Back to the question of nude modeling

[jmcrae]

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.

It’s still not a good habit to get into - you don’t want to be in a situation years from now where you’re so used to doing it that you forget that you’re not supposed to, and you do it for a work that is for sale or for publication.

A much less likely scenario, of course, but in the unlikely event that you become famous, what if a gallery does a retrospective of your work, including your early works - and it happens to include a copy of a commercial photo? You would be charged with a copyright violation, if the photographer or his agent happened to see it. (Like, say if you copied something from today’s newspaper, and then a member of the same newspaper was covering your art opening at that later date, and the reporter happened to recognize the image from the newspaper’s archive record.)

 

[edwest2]

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

As someone who works with artists all the time. I don’t think you know what you’re asking.

There is no such thing as wholesome nude art. You are not going to find it anywhere. Not today. There is no need for wholesome nude art. Your coin analogy doesn’t work at all and you’re puritanical comment is an insult to the decency of all human beings. And please, don’t bring up the Sistene Chapel as an example - I’m tired of hearing it.

Women want to be respected by each other, correct?
They want to be respected by men, correct?

So why aren’t lots of women and men shutting down porn wherever they see it? Why aren’t they shutting down magazines that show nude women for the sole purpose of male arousal? They are being exploited for one reason and art is not one of those reasons.
What is the bulk of internet content?

There is a need for food, clothing and shelter but not nude art.

Modesty in public begins with what a person wears. Are young women going to continue to believe the lie that a “thong” bikini is actually swimwear?

There are a lot of externals, and I just wrote down the primary external factors.

There is nothing wrong with the nude human body but everything wrong with how it is depicted today. There need to be standards, but outside of current Christian religious institutions, there are none. Zero.

So where do men go to marvel at the wonder of the human body? Strip clubs? Topless bars? Or the local museum?

Peace,
Ed

What do you actually want to give people? That is what you and every other artist reading this needs to understand.

 

[AdamP88]

There is no such thing as wholesome nude art. You are not going to find it anywhere. Not today. There is no need for wholesome nude art.

I’m sorry but you are just quite simply wrong on this. It is to be found…Today, in this day and age. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with nude art in and of itself.

I actually think it seems that your experience with the art world that has given you this view.

There are many modern catholic artists who produce wholesome nude art.

 

[edwest2]

I’m sorry but you are just quite simply wrong on this. It is to be found…Today, in this day and age. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with nude art in and of itself.

I actually think it seems that your experience with the art world that has given you this view.

There are many modern catholic artists who produce wholesome nude art.

I never hear about these people and if their work is solely displayed in religious institutions then it has no bearing on the question of nude modeling except in those specific cases. Nudity in sacred art is a very, very tiny fraction of the so-called art out there. I know artists from beginners to top professionals, and there is a general mindset out there that is antithetical to what Catholics believe.

So, aside from religious institutions or galleries that show work by artists known for their religious work, there is no place for the nude in contemporary art.

My experience with the art world? I have sat down with top professionals to discuss their work. One had his work exhibited at the Louvre, others have gone from working for the company I work for to moving on to the larger, better paying companies. I have sat down with the gibberish producing fine artists to learn their tribal ways.

I am glad to hear there are places in Europe that have standards, but in the West, in general, there are only a handful of exceptions, down from a very large number prior to the end of the 1960s. And I’m not talking about nudes, but those who have standards that would be considered in line with Christian values.

You don’t seem to understand - what is art is imposed on the people through mass media outlets. It is dictated by a quasi-religious order called “art critics.” They and they alone, can give their blessing and permission to call anyone’s art actual art. Your art career rises and falls on their whim. But the end result is about the same as for commercial artists, who are referred to as prostitutes in the fine art world, money and fame.

The same with the so-called “fashion” industry. A small clique of mostly men decide what is or is not going to be shown on the runways. But once again, a fellow member of the same quasi-religious order, called “fashion critics” decide who is good and who is bad. And who is worth selling in the tony/trendy/upscale/exclusive stores.

Reading their reviews is almost more nauseating than reading art critics. A bit of a parody but not by much: “Francesco has given us his Fall Designs at the sumptuous New York Fashion Gala, and though some oohs and ahhs were heard, this writer felt his color palette was a bit flat this year. The clothing lacked flair and failed to invoke in me the passion I felt when viewing his last set of offerings. Of course, every name designer has an occasional off collection, so it is too soon to say his star is fading, but I cannot in all honesty give him my full five stars this time.”

My close friend’s daughter recently quit her prestigious art school after she was told what direction to take with her work instead of being taught the basics of clothing and fashion design. I heard the same type of story from a good acquaintance about his wife who recently landed a job at one of the better architectural firms. She was able to present her ideas to them and was rejected outright. They didn’t want to consider her ideas. There is a “fashion” involved in architecture and if you are not in line with it, you can work there but only under their strict definition. I encouraged him to tell his wife to retain her work and continue to build on it.

The cup must be clean on the inside so that the outside might also be clean. The words “clean” and “wholesome” are dirty words to the current secular mafia.

peace,
Ed

 

[AdamP88]

So, aside from religious institutions or galleries that show work by artists known for their religious work, there is no place for the nude in contemporary art.

With what authority do you make that assertion?

Are you now the art-police?

 

[feed_me]

 

[Baelor]

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.

Then do not – you are aware of your limitations and should act accordingly. It is neither correct nor beneficial to assume that everyone has the same limitations that you do.

There is no such thing as wholesome nude art. You are not going to find it anywhere. Not today.

I posted an example. Are you stating that you have seen it and reject it as an example of wholesome nude art? On what basis?

Have you seen Titanic? On what basis do you reject the meme-generating “Draw me…” as unwholesome?

What qualifies as “today?” Bouguereau had some wonderful paintings, some of which included nudity. That was the 19th century. Was it permissible then? If not, why? When does nudity stop becoming permissible?

Why is it impossible that wholesome nude art exists today?

There is no need for wholesome nude art.

There is no need for any given art, necessarily. That does not mean it should not exist.

They are being exploited for one reason and art is not one of those reasons.

So make nude art that is not exploitative. Why would its absence not be an argument for its renewal as a subject of art?

There is nothing wrong with the nude human body but everything wrong with how it is depicted today. There need to be standards, but outside of current Christian religious institutions, there are none. Zero.

You cannot possibly generalize this broadly. Have you met every single person on the planet producing art?

So, aside from religious institutions or galleries that show work by artists known for their religious work, there is no place for the nude in contemporary art.

Why not?

You don’t seem to understand - what is art is imposed on the people through mass media outlets. It is dictated by a quasi-religious order called “art critics.” They and they alone, can give their blessing and permission to call anyone’s art actual art. Your art career rises and falls on their whim.

So this cartel of Omnipotent Secret Council of Artists regulates what I see when I walk through the streets of an old European city? The portraitists, caricaturists, landscape artists, and, yes, painters who include nudity are being regulated by this body of critics? I am literally unable to go anywhere in the world without escaping its influence? Okay.

 

[AdamP88]

 

[irishOntarian]

It’s still not a good habit to get into - you don’t want to be in a situation years from now where you’re so used to doing it that you forget that you’re not supposed to, and you do it for a work that is for sale or for publication.

A much less likely scenario, of course, but in the unlikely event that you become famous, what if a gallery does a retrospective of your work, including your early works - and it happens to include a copy of a commercial photo? You would be charged with a copyright violation, if the photographer or his agent happened to see it. (Like, say if you copied something from today’s newspaper, and then a member of the same newspaper was covering your art opening at that later date, and the reporter happened to recognize the image from the newspaper’s archive record.)

LOL, that would be a pretty unlikely scenario Honestly though, artists study the world around them and everything they see in it; if I copy a photo for learning, I’m just looking at it more closely, learning more from it. I don’t even need to keep the picture, the important thing is what I take away from it.

 

[Debora123]

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.

Then I would suggest you NOT go anywhere near the Vatican!!

 

[irishOntarian]

As someone who works with artists all the time. I don’t think you know what you’re asking.

There is no such thing as wholesome nude art. You are not going to find it anywhere. Not today. There is no need for wholesome nude art. Your coin analogy doesn’t work at all and you’re puritanical comment is an insult to the decency of all human beings. And please, don’t bring up the Sistene Chapel as an example - I’m tired of hearing it.

Women want to be respected by each other, correct?
They want to be respected by men, correct?

So why aren’t lots of women and men shutting down porn wherever they see it? Why aren’t they shutting down magazines that show nude women for the sole purpose of male arousal? They are being exploited for one reason and art is not one of those reasons.
What is the bulk of internet content?

There is a need for food, clothing and shelter but not nude art.

Modesty in public begins with what a person wears. Are young women going to continue to believe the lie that a “thong” bikini is actually swimwear?

There are a lot of externals, and I just wrote down the primary external factors.

There is nothing wrong with the nude human body but everything wrong with how it is depicted today. There need to be standards, but outside of current Christian religious institutions, there are none. Zero.

So where do men go to marvel at the wonder of the human body? Strip clubs? Topless bars? Or the local museum?

Peace,
Ed

What do you actually want to give people? That is what you and every other artist reading this needs to understand.

We’ve already established that the world is way off in terms of sexuality, but what you don’t seem to understand is that I’m not intending to pander to “the world” and its habits, but to sensible people. If my art is heading for an audience that can’t handle nudity then I won’t give them nudity. However, their attitude towards the body doesn’t de-legitimize nude art in its proper place, nor does it make all nude art disrespectful of the human person. On the contrary, I still maintain that nude art has a specific place in teaching us about the dignity of the person, and we’d be missing something without it. If nude art wasn’t essentially good, I don’t think the Church would have supported it.

 

[irishOntarian]

The words “clean” and “wholesome” are dirty words to the current secular mafia.

peace,
Ed

It’s funny, but that reminds me of being once told by a (Catholic) girl from a public school that I was “too wholesome” as if it was a bad thing

What you’re saying is definitely true Ed, but the reason it doesn’t affect me is that I’m not trying to break into the “fine art” world, but just making art for my own satisfaction. Whether or not I later try to take my art somewhere, I certainly won’t be aiming for the galleries of those sort of people.

 

[thunderboom]

To my fellow Catholics. Wake up. Nude modelling has zero practical purpose except in a controlled college classroom setting.

What qualifies as “today?” Bouguereau had some wonderful paintings, some of which included nudity. That was the 19th century. Was it permissible then? If not, why? When does nudity stop becoming permissible?

Why is it impossible that wholesome nude art exists today?

There is no need for any given art, necessarily. That does not mean it should not exist.

I know I’m late to this thread, but as a budding college-level art historian, I have to comment.

First of all, I don’t understand why the “question of nude modeling” is such a big deal as to generate such a long thread. If you have a problem with it, don’t engage with it. The act of nude modeling, and the depiction of nudity in art, is morally neutral in itself (actually an argument can be made that it is morally good). If the abuse of it disturbs, don’t look at it!

Second, saying it has no practical purpose outside of a college classroom setting is completely wrong. One of many reasons why the secular world hates Christians (even though this is wrongheaded) is a perceived prudery among Christians. I’m not trying to insult anyone, but to say we have to keep nude modeling strictly to controlled environments is just absurd. Just because some people do sinful things associated with nude modeling doesn’t mean that responsible adults cannot use nude models. If this opinion, we wouldn’t have any masterpieces! Someone mentioned Bouguereau - great example, his nude figures are absolutely sublime. But if someone uses his works for sexual arousal, that’s not the artist’s fault, and we shouldn’t ban nude modeling because of the sins of one disturbed individual. And just because weird things have happened in studios between artists and models doesn’t mean nude modeling in itself is wrong. Everything good can be abused - let’s not ban a good thing, the use of nude modeling to render works of beauty, simply because we feel uncomfortable with it and acts that have sometimes been associated with it!

By the way, as Baelor pointed out, there is no need for art. It is not practical. But the utilitarian idea that everything has to have a practical purpose is simply faulty. What would the world be like without art, without beauty? As someone who is devoting his education and probably career to the study of art, I vehemently say that while art may not be “practical,” it is one of the most important things in the world. It puts us in touch with the “human condition,” teaches us deep truths about the world and human nature, brings us closer to God through one of the three great universals (truth, goodness, beauty). I also happen to think we need good nude art, for the simple reason that it can show us the human body is beautiful and not something dirty that we should run away from with prudish fear. It can also even teach us the beauty of chastity, if we know the signs to look for. Here’s a brilliant sculpture from the Met: metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/94.9.2. Frankly, anyone who objects to this is just absurd (the last time I was there, I stood for possibly fifteen minutes in front of this sculpture just transfixed by it and the beauty of its message).

Finally, I want to point out that just because a work is about sex, this doesn’t mean that it’s inappropriate. Let’s get over the illusion that we can’t talk about sex, or even depict erotic/sensual subjects in art. Now, I didn’t read the whole thread, so don’t think I’m setting up a straw man here. But look at this painting by Picasso: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_R%C3%AAve_(painting. Obviously, some will object to this because it has erotic allusions. I happen to think it is beautiful (and it is - one of his great works), and despite its erotic allusions the purpose is not sexual arousal - even though it is obviously about a sinful relationship. Or how about Les Demoiselles d’Avignon? A painting of a brothel! But it has significance not only in the history of art as one of the great masterpieces, but look at the way the girls are depicted - abstracted, alienated, distorted specimens of humanity. Both of these works has a lot to stay about human nature. Let’s not be prudes: let’s appreciate how sensuality and even eroticism (gasp!) can benefit us in art. I could talk about Raphael’s nudes - incredibly sensual, even erotic, but dazzingly beautiful. Or Bouguereau. What about Renoir and Cassatt? My favorite sculptor, Rodin, has famous statues (like The Kiss) that depict naked couples locked in love embraces. Very sexy - but is anyone going to say that these are pornographic? I hope not!

 

[AdamP88]

I know I’m late to this thread, but as a budding college-level art historian, I have to comment.

First of all, I don’t understand why the “question of nude modeling” is such a big deal as to generate such a long thread. If you have a problem with it, don’t engage with it. The act of nude modeling, and the depiction of nudity in art, is morally neutral in itself (actually an argument can be made that it is morally good). If the abuse of it disturbs, don’t look at it!

Second, saying it has no practical purpose outside of a college classroom setting is completely wrong. One of many reasons why the secular world hates Christians (even though this is wrongheaded) is a perceived prudery among Christians. I’m not trying to insult anyone, but to say we have to keep nude modeling strictly to controlled environments is just absurd. Just because some people do sinful things associated with nude modeling doesn’t mean that responsible adults cannot use nude models. If this opinion, we wouldn’t have any masterpieces! Someone mentioned Bouguereau - great example, his nude figures are absolutely sublime. But if someone uses his works for sexual arousal, that’s not the artist’s fault, and we shouldn’t ban nude modeling because of the sins of one disturbed individual. And just because weird things have happened in studios between artists and models doesn’t mean nude modeling in itself is wrong. Everything good can be abused - let’s not ban a good thing, the use of nude modeling to render works of beauty, simply because we feel uncomfortable with it and acts that have sometimes been associated with it!

By the way, as Baelor pointed out, there is no need for art. It is not practical. But the utilitarian idea that everything has to have a practical purpose is simply faulty. What would the world be like without art, without beauty? As someone who is devoting his education and probably career to the study of art, I vehemently say that while art may not be “practical,” it is one of the most important things in the world. It puts us in touch with the “human condition,” teaches us deep truths about the world and human nature, brings us closer to God through one of the three great universals (truth, goodness, beauty). I also happen to think we need good nude art, for the simple reason that it can show us the human body is beautiful and not something dirty that we should run away from with prudish fear. It can also even teach us the beauty of chastity, if we know the signs to look for. Here’s a brilliant sculpture from the Met: metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/94.9.2. Frankly, anyone who objects to this is just absurd (the last time I was there, I stood for possibly fifteen minutes in front of this sculpture just transfixed by it and the beauty of its message).

Finally, I want to point out that just because a work is about sex, this doesn’t mean that it’s inappropriate. Let’s get over the illusion that we can’t talk about sex, or even depict erotic/sensual subjects in art. Now, I didn’t read the whole thread, so don’t think I’m setting up a straw man here. But look at this painting by Picasso: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_R%C3%AAve_(painting. Obviously, some will object to this because it has erotic allusions. I happen to think it is beautiful (and it is - one of his great works), and despite its erotic allusions the purpose is not sexual arousal - even though it is obviously about a sinful relationship. Or how about Les Demoiselles d’Avignon? A painting of a brothel! But it has significance not only in the history of art as one of the great masterpieces, but look at the way the girls are depicted - abstracted, alienated, distorted specimens of humanity. Both of these works has a lot to stay about human nature. Let’s not be prudes: let’s appreciate how sensuality and even eroticism (gasp!) can benefit us in art. I could talk about Raphael’s nudes - incredibly sensual, even erotic, but dazzingly beautiful. Or Bouguereau. What about Renoir and Cassatt? My favorite sculptor, Rodin, has famous statues (like The Kiss) that depict naked couples locked in love embraces. Very sexy - but is anyone going to say that these are pornographic? I hope not!

I 100% Agree…I think you hit the nail on the head here.

 

[edwest2]

We’ve already established that the world is way off in terms of sexuality, but what you don’t seem to understand is that I’m not intending to pander to “the world” and its habits, but to sensible people. If my art is heading for an audience that can’t handle nudity then I won’t give them nudity. However, their attitude towards the body doesn’t de-legitimize nude art in its proper place, nor does it make all nude art disrespectful of the human person. On the contrary, I still maintain that nude art has a specific place in teaching us about the dignity of the person, and we’d be missing something without it. If nude art wasn’t essentially good, I don’t think the Church would have supported it.

It would be wonderful if we had a “sensible person” detector at galleries and museums but we don’t. However, there is a dress code for visiting Vatican City.

drivinguide.com/vatican_city_dress_code.htm#dresscode

This includes Saint Peter’s Basilica, Sistine Chapel and Vatican Museums, and visiting the Vatican Gardens and/or the Scavi (the excavations under St. Peter’s Church).

Why do you think this is? Can’t just anybody walk in? I don’t mean to be flippant about the following statements but they are true: I’ve seen people in stores dressed in pajama-like clothing, wearing house slippers and men wearing shirts with messages like “Official Beer Drinking Shirt.” Perhaps the Vatican wants to preserve a certain sense of dignity regarding clothing in terms of how we present ourselves in places regarded as sacred or holy.

May I ask exactly how and/or where are you, or anyone else, going to show your work? And how will you be able to identify your audience, in advance, as being ‘sensible people’? All it takes is a cell phone with a camera and your art could be all over the internet in a short period of tine. Have you considered this?

I plan, with God’s help, on publishing some art in a magazine style format and it will be completely clean and wholesome. The company I work for has a large library that includes art instruction books on site, and the owner has been to art auctions at Sotheby’s and Christie’s (in the United States).

I firmly believe in real, classical artwork as a good. I don’t understand - honestly - how introducing the nude in art today is a necessary good unless it is sacred art that supports the dignity and the gift of the human person.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

LOL, that would be a pretty unlikely scenario Honestly though, artists study the world around them and everything they see in it; if I copy a photo for learning, I’m just looking at it more closely, learning more from it. I don’t even need to keep the picture, the important thing is what I take away from it.

You would learn a lot more by drawing from real life than from a photo. The detail of a photo is dots or pixels; you can’t get any closer (or further away) than the photographer got. There is a lot of important detail missing from most photographs. Also, the colours are only approximate - if they are accurate at all.

 

[Baelor]

May I ask exactly how and/or where are you, or anyone else, going to show your work? And how will you be able to identify your audience, in advance, as being ‘sensible people’? All it takes is a cell phone with a camera and your art could be all over the internet in a short period of tine. Have you considered this?

It is not the responsibility of the artist to ensure that every single person uses his art properly. This is impossible.

I plan, with God’s help, on publishing some art in a magazine style format and it will be completely clean and wholesome

That does not mean it will not lead someone away from God.

I firmly believe in real, classical artwork as a good. I don’t understand - honestly - how introducing the nude in art today is a necessary good unless it is sacred art that supports the dignity and the gift of the human person.

Profane art may also support the dignity and the gift of the human person.

 

[TrueLight]

I was so proud of that Christian girl who refused to pose nude on top model? Is she the same woman who is now working for Catholic Answers?

These kind of threads just make me shake my head.

 

[thunderboom]

I was so proud of that Christian girl who refused to pose nude on top model? Is she the same woman who is now working for Catholic Answers?

These kind of threads just make me shake my head.

Why do they make you shake your head? Do you have a problem with the fact that the human body is wonderfully and glorious made, and that we can exalt it in art? There’s a huge difference between posing naked for the promotion of sexual deviancy and posing naked for the creation of beautiful art…

 

[Debora123]

Why do they make you shake your head? Do you have a problem with the fact that the human body is wonderfully and glorious made, and that we can exalt it in art? There’s a huge difference between posing naked for the promotion of sexual deviancy and posing naked for the creation of beautiful art…

Yep. Some people just have a hard time separating the two…