Back to the question of nude modeling

[edwest2]

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

Dear Portrait,

Allow me to offer you some praise for your post. Seeing the live model is indeed problematic. There are good anatomy books that show, by way of drawings, no photographs, how to render muscle and bone and other necessary information.

However - and God knows I’m a sinner - there are those who post often to find a way to convince Catholics and others, that there are “serious” reasons to view the live nude model. I worked in a large hospital for almost 10 years and was sometimes asked to assist in procedures or be in situations where the partly clothed/partly nude patient was undergoing a procedure or in a situation where partial exposure could not be avoided, but even in those cases, care was taken to cover whatever else could be covered.

Over a period of the last four decades, the media has gradually dulled our sensitivity and things were legalized that never should have been legalized. Now some Catholics firmly believe, as if it were the 11th Commandment, that nobody can tell them what to read, watch or hear. This, I believe, is the heart of the issue. Also, there are those that believe adulthood allows them the capability to tolerate a little bit of sin, apparently for their entertainment.

All I have seen over this time period is a continuing erosion of natural hearts and a hardening of hearts to the words and proper warnings given for our benefit out of proper concern and love by the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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?

Good anatomy books which show by way of drawings, how muscle and bone appears. Proportion is a relative matter by the way. There is average proportion and heroic proportion. The proportions and even musculature of the average human being are often altered in heroic renderings.

By the way, I am friends with and work with artists who can invent various types of people and races without resorting to nude photos, for example.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

In order to be sensitive to others, certain parts of the male and female body need to be covered. I often read here, on a wide variety of subjects, that certain people react differently to certain situations, or offer excuses that do not conform to Church teaching.

Obedience for all means understanding what the Church teaches and not to convince others or offer to others the justification to bypass or ignore what is taught. Of course, the human body is beautiful, but we do not love others more because of their beauty or their lack of it.

Innocent means innocent of many things, including nudity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[bbentrup]

In order to be sensitive to others, certain parts of the male and female body need to be covered. I often read here, on a wide variety of subjects, that certain people react differently to certain situations, or offer excuses that do not conform to Church teaching.

Obedience for all means understanding what the Church teaches and not to convince others or offer to others the justification to bypass or ignore what is taught. Of course, the human body is beautiful, but we do not love others more because of their beauty or their lack of it.

Innocent means innocent of many things, including nudity.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed, unsurprisingly we disagree. What church teaching are you referencing? I don’t know of any teaching that says do not look at the nude human form (excepting medical cases). If you are implying that that is the modern equivalent of “do not lust,” that would seem to be your own teaching. Often times they conflate, but not necessarily so.

(To the general reader) I do want to clarify my recent post that three other moral imperatives inform the analysis. One is cooperation with evil. Some creation (and distribution!) of nude art forms (whatever medium) are done with the express intent to instill lust in others (think Playboy), others may be created under some mistaken understanding of art, God, or the human body and their interrelationship, others may be created with a full understanding of the three with an intent, among others, to glorify God. Viewing the last category is fine, if you meet the requirements of my earlier post, viewing the second depends, viewing the first is always wrong unless there’s a very important reason (police evidence, etc.).

In the first two categories the artist is laboring under various degrees of evil (lack of knowledge perhaps, or outright intent). Formal cooperation (the worse kind) with evil occurs if a person desires his viewing habits to promote the evil involved. This obviously is bad. But this cooperation can also be implied. Say a playboy artist in an inspired moment makes a piece of art that is for all intents identical to another artist who had no evil intent. Looking at the Playboy version would be unsustainable since the implication is that you agree with the company as a whole. Looking at the art of an artist with no evil intent but who nonetheless has less than a perfect understanding of the interplay of God, art, the human form, and say, the theology of the body, can be licit - it would depend. The body itself is not sinful, nor is its image. Is this particular portrayal acceptable, but should the viewer pass by other exhibits in the collection that have faults based on the artist’s less-than-complete understanding? Do better alternatives readily exist? Does the artist live a moral lifestyle? Does he try to uphold God’s truth despite a lack of fullness? The same analysis has to be applied to any distributors of the art involved. If there are morally satisfactory answers to each of these questions, then again the analysis turns to your own propensities.

The second factor, scandal, applies on top of all this. You can be looking at something entirely innocent (even fully-clothed in theory), and if that causes some third party to think that a similar action is good when it is in fact evil, even the original good act of viewing must be laid aside so as not to cause sin in the other. If you can explain the good so as to fully catechize the other person, preventing sin to come from your actions, then scandal can be fully averted.

Obedience is a third factor. Married individuals should submit to the wishes of their spouse in the matter, even if the spouse doesn’t fully appreciate the fullness of truth of the matter. All should obey their spiritual director in the matter if at all possible, though I would encourage all spiritual advisers to be open-minded to the possibility, especially to the recovering addict (like the art classes that jmcrae suggested as possibly licit).

 

[tabycat]

There some persons canbe turned on by looking at another in a burka Life drawing I don’t see much wrong with nude modeling.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed, unsurprisingly we disagree. What church teaching are you referencing? I don’t know of any teaching that says do not look at the nude human form (excepting medical cases). If you are implying that that is the modern equivalent of “do not lust,” that would seem to be your own teaching. Often times they conflate, but not necessarily so.

(To the general reader) I do want to clarify my recent post that three other moral imperatives inform the analysis. One is cooperation with evil. Some creation (and distribution!) of nude art forms (whatever medium) are done with the express intent to instill lust in others (think Playboy), others may be created under some mistaken understanding of art, God, or the human body and their interrelationship, others may be created with a full understanding of the three with an intent, among others, to glorify God. Viewing the last category is fine, if you meet the requirements of my earlier post, viewing the second depends, viewing the first is always wrong unless there’s a very important reason (police evidence, etc.).

In the first two categories the artist is laboring under various degrees of evil (lack of knowledge perhaps, or outright intent). Formal cooperation (the worse kind) with evil occurs if a person desires his viewing habits to promote the evil involved. This obviously is bad. But this cooperation can also be implied. Say a playboy artist in an inspired moment makes a piece of art that is for all intents identical to another artist who had no evil intent. Looking at the Playboy version would be unsustainable since the implication is that you agree with the company as a whole. Looking at the art of an artist with no evil intent but who nonetheless has less than a perfect understanding of the interplay of God, art, the human form, and say, the theology of the body, can be licit - it would depend. The body itself is not sinful, nor is its image. Is this particular portrayal acceptable, but should the viewer pass by other exhibits in the collection that have faults based on the artist’s less-than-complete understanding? Do better alternatives readily exist? Does the artist live a moral lifestyle? Does he try to uphold God’s truth despite a lack of fullness? The same analysis has to be applied to any distributors of the art involved. If there are morally satisfactory answers to each of these questions, then again the analysis turns to your own propensities.

The second factor, scandal, applies on top of all this. You can be looking at something entirely innocent (even fully-clothed in theory), and if that causes some third party to think that a similar action is good when it is in fact evil, even the original good act of viewing must be laid aside so as not to cause sin in the other. If you can explain the good so as to fully catechize the other person, preventing sin to come from your actions, then scandal can be fully averted.

Obedience is a third factor. Married individuals should submit to the wishes of their spouse in the matter, even if the spouse doesn’t fully appreciate the fullness of truth of the matter. All should obey their spiritual director in the matter if at all possible, though I would encourage all spiritual advisers to be open-minded to the possibility, especially to the recovering addict (like the art classes that jmcrae suggested as possibly licit).

I took figure drawing in college. This was not necessary as I’ve come to decide. Since I work with and even help instruct artists (just last night) as to rendering forms, it was not necessary to understand anything more than light and shadow. In the case of the human form, bone and muscle are in somewhat complex arrangements so a good anatomy book with drawings would have sufficed.

We live in a time of greater scandal, where shame and immodesty and sin are greatly desired to disappear. I read this on a message board where I am a moderator. “We no longer want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” Look around you. Wherever you go, to the supermarket, for example, you see photos of young women who apparently had no parents since they have no shame and display themselves so as to cause scandal to themselves, their families and the public at large, as well as those on TV or in movies.

bible.cc/romans/14-21.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Paint101]

Does anyone other than me find that it’s odd that we are debating the morality of nude modeling when the Sistine Chapel is covered with some 150 nude figures? That is the Pope’s personal chapel and exists at the Vatican, the temporal center of our Faith.

Sorry but I see a great deal of ignorance displayed here. I also feel a certain amount of patronizing piety. I always tell my beginning students that learning to draw well is like learning to play the violin. It is a life long pursuit that is never fully realized. You can’t learn it in a book. It comes from endless hours of practice.

Peace

 

[bbentrup]

Not too odd if you’re an American, paint101. Our culture has grown up in a couple centuries of puritanical restraint that has been foe only the past 40-50 years experiencing a cultural freedom to explore sex to its uttermost boundaries. Obviously, it took the freedom way too far, demeaning womanhood in opposite ways. That a tension therefore exists is quite natural, and this is without even viewing the problem through a loyal Catholic’s eyes yet. Truth is in the middle of these extremes and it might be hard for some to see when the culture war wages on around us.

 

[edwest2]

Not too odd if you’re an American, paint101. Our culture has grown up in a couple centuries of puritanical restraint that has been foe only the past 40-50 years experiencing a cultural freedom to explore sex to its uttermost boundaries. Obviously, it took the freedom way too far, demeaning womanhood in opposite ways. That a tension therefore exists is quite natural, and this is without even viewing the problem through a loyal Catholic’s eyes yet. Truth is in the middle of these extremes and it might be hard for some to see when the culture war wages on around us.

I disagree. There is nothing puritanical about following God’s laws which were given to us for our spiritual, mental and physical well-being. There is a “false” freedom that some cling to that results only in slavery to the flesh: masturbation addiction, porn addiction, sex addiction and unnatural sexual acts. That is not freedom at all. That is an abuse of ourselves. An abuse that has led to nothing good. In fact, women are treated as nothing more than living sexual devices. The desire was to wipe the slate clean regarding families. Family, for some, means any mix and match sexual combination I desire with maybe a little bestiality and other “sexual freedom” thrown in.

This is telling the world that our genitals, not our minds, control our bodies.

To all those struggling with sexual sin and impurity, it can be very difficult, but God’s infinite mercy is available to you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Does anyone other than me find that it’s odd that we are debating the morality of nude modeling when the Sistine Chapel is covered with some 150 nude figures? That is the Pope’s personal chapel and exists at the Vatican, the temporal center of our Faith.

Sorry but I see a great deal of ignorance displayed here. I also feel a certain amount of patronizing piety. I always tell my beginning students that learning to draw well is like learning to play the violin. It is a life long pursuit that is never fully realized. You can’t learn it in a book. It comes from endless hours of practice.

Peace

Have you ever seen images of the Sistine Chapel offered as porn?

Speaking as someone who has taught art to young people: it does reach a professional level and sooner rather than later. The best students could usually find work quite quickly and since I am an assistant art director where I work, I am often in a position where I can judge the quality of a piece of art. One of our current young professionals has developed his current level of ability in a relatively short time period and never had formal art training.

I always advise young artists: practice but don’t burn yourself out. And yes, most artists continue to learn all their lives, but the point is usually reached fairly young where their work can be called professional. Any refinement that occurs later is on their own initiative and based on the desire to challenge themselves. Even a full college course represents a tiny fraction of the time they’ll be working.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

A good anatomy book is just fine.

Peace,
Ed

Where do you think anatomy books come from?

 

[jmcrae]

Have you ever seen images of the Sistine Chapel offered as porn?

No - which speaks to the point, here. You can have thousands of sessions of nude modeling and nude drawing and painting without producing a single pornographic image - exactly as was done in the making of the Sistine Chapel.

 

[edwest2]

No - which speaks to the point, here. You can have thousands of sessions of nude modeling and nude drawing and painting without producing a single pornographic image - exactly as was done in the making of the Sistine Chapel.

I disagree. A painting is waay different than an actual person or photograph.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree. A painting is waay different than an actual person or photograph.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, it is - but paintings of nude models come from nude models. The nude drawings in anatomy books come from nude models.

In order to paint the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo must have drawn the live nude model for thousands of hours - and yet, with all that drawing, he did not produce even a single pornographic image.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I have a strong dislike for nude modeling. I think that there is a high chance that the people viewing it will be sexually aroused and end up having lustful thoughts. If they don’t have it during the class then they are likely to later on when they are at home by themselves.

That said, I would NEVER pose nude for any reason whatsoever. I wouldn’t care if they were going to pay me a billion dollars. I still wouldn’t do it.

 

[Debora123]

Personally, I have a strong dislike for nude modeling. I think that there is a high chance that the people viewing it will be sexually aroused and end up having lustful thoughts. If they don’t have it during the class then they are likely to later on when they are at home by themselves.

That said, I would NEVER pose nude for any reason whatsoever. I wouldn’t care if they were going to pay me a billion dollars. I still wouldn’t do it.

How is this different from doctors and medical students seeing nude patients? Or do you think they get aroused as well?

 

[ringil]

There is a difference in art and in pornography. There is no problem with nude models when used to produce art. This has been done for thousands of years and the Vatican is full of nude pictures.

But then there was the very, very unfortunate decision that put those STUPID fig leaves on pre-existing-nude statues. When I saw those in the Vatican I was so .

Catholics are not Puritans.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Certainly you understand the distinction between this:

http://static.artbible.info/large/slang_appel.jpg

and the “art work” located on the site posted by the OP? The latter is clearly designed to arouse the senses and entice viewers to lust after the subject of the photo.

She looks like a man

 

[Holly3278]

How is this different from doctors and medical students seeing nude patients? Or do you think they get aroused as well?

I don’t see any great good coming out of nude modelling. However, a patient who has to take off all of their clothes for an examination by a doctor is a totally different story. A great good can come out of that, namely the treatment of a disease.

 

[Baelor]

I don’t see any great good coming out of nude modelling. However, a patient who has to take off all of their clothes for an examination by a doctor is a totally different story. A great good can come out of that, namely the treatment of a disease.

Is art no longer a good?