Back to the question of nude modeling

[stewstew03]

Yes, I too would say it is definitely art.

It would take a pretty twisted individual to get uncontrollable arousal from those pics… especially the second one.

I would say that it could be art - but it’s not art that I am interested in observing. And I think it would be kinda creepy if I went to someone’s house and they had these “art” pictures hanging all over the walls…

 

[Baelor]

JP2 explicitly says here that there are some works of “art” that naturally and rightfully arouse objection and disapproval in the sensible man or woman. Such works are abhorrent not because of the form of the human body itself but because of a certain quality of the reproduction of the image (perhaps too explicit as in photography or video) or because of the way the nude body is portrayed in the image (e.g. masturbating or positioned provocatively so as to provoke lust.

Sure. That is not necessarily all nudity in art.

 

[scameter18]

This seems like an incredibly convoluted issue, much more than it should be. To me, saying that what art is good or not, or acceptable or not, is determined by the “elites” in the art world is absurd. God is the artist of Creation. He made all beauty, and anything we identify as beautiful is only beautiful because God made it so. Despite our desire for it, we don’t have the power to give something beauty - it must already be there. So-called “elite” art critics simply run the business of art, which I find to be a disgusting term, and so they determine what is sold or not. They may know a lot about art. But that doesn’t mean they can definitively determine what is or is not art.

On another point: if the intention of the artist determines whether or not a photograph is sexual, how can we possibly know their intention? Wouldn’t the morality of a photograph be more about the photograph itself, what it elicits by its forms and structures, rather than anything imposed by someone else? And, if so, how can we identify this? For example, as others have said, nudity does not always equate to sex, nor does nudity in art necessarily mean the artist intended lust (I won’t say sexual arousal, since I find that too vague a term). So, how can we tell what the “message” of a photograph is - whether to invite lust, or to emphasize the beauty of the human body as an artwork of God?

Thank you all and God bless.

 

[Debora123]

I guess you’ve never been a 15-year old boy…?

If there IS a 15 year old that would get aroused by that, I don’t see why that same 15 year old wouldn’t get aroused by going into the Sistine Chapel. Again, it would take a pretty strange individual.

 

[Debora123]

I would say that it could be art - but it’s not art that I am interested in observing. And I think it would be kinda creepy if I went to someone’s house and they had these “art” pictures hanging all over the walls…

Pictures like that aren’t really meant to go in people’s houses. I’ve been in a plastic surgeon’s office before and he had nude art very similar to that on his walls. It was fitting for the occasion.

 

[edwest2]

This seems like an incredibly convoluted issue, much more than it should be. To me, saying that what art is good or not, or acceptable or not, is determined by the “elites” in the art world is absurd. God is the artist of Creation. He made all beauty, and anything we identify as beautiful is only beautiful because God made it so. Despite our desire for it, we don’t have the power to give something beauty - it must already be there. So-called “elite” art critics simply run the business of art, which I find to be a disgusting term, and so they determine what is sold or not. They may know a lot about art. But that doesn’t mean they can definitively determine what is or is not art.

On another point: if the intention of the artist determines whether or not a photograph is sexual, how can we possibly know their intention? Wouldn’t the morality of a photograph be more about the photograph itself, what it elicits by its forms and structures, rather than anything imposed by someone else? And, if so, how can we identify this? For example, as others have said, nudity does not always equate to sex, nor does nudity in art necessarily mean the artist intended lust (I won’t say sexual arousal, since I find that too vague a term). So, how can we tell what the “message” of a photograph is - whether to invite lust, or to emphasize the beauty of the human body as an artwork of God?

Thank you all and God bless.

Art is a communications medium from person to person. If the artist’s intention is not communicated, it fails.

Peace and God bless,
Ed

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Voila. I find the nudity in this piece integral to the piece and the message that I take away from it. The fact that I find it artistic is sufficient to make the nudity acceptable.

Suppose this was the exact same rendering except it was a photograph made up of real human models?

Also, edwest2 has argued that nude photography leads to masturbation. Are you saying that 300 years ago - before there was photography - no one was ever sexually aroused by paintings such as this?

 

[GEddie]

Suppose this was the exact same rendering except it was a photograph made up of real human models?

Also, edwest2 has argued that nude photography leads to masturbation. Are you saying that 300 years ago - before there was photography - no one was ever sexually aroused by paintings such as this?

I can’t speak for EW2 but I’d imagine that because a photo resembles the actual body more than a painting, the “arousal potential” is stronger.

That however, does not negate human photography as art. Art does not exist for the 15 yo’s of the world.

ICXC NIKA

 

[edwest2]

I can’t speak for EW2 but I’d imagine that because a photo resembles the actual body more than a painting, the “arousal potential” is stronger.

That however, does not negate human photography as art. Art does not exist for the 15 yo’s of the world.

ICXC NIKA

Art exists for all ages and that includes comic books. A photo of a real person, as opposed to a sculpture or painting, definitely has more arousal potential.

Peace,
Ed

 

[scameter18]

Art is a communications medium from person to person. If the artist’s intention is not communicated, it fails.

But this doesn’t tell me how to identify that intent in the art. Some art that appears sexual is not, and vice versa. The artist can be intending something quite deeper than a superficial understanding of his work might attest, for example.

Also, I don’t think we can say something is in itself immoral just because it could potentially cause arousal. People can be aroused by anything - hence the existence of fetishes. For example, some men think nun habits are sexy. Should they stop wearing them? Of course not, because the habit itself is not wrong. I think this is true of nude art photography too. If the photograph itself is not wrong, then any arousal or lust it causes in a view is their fault, not its fault.

Furthermore, can we necessarily equate sexual arousal with lust? For one, sexual arousal is not always voluntary, and sin is necessarily voluntary. For two, how can we say sexual arousal is always wrong even if it is done voluntarily? Is a husband’s sexual arousal towards his wife wrong? And this arousal is almost necessary for two people to fall in love and get married. Otherwise it would be platonic. Lust is more possessive, more objectifying of the individual and of sex itself.

 

[Debora123]

But this doesn’t tell me how to identify that intent in the art. Some art that appears sexual is not, and vice versa. The artist can be intending something quite deeper than a superficial understanding of his work might attest, for example.

Also, I don’t think we can say something is in itself immoral just because it could potentially cause arousal. People can be aroused by anything - hence the existence of fetishes. For example, some men think nun habits are sexy. Should they stop wearing them? Of course not, because the habit itself is not wrong. I think this is true of nude art photography too. If the photograph itself is not wrong, then any arousal or lust it causes in a view is their fault, not its fault.

Furthermore, can we necessarily equate sexual arousal with lust? For one, sexual arousal is not always voluntary, and sin is necessarily voluntary. For two, how can we say sexual arousal is always wrong even if it is done voluntarily? Is a husband’s sexual arousal towards his wife wrong? And this arousal is almost necessary for two people to fall in love and get married. Otherwise it would be platonic. Lust is more possessive, more objectifying of the individual and of sex itself.

Nailed it.

I especially like the part where you distinguished between sexual arousal and lust. The 2 seem to be used interchangeably around here, and they are both actually very different.

 

[edwest2]

But this doesn’t tell me how to identify that intent in the art. Some art that appears sexual is not, and vice versa. The artist can be intending something quite deeper than a superficial understanding of his work might attest, for example.

Also, I don’t think we can say something is in itself immoral just because it could potentially cause arousal. People can be aroused by anything - hence the existence of fetishes. For example, some men think nun habits are sexy. Should they stop wearing them? Of course not, because the habit itself is not wrong. I think this is true of nude art photography too. If the photograph itself is not wrong, then any arousal or lust it causes in a view is their fault, not its fault.

Furthermore, can we necessarily equate sexual arousal with lust? For one, sexual arousal is not always voluntary, and sin is necessarily voluntary. For two, how can we say sexual arousal is always wrong even if it is done voluntarily? Is a husband’s sexual arousal towards his wife wrong? And this arousal is almost necessary for two people to fall in love and get married. Otherwise it would be platonic. Lust is more possessive, more objectifying of the individual and of sex itself.

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

1. We will be held accountable by God for everything we do.
2. We, meaning Catholics, are to (a) understand what the ‘spirit of the age’ is among people in general, (b) understand what art means, and (c) to always err on the side of caution.
3. There was a time when a beautiful woman, even fully clothed, would elicit a reaction from men in general but we were all taught to treat her with courtesy and respect regarding her whole person. By using our well-formed conscience, we could only appreciate to a point and no more. We were surrounding by some real beauties in high school in the early 1970s but it was understood by both young men and young women: “Yes, you can look at me, but don’t forget the rest of my person.” And most of us did that.

“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.

Like it or not, all art is product. It’s not made and then hidden away. The artist with any sense understands this, and it is marketed to a certain niche. And by the way, the artists in my Advanced Painting Class were just as influenced by recent examples of fine art as teenagers who imitate their favorite comic book artists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

All who work in the art field, including myself

“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.

Uh, no, the person is totally on base. If you dare, check out the Wikipedia article on philias. Anything. Of course, not everything to everyone, but everything to someone. And, in fact, there is an internet term called Rule 34, which is that absolutely everything will ultimately find its way into unsavory media. But this is really a tangent.

 

[stewstew03]

If there IS a 15 year old that would get aroused by that, I don’t see why that same 15 year old wouldn’t get aroused by going into the Sistine Chapel. Again, it would take a pretty strange individual.

Context matters, does it not?

A 15-year old boy might get aroused by seeing a woman in her underwear, but not get aroused by seeing his mom (or a relative) in her underwear.

Context matters.

 

[stewstew03]

Nailed it.

I especially like the part where you distinguished between sexual arousal and lust. The 2 seem to be used interchangeably around here, and they are both actually very different.

Yes, there is a distinction. I don’t see how that helps your argument…

 

[epan]

Context matters, does it not?

A 15-year old boy might get aroused by seeing a woman in her underwear, but not get aroused by seeing his mom (or a relative) in her underwear.

Context matters.

Yes, context matters. A medical professional is not thinking lustful thoughts when dealing with a patient.

The last time I was in Europe, people wore bathing suits in the pool, but everyone went naked in the sauna and jacuzzi. There were segregated changing rooms, but in front of the entrance were lounge chairs which were used by naked people of both genders. This was in Holland. I don’t think you would see that same thing in England. It would not surprise me in Germany, Italy or Spain.

 

[Debora123]

Context matters, does it not?

A 15-year old boy might get aroused by seeing a woman in her underwear, but not get aroused by seeing his mom (or a relative) in her underwear.

Context matters.

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.

 

[Debora123]

Yes, there is a distinction. I don’t see how that helps your argument…

I never said it helps my argument, I just pointed out a truth that was refreshing to see around here.

 

[Debora123]

“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.

Say that to the foot fetishists who get aroused by looking at shoe catalogs.

No one is giving “excuses.”

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Yes, context matters. A medical professional is not thinking lustful thoughts when dealing with a patient.

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