Is sexuality in art always sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProdglArchitect said:
Nudity within art is not inherently wrong within a society based on a moral framework
Click to expand...
Ok, so would you consider the Greeks in antiquity to be without a moral framework?

I believe your statement is too generalized.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
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?
Click to expand...
The question is whether it’s art or not. For instance, literature is best when it actually imitates life and becomes a reflection on the human condition. Pulp fiction tends to only reflect other stories and thus easily falls into the cliche. It’s aim is escapism. A lot of people think that all genre fiction is pulp fiction and that literary fiction happens in the real world. This isn’t true. It entirely depends on the story’s depth.

I will say that a lot of problems in the world is that we don’t appreciate art. We’re more commercialized. And considering the state of modern art, it’s even worse there. We’ve largely abandoned art.
 
Not true. I’ve worked with artists for years and have studied the Masters. Sacred Art can have some partial nudity if appropriate. Otherwise, we are to keep custody of our eyes. Erotica is to be avoided. I’ve been to real art galleries and a “prestigious” art school, I know what’s going on.
 
Yeah, I agree. But in some cases, no. AFA sexuality, they had a different approach then what we Catholics would consider moral. They portrayed nudity in many different ways. And the passage of time has created an aura of acceptability, intellectualizing, glamorizing much of what was used for pornographic purposes.
 
Last edited:
Very true. A little study into art history will show numerous examples. In the 20th Century, show a little, show a little more and then a little more. During the 1950s, an attempt was made to call nude or partly nude photographs of women art. It didn’t work. Morality was stronger in a country which still recognized God and Country in the same sentence. And practiced it.
 
The date on the calendar has nothing to do with it. “Art Critics” rationalized away depictions of scenes or acts that if they were portrayed today, would be considered pornographic. The human body and deviant sexuality in art has not changed.
 
I’m not arguing against the beauty of the human body. I have to evaluate images on a regular basis as an assistant art director. So many small, and some obvious things, have to be taken into account. These evaluations have to consider general audiences, and those trained in producing good, moral art, and bad, but well-draw, immoral art. After spending years studying paintings, drawings and photographs, not much has changed, except the shock level.
 
It gets interesting, complicated. Although all are born into original sin, it does depend on the viewer’s idea of what is arousing. It’s very difficult to pinhole the argument.
 
Daisy said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
Nudity within art is not inherently wrong within a society based on a moral framework
Click to expand...
Ok, so would you consider the Greeks in antiquity to be without a moral framework?

I believe your statement is too generalized.
Click to expand...
Frequently, yes, I would, but that’s not really relevant to the point I was trying to make.

My focus was on modern culture. I would argue that in modern culture there are very few instances where nudity in art will not be sexualized, and so it should be avoided.
 
I don’t think much literature is being produced today. Good literature requires skill. As a working book editor, most beginners don’t have it, because they’re beginners. And, because there is no editorial review or guidance, an ocean of mediocre, at best, ebooks have flooded internet sellers. Before the internet, publishing companies had reputations and the average number of editors on a book was four. Spelling and grammar are important, but a compelling story, or page turner, is the result of work and skill. Nothing’s changed. But now that people have access to a very powerful, global communications medium, a lot of junk is floating around out there, followed by: “Why isn’t my book selling?” Nothing personal but it contains all of the mistakes I saw in pre-internet manuscripts.

Writers call me and though I can’t see their faces, I know their eyes glaze over when I use words like atmosphere, mood, pacing and other genre specific terms. They don’t get it. It’s not in their mental toolbox.

There are a few “modern art” magazines out there. One publishes the piece on one page, and on the opposite page, the artist describes what the piece means. If you need a little shock therapy, read some articles. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to describe each piece, I’d be dead. Every single time, my reaction to the description boils down to: “You might think that but no way the average viewer would think that. No way.” It’s unintelligible. Art is a communications medium. If I can’t tell what something is, I ignore it. Or I am disgusted by what is included in it, like animal dung.

Art hasn’t been abandoned, but rigorous training has been. You can put anything on the internet. Why bother with real galleries? Or real people? Or museums?
 
edwest211 said:
I don’t think much literature is being produced today. Good literature requires skill. As a working book editor, most beginners don’t have it, because they’re beginners.
Click to expand...
As an author, I can say that I know several authors (far more successful than myself) who scoff at literary criticism. They don’t even attempt to write anything beyond pulp fiction because they don’t see any value in fiction besides escapism. In fact, it seems a lot of university programs has pushed away from literary analysis and instead offer classes that encourage students to scoff at classical literary criticism and then just teach them how to write pulp fiction.
 
My Creative Writing class at University taught me nothing, just “do your thing.” When the Editor-in-Chief at my company appeared at a convention, some of our fans asked him: “What is your secret?” He answered: “A lot of hard work.” Which was followed by “No, no. What is your ‘secret’?” Same answer.

Having gone through a learning curve, which, by the way, has not gone away for art or writing due to computers, a creative person learns his craft. Now it’s ‘Learn what? I write how I write.’ And for a few, maybe earn a few bucks and an over-inflated ego and bad or no advice for others.

I know the demographics of readers that fall under certain genres. I doubt most writers do today. They write fiction. Whatever crosses their minds. And they don’t want standards. Nope, a craftsman does not become a craftsman overnight. And just under 49% of all self-published authors earn $500 a year or less. Hey, for $2.99, someone, given the total number of potential buyers out there, may try a book. Now and then, my boss tosses a self-published print book on my desk. They are bad. Better off doing a blog. But I understand some authors don’t believe a book is “real” if they cannot hold a printed copy in their hands. And covers? Really bad to ‘what were you thinking’? This cover would barely pass on a 1950s B-Movie poster.
 
Last edited:
I have not said all things are pure to all people. That is not what the saying means.

Nor was Adams sin a sexual one.
That would be to take the symbolic allegory somewhat too literally and extensively.

But what it does mean is that not all people are impure in the same way or, if so, always and everywhere.

Your universalised rules may be somewhat scrupulous and would appear not fully consistent with accepted Church history or theology or principles of inculturation.

They do not really answer the thread question.
It seems tautological to say “the exhibition of nudity is not sinful if appropriate.”
The question is what does appropriate consist in?

I cannot see how intent matters if it is not knowable to the viewer.
Nor does it necessarily matter even if it is known provided the art work in itself is not so.

It doesnt help that the thread question is poorly worded, but we sort of know what is meant.

The OP needs to distinguish between sin in the producer (called pornography) and sin in the consumer (sins against purity). He appears to be speaking of consumers.

If so then this is not a question of “pornography” as the Church defines that sin.
 
Last edited:
There’s a wide range of art out there, but sexuality in art, regardless of who makes it, is designed for the purpose of arousal. That’s it. It can be pornographic or erotic. It’s sinful.
 
I am talking nudity which I believe is what our OP really meant.
Are you speaking about producing or viewing same?

Do you still disagree?
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
I have not said all things are pure to all people. That is not what the saying means.

Nor was Adams sin a sexual one.

That would be toYou take the symbolic allegory literally.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood what I was saying. I do not take the creation story literally. I am simply saying that no one is perfectly pure, we are all sinners. And no disrespect, but I feel that the quote from Titus is not used correctly here. If a person is in a state of grace, they can still be tempted. I feel like this quote is explaining that those who are not in a state of grace might perform the same actions with impure motivations.
BlackFriar said:
The question is what does appropriate consist in?

I cannot see how intent matters if it is not knowable to the viewer. Nor does it necessarily matter even if it is known provided the art work in itself is not so.

It doesnt help that the thread question is poorly worded, but we sort of know what is meant.

The OP needs to distinguish between sin in the producer (called pornography) and sin in the consumer (sins against purity). He appears to be speaking of consumers.

If so then is not a question of pornography.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good clarification of the ultimate question.

It still remains subjective and dependent on personal or cultural interpretation. The subjective individual’s interpretation of a piece, and it’s level of appropriateness
seems to be most dependent on its context rather than its executional style or artist’s intent.

We can’t perfectly judge Michaelangelo’s intentions of a nude work. We don’t know if he was trying to arouse or if he himself was aroused by a work. And we can’t know or perfectly control the veiwer’s perception of a work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top