Is sexuality in art always sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BornInMarch

Guest
Art is a reflection of ourselves; our desires, our fears, the world we live in, and so on.

With this in mind, is it sinful to portray human sexuality in art if invoking arousal isn’t the intention? For instance the great Renaissance artist Michelangelo portrayed the naked human form on numerous occasions, with two famous examples including David and Adam. Was he committing a sin by not giving them clothing and/or covering?
 
BornInMarch said:
With this in mind, is it sinful to portray human sexuality in art if invoking arousal isn’t the intention?
Click to expand...
Part of sin is intention. If there is no intention, there is no sin.

If it was sinfun, then the Holy Father, surrounded by throusands of nude figures in the Sistene Chapel, would be condining sin by retaining it as his chapel.
 
This is the eternal question, complex and difficult to answer. For me, I draw a strict boundary. Female nudity within art is dangerous. Although, I do own books with female nudes because they are an essential part of cultural history and I appreciate the context in an appropriate fashion.

As Kenneth Clark remarks:
“The female nude marks both the internal limit of art and the external limit of obscenity… It is the internal structural link that holds art and obscenity and an entire system of meaning together. And whilst the female nude can behave well, it involves a risk and threatens to destabilize the very foundations of our sense of order.
What Clark describes here in pairing artistic depiction and the obscene appears to be a gradient between “art” and “non-art”.

More here
 
Last edited:
This tendency to lump all nudes in art as sexual in nature is unique to Americanism. Other cultures do not have this hang up.

As far as David is concerned, I personally do not believe it would have the same impact if he were clothed. The fact that he is standing naked, exposed, shows his great power. He is not ashamed or hiding. He is kingly. He was the “little” guy taking on a giant, but he was not afraid.

God brings us all into the world without clothing. God made our bodies as a thing of beauty. Even those of us who have our wrinkles, warts, and flaws, our bodies are a work of God, the ultimate artist and creator.
 
BornInMarch said:
Michelangelo portrayed the naked human form on numerous occasions, with two famous examples including David and Adam. Was he committing a sin by not giving them clothing and/or covering?
Click to expand...
No, he was not committing a sin. His intent was more of a scientific and religious appreciation of man in the image of God. Intent, stylistic manner/portrayal and context are essential to understanding the morality of a piece.
 
Last edited:
ColorMomma said:
This tendency to lump all nudes in art as sexual in nature is unique to Americanism. Other cultures do not have this hang up.
Click to expand...
It is not unique to Americanism. Other modern European cultures might not have this “hang up,” but many other historical cultures were opposed to nudity within art.

I do agree with the rest of what you wrote, but at the same time, we must acknowledge the power of the adult nude image and use care in its portrayal.
 
NO! If God created woman and saw that she was good, why would it be evil to view woman as God created her?
Same thing applies to the male form.
Now the intention and subsequent action of portraying or viewing the human form, that’s a different story. This idea, though, that just seeing something and you have committed an evil or sinful act is ridiculous.
Last night I viewed a movie and in it was a bank robbery scene. Am I guilty of a sin against the 7th Commandment?
Think we need to lighten up a bit??
 
Last edited:
No, it is not. The idea that nude art is sinful is a Puritan idea, not a Catholic one.
 
Nudity is like porn - it creates a fertile land for many people to sin, even if only in their mind.
Michelangelo is presenyed to have been gay in many biographies including “Agony and Ectsasy”. He sinned without a doubt with his mind when he depicted those people naked.
It’s about modesty in art not puritanism. Puritanism fought the cult of lace for St. Etheldreda (7th century saint in England) just to give an example of their nihilism regarding puritanism. Disapproving nudity is hardly puritanism.
 
Mary888 said:
Nudity is like porn - it creates a fertile land for many people to sin, even if only in their mind.
Michelangelo is presenyed to have been gay in many biographies including “Agony and Ectsasy”. He sinned without a doubt with his mind when he depicted those people naked.
It’s about modesty in art not puritanism. Puritanism fought the cult of lace for St. Etheldreda (7th century saint in England) just to give an example of their nihilism regarding puritanism. Disapproving nudity is hardly puritanism.
Click to expand...
You have no way of knowing that he “sinned without a doubt,” nor can you judge the state of his soul, or anyone else’s.
 
Of course it’s not a sin. If it was a sin then the Vatican would not be touring people through the Sistine Chapel and having Masses in there, as the entire painted ceiling is chock full of naked people.

Would the Pope put people in sin or in a near occasion of sin on a daily basis? Hardly…
 
Last edited:
Judging? Expressing an opinion about someone’s state is not judgement. Judgement would imply at least I present what rules he broke and what punishment should be administered to him and with what authority I pass this judgement. I have done nothing of a kind.
Michelangelo is not God, he can be criticised just like everyone else. He is dead now. What people do with his art - like presenting the private parts of David’s statue on many items for tourists with a flag of Italy as I saw in Rome - is not his fault.
In the Bible God says “I have clothed you”. He has clothed us. You can lawyer me around about how I nitpick at phrases from the Bible but please recall that when Pope Francis visits certain places nude statues are being covered with cloths (like they did in Argentine).
 
BornInMarch said:
With this in mind, is it sinful to portray human sexuality in art if invoking arousal isn’t the intention?
Click to expand...
No.

There is no greater work of art than creation, and God the creator is not guilty of any sin of immorality when a strikingly beautiful man or woman is born.

Would you ask God why he made any particular member of the opposite sex so alluring to you? Certainly not!

Any sin involving sexuality does not have to do with what the eye beholds, but what the heart perverts.
 
Last edited:
Sexuality? Like being engaged in sexual activity or just nudes? The Classic artists are always brought up, but we need to keep custody of our eyes. We must. What used to be considered soft porn is now on magazine covers, but it seems they are starting to clean up their act - at least on covers, for now. “Erotic” and sexual scenes appear in movies and on TV, sometimes with a small piece of fabric to cover a ‘problem’ area. There is still censorship in Hollywood. There are rules. If the ratings board tells a movie maker, “Cut this scene or we go from PG to R.” Now, going from PG to R will affect your audience mix. Some people refuse to go to R rated movies, but some people are hooping we learn to stop caring. Don’t stop caring.

As far as paintings and photos, erotica, or stimulation, is the goal. When taking art classes at a University, life drawing was a waste of time. If an artist did not know how to light a figure or basic anatomy, then he was just copying what he had in front of him. Sacred art has its place but it should be rendered by masters with no sexuality or nudity for the sake of nudity sake. Each painting tells a story.

Art is not a get out of jail free card.
 
Well, given there are old artworks in old Churches with Mary exposing her breast for a variety of reasons I would suggest not.

Why would you think so?
All is pure to the pure.
 
Objectively: no, there is nothing sinful about a naked body in of itself. Anything that is evil in of itself is known as intrinsic evil.

It can be problematic as a society as a whole becomes more immature: spiritually, psychologically, emotionally.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
But is pure to the pure.
Click to expand...
But… ALL are born with original sin. Original sin is what caused Adam to clothe himself. And please realize that I do not think the famous statue of David is a sin because it is nude. It is appropriate. It’s just that there are cracks in this type of argument, and I keep seeing it pop up here in this thread. So I think we need to clarify:

Intent, stylistic manner/portrayal and context are essential to understanding the morality of a piece.

What is the intent of the artist?
What is the context in which it is done?
And HOW is it done?

All three of these need to be appropriately executed to interpret it as an appropriate piece, and not a piece which is pornographic. Because a multimillion dollar porn industry uses the label of art as a get out of jail free card all the time. And much of the nudity in art, historically, believe it or not, was meant to inspire lust.
 
Last edited:
Nudity within art is not inherently wrong within a society based on a moral framework. However, in a society like ours, which extols sexuality as the primary virtue, you have pornography claiming to be “art”, when it is really just obscenity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top