but very slow or ignorant in considering whether your own claims have proof).

I do not think that is fair. I am more than happy to provide justifications, citations, etc. upon request, and typically do so on my own initiative.

You say that persons with healthy degree of sensitivity would be perfectly find with nude modeling. What makes you think that they have a personal sensitivity to begin with? If you read Theology of the Body, you would understand that being perfectly fine with showing ones nude self to a stranger is actually a SIGN that the person has an unhealthy personal sensitivity.

There is a difference between flashing persons on the street and posing for the sake of art. If you are not willing or unable to recognize this difference, then we really cannot make any more progress here.

Given man’s fallen estate and his propensity to sin, it is surely the height of folly, dear friend, to assume that he would not find the sight of an undraped body sexually arousing.

Actually, that is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Furthermore, the Church does not define lust as sexual arousal, so that fact – even if it were true – is still irrelevant.

Nude modeling is opposed to the virtue of modesty and therefore poses a serious threat to the preservation of chastity.

Modesty does not apply in all situations. I am permitted to be among my naked young children, naked in the shower, naked with my spouse, in front of the doctor, etc. Circumstances matter.

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.

I am sorry that you have little faith in your brethren and do not recognize the good that can come from art – even if that art includes nudity.

 

[OurBeloved]

I do not think that is fair. I am more than happy to provide justifications, citations, etc. upon request, and typically do so on my own initiative.

But as I noted, you failed to provide before.

There is a difference between flashing persons on the street and posing for the sake of art. If you are not willing or unable to recognize this difference, then we really cannot make any more progress here.

The artist, in general, is a stranger. So it violates personal sensitivity.

Actually, that is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Furthermore, the Church does not define lust as sexual arousal, so that fact – even if it were true – is still irrelevant.

Once again, you make claims without any backing. Why is it reasonable? What are the first basic assumptions that you are making to say that the conclusion is reasonable?

Also to point out here, to act or dress in a way to cause sexual arousal in another is indeed considered immoral.

Modesty does not apply in all situations. I am permitted to be among my naked young children, naked in the shower, naked with my spouse, in front of the doctor, etc. Circumstances matter.

In all the circumstances you mentioned, the observers either cannot comprehend that you are naked, you are gifting your entire self to another, or being naked out of necessity for your own sake (medical). So I agree that the circumstance matters, but there is no justification for reducing personal sensitivity for the sake of art.

Bl. JP II objects as such.

I am sorry that you have little faith in your brethren and do not recognize the good that can come from art – even if that art includes nudity.

Good can come from an unjust war as well. In fact, Good can come from Evil.

I am also not claiming that a piece of nude art in itself is immoral either. I am specifically referring to nude modeling. So you are somewhat attacking a straw man here. If a husband wants to paint his nude wife, or a wife wants to pose nude for her husband to pain her, I think in terms of personal sensitivity, there is no issue. But there would be constraints on the distribution of that painting and depending on how much it resembles the original subject. But I am now paraphrasing Theology of the Body here.

But anyway, as I said before, I think we should not debate this any further because I do not think it will end fruitfully. We will probably discover that after we define everything rigorously that you and I are in agreement.

 

[Portrait]

I started drawing the nude when I was 14. At 19 I went through professional art school and
later went to grad school for an MFA. As I said in an earlier post I now teach it. (for the last 8 years) Drawing the nude is the backbone of drawing development for the professional level artist. It is essential.

Sin (in the case of lust) is between the ears not between the legs. I’ve lusted a lot more at the beach than I ever have in drawing class.

Dear Paint101,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

There is, dear friend, a clear distinction to be drawn between those who have been indoctrinated by liberal art and the mainstream art thinking and those who have not.

A good artist will draw what they see, without having to know what lies beneath. Moreover, as I understand, many a great artist never even drawed painted nudes, nor even went to drawing or painting classes for that matter.

In our contemporary culture, dear friend, nudity is not the norm, but is, in fact, sexual or medical. This is why nudity is deemed to be such a jolly good fun. It is pleasantly exciting and highly controversial. There are those artists who will insist that it is essential and if one is duped by that then there are many other ‘isms’ they can sell you as well, not to mention the exhibitionists and homosexuals that seem to gravitate towards the visual arts. Ultimately it only harms the art fraternity, as the rest of the world bites its lip and does not consider art a serious subject for study.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jmcrae]

Both of you have to remember that it is not a matter of just the Artist and his ability to not lust. It is also an issue of not violating or harming the personal sensitivity of a person.

As for drawing nudes being the backbone, perhaps it is time that the Artist’s decided to reevaluate it’s curriculum. One cannot simply say that “this is how art operated for centuries, so let us continue to do so”. Society used to operate in immoral ways for centuries. That is not reasons to continue to do so. Why should it be any different for art?

How will the artist learn the human form (which is the basis for all architecture and all landscape, since the proportions of the human being are the basis for every other existing thing, both manmade and natural) as well as every picture that has human beings portrayed in it, including pictures of Jesus and Mary) without being allowed to study it?

 

[feed_me]

How will the artist learn the human form (which is the basis for all architecture and all landscape, since the proportions of the human being are the basis for every other existing thing, both manmade and natural) as well as every picture that has human beings portrayed in it, including pictures of Jesus and Mary) without being allowed to study it?

Since when do you need to study the naked body to understand architechure?

 

[bbentrup]

The fact that it’s possible to look at the nude human form for a long time, despite the dangers of so doing, marveling at the height of God’s beauty in creation and giving him glory, makes such a gaze a matter of prudence and not one of moral absolutes, even if there are strong tendencies for this question.

I suspect for many people (perhaps even a vast majority) it would be an occasion of sin that would need to be avoided, out of prudence. For some others, however, such gazing on the nude human form exposed in all its majesty is not an occasion of sin (even if it is an occasion of arousal which isn’t dwelt upon (and the arousal itself limited as such may even represent “good” since it is natural and how God made us)). For these, and for a smaller subset of others where this objectively innocent act is subjectively more prudent (despite being highly dangerous) than leaving them to their own life patterns (in some instances perhaps even more dangerous!), it is a factual question of prudence where in the final analysis such viewing can be acceptable or even laudable. Know thyself!

Art is one of God’s gifts, but the goal for each of us is to get to Heaven. For some, it is best to cast the eyes downward, and that sacrifice of a good for a greater good (achieving heaven) is highly laudable too.

As to types of art, I highly suspect that the open nude form is 99.9% more likely to be moral than the various fig-leaf poses (underwear, half-nudes, shadows) where the message usually seems to be like something dirty has to be hidden and our morbid curiosity wants to be indulged. Fig-leafs (and more clothes) are more for real life.

For those who are determined to risk, it is a good idea to solemnize such contact with the nude form beforehand. Personalize the model as a brother/sister in Christ, say a prayer to God for purity and thank him for the vast beauty and perfection of the human form and for the ability to gaze in awe innocently, a gift which most people cannot enjoy. Use your insights to honor and love your fellow (wo)man all the more.

 

[edwest2]

I started drawing the nude when I was 14. At 19 I went through professional art school and
later went to grad school for an MFA. As I said in an earlier post I now teach it. (for the last 8 years) Drawing the nude is the backbone of drawing development for the professional level artist. It is essential.

Sin (in the case of lust) is between the ears not between the legs. I’ve lusted a lot more at the beach than I ever have in drawing class.

A good anatomy book is just fine.

Peace,
Ed