E
- Status
B
Baelor
Guest
Have you seen the scene of which I speak?
F
feed_me
Guest
No, but the temptation is now in our heads to go watch it.
D
Debora123
Guest
Ohhhhhhhh snap!!
Baelor, how dare you have tempted us this way?? It’s your fault, you occasion of sin you!
B
Baelor
Guest
Ohhhhhhhh snap!!
Baelor, how dare you have tempted us this way?? It’s your fault, you occasion of sin you!
Indeed. I wish I had a confessor nearby; I practically have forced people to masturbate!It is artistic and symbolically meaningful nudity.
If it is a near occasion of sin for someone, he should not watch it. But it is not inherently sinful.
E
edwest2
Guest
Oh brother, what a dodge.
“I now confer upon you the title Artist. You are now beyond all public criticism. Whatever you do, even if you offend, know that you are absolved of all by all, because you are now no mere mortal being but an Artist.”
Yeah, right. What a load of manure.
Peace,
Ed
“I now confer upon you the title Artist. You are now beyond all public criticism. Whatever you do, even if you offend, know that you are absolved of all by all, because you are now no mere mortal being but an Artist.”
Yeah, right. What a load of manure.
Peace,
Ed
B
bbentrup
Guest
By what authority can a Magisterial doctor confer on another the title of artist?
D
Debora123
Guest
No, if it’s a near occasion of sin for someone, this person probably needs help getting a few issues sorted out…It is artistic and symbolically meaningful nudity.
D
Debora123
Guest
…Which is precisely why NONE of us here has even made a remote suggestion of what you have in quotes above.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is precisely to get away from that attitude that artists need to restore the classical art education - and learn to draw correctly, so that their work stands up to the highest standards of criticism, instead of allowing people to make stick figures and call them “art.”
I
irishOntarian
Guest
Hi there! I’m the guy who posted this thead 
I see that the issue has been pretty well thrashed out without me, but I’d like to make a few remarks of my own. It seems the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the human body has been inexcusably exploited and objectified during the last century. I don’t think anybody could really deny that.
The main thing I would like to state is that this situation, bad as it is in itself, in no way decreases the need for wholesome nude art, in and out of religious contexts. In fact, it in a way increases it. People need to be reminded of the goodness of the human body, and that it is inherent and not dependent on clothing or any other external factors. If we stopped making nude art because of a “modesty crisis” in the world at large, we really would be becoming puritanical and putting ourselves on the same coin.
If I may go out on a limb, and simultaneously bring the topic closer to its original focus, what do you people think about nude modelling vs. using photographs of nudes as reference. This is an important question for me because I’m not in college yet and it will be several years before I can have the chance to take life drawing classes with models.
Thanks everyone
I see that the issue has been pretty well thrashed out without me, but I’d like to make a few remarks of my own. It seems the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the human body has been inexcusably exploited and objectified during the last century. I don’t think anybody could really deny that.
The main thing I would like to state is that this situation, bad as it is in itself, in no way decreases the need for wholesome nude art, in and out of religious contexts. In fact, it in a way increases it. People need to be reminded of the goodness of the human body, and that it is inherent and not dependent on clothing or any other external factors. If we stopped making nude art because of a “modesty crisis” in the world at large, we really would be becoming puritanical and putting ourselves on the same coin.
If I may go out on a limb, and simultaneously bring the topic closer to its original focus, what do you people think about nude modelling vs. using photographs of nudes as reference. This is an important question for me because I’m not in college yet and it will be several years before I can have the chance to take life drawing classes with models.
Thanks everyone
J
jmcrae
Guest
Generally speaking, in order to advance in your art, it is important to avoid using photographs as your main source of content. It is far better to draw and paint from real life. The photograph has severe limitations - it has a static point of view - you can’t walk around your model to get an advantageous viewpoint, and you can’t move closer to see “what is that,” or “what is making that shadow?”Hi there! I’m the guy who posted this thead
I see that the issue has been pretty well thrashed out without me, but I’d like to make a few remarks of my own. It seems the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the human body has been inexcusably exploited and objectified during the last century. I don’t think anybody could really deny that.
The main thing I would like to state is that this situation, bad as it is in itself, in no way decreases the need for wholesome nude art, in and out of religious contexts. In fact, it in a way increases it. People need to be reminded of the goodness of the human body, and that it is inherent and not dependent on clothing or any other external factors. If we stopped making nude art because of a “modesty crisis” in the world at large, we really would be becoming puritanical and putting ourselves on the same coin.
If I may go out on a limb, and simultaneously bring the topic closer to its original focus, what do you people think about nude modelling vs. using photographs of nudes as reference. This is an important question for me because I’m not in college yet and it will be several years before I can have the chance to take life drawing classes with models.
Thanks everyone
You also can’t see beyond the edges of the photo to get the context of the environment.
Photos are great to use as support materials, but they cannot substitute for the real thing.
Also, in the case of photos that you didn’t make yourself, there may be copyright issues - it isn’t actually legal to copy photos - even as drawings or paintings - without the photographer’s permission.
It goes without saying, I hope, that you should certainly avoid using any kind of illegal or immoral photography as source material in your art.
Check at your art school to see whether they offer evening drawing classes that you can attend while still working during the day.
I think it’s probably better to use a live model than to use photographs of a nude.Hi there! I’m the guy who posted this thead
I see that the issue has been pretty well thrashed out without me, but I’d like to make a few remarks of my own. It seems the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the human body has been inexcusably exploited and objectified during the last century. I don’t think anybody could really deny that.
The main thing I would like to state is that this situation, bad as it is in itself, in no way decreases the need for wholesome nude art, in and out of religious contexts. In fact, it in a way increases it. People need to be reminded of the goodness of the human body, and that it is inherent and not dependent on clothing or any other external factors. If we stopped making nude art because of a “modesty crisis” in the world at large, we really would be becoming puritanical and putting ourselves on the same coin.
If I may go out on a limb, and simultaneously bring the topic closer to its original focus, what do you people think about nude modelling vs. using photographs of nudes as reference. This is an important question for me because I’m not in college yet and it will be several years before I can have the chance to take life drawing classes with models.
Thanks everyone
Nude photography is possibly something to be avoided.
I
irishOntarian
Guest
Thanks, I was more interested in the moral side of the question, but as far as copyright goes, I don’t see how my use of a photo as reference material for learning is relevant to anyone, and I would call that a groundless law and not one which we’re obliged to follow. Of course it would be different if I was using it as an essential part of commercial artwork that I was intending to sell, which is something I will probably not be making for a while yet.
I
irishOntarian
Guest
That is something I was concerned about, as after reading some of theology of the body by JPII we see that a photograph has specific problems in regards to the ethics of the body.
Well, yeah…I imagine that there is more potential for a photograph (especially in the digital age) to be exploited or used in a bad way afterward without the consent of a model.
Or even just to be used in a bad way out of it’s original context…art class etc…
B
Baelor
Guest
The nude model would be better – more angles, context, detail, and the possibility of altering the lighting, etc.
Especially since that person is reading a thread discussing nudity!
F
feed_me
Guest
Or maybe that person actually has a concience and knows what the feeling of sin does to that person.
B
Baelor
Guest
EW asked for an example of innocent nudity. I comply, and then you reproach me because my example includes nudity? Please help me understand your position.
F
feed_me
Guest
My position is this, if looking at a nude photograph or painting is going to bring down Gods wrath on my soul and concience, then I won’t look or mess with it, again, even though(from an mans POV) it can be a struggle not to. That’s my position.
- Status