Modelling nude for an art class - what's your opinion?

[tomaskovarik]

Those who do the frowning are those who themselves are tempted to abuse and sin against what is good and against God. If they were not tempted and looked with innocent eyes they would not see the guilt but because they see the guilt they are guilty of it. And for the guilty it is hard to perceive that any could be innocent.

And I tell all of, you my brothers and sisters, that I am most certainly NOT the one able to look at a beautiful female body without sinful thoughts in my heart. I honestly admire all these courageous guys here who are so sure of their own invincible ability to control their instictive hormonal excretions…, I certainly am in dire lack of that. I am a sinner and a weakling and would never be able to take such class. But bravo to those who can! My admirations and prayers go to you indeed.

 

[Church_Militant]

Having worked as a photographer for many years and shot just about everything you can imagine, my response is that great photos are taken using the big head. The other can’t even reach the shutter button.

The female form is a work of art in itself and when viewed as such one can indeed go either way. One ascends to a level of thanks and praise to God for the miracle of His creation while the other descends to the lower (and even diabolic) passions which objectify the lady in question.

Art is a way to channel those passions in a creative way that also allows us to use our God-given talents to in some way pay tribute to the glory of God.

St. Thomas Aquinas has a definition of beauty.
“That which when seen pleases.”
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[tequilamac]

Oh thank you. But I couldn’t really. The skin is starting to sag in places, and the cellulite is showing through and the wrinkles, well I doubt I’d get the job.

 

[HoppityRedux]

nude art is not sinful (if it is not made for sexual arousement), only you americans are such puritans.

It’s not Americans, just a small group of Americans. I’m sure you have your share of these folks, too. They don’t harm anyone.

 

[blessedstar]

And I tell all of, you my brothers and sisters, that I am most certainly NOT the one able to look at a beautiful female body without sinful thoughts in my heart. I honestly admire all these courageous guys here who are so sure of their own invincible ability to control their instictive hormonal excretions…, I certainly am in dire lack of that. I am a sinner and a weakling and would never be able to take such class. But bravo to those who can! My admirations and prayers go to you indeed.

This does not make the art work ‘wrong’ it is a struggle within the viewer struggling against themselves or rather against the ‘self’, which cannot in itself mean or cause what is viewed to be described as 'wrong, ‘bad’ ‘sinful’ etc.

So best not to look if there is a struggle within and if there is no struggle within then there is no reason not to look at what is God’s good creation.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh thank you. But I couldn’t really. The skin is starting to sag in places, and the cellulite is showing through and the wrinkles, well I doubt I’d get the job.

It’s not Glamour magazine; it’s art class. The whole point is to learn how to draw every kind of person; not just the stereotype “beautiful” people. You probably would get the job, if you wanted it - assuming you can hold your poses for the required length of time.

 

[tequilamac]

It’s not Glamour magazine; it’s art class. The whole point is to learn how to draw every kind of person; not just the stereotype “beautiful” people. You probably would get the job, if you wanted it - assuming you can hold your poses for the required length of time.

Oh, I doubt it still. I’m of an age where I know the location of every bathroom in town but my poor legs won’t get me there in time. Why don’t you volunteer? The OP didn’t say whether they were looking for a few good men or women.

 

[jmcrae]

Why don’t you volunteer? The OP didn’t say whether they were looking for a few good men or women.

I’m already on the other side of the drawing board - I’m an artist.

I have actually done it a few times, when the hired model didn’t show up to the class for some unavoidable reason, but I’d rather be the one drawing than the one modeling. It’s a difficult job, and takes a lot of concentration. After trying it, I have a lot of respect for the people who do this job - drawing is easier.

 

[tequilamac]

I’m already on the other side of the drawing board - I’m an artist.

I have actually done it a few times, when the hired model didn’t show up to the class for some unavoidable reason, but I’d rather be the one drawing than the one modeling. It’s a difficult job, and takes a lot of concentration. After trying it, I have a lot of respect for the people who do this job - drawing is easier.

I agree absolutely. And people do not realize that if we did not use new models everytime and get a different perspective, all nudes, all art would look exactly the same. For instance, once it was suggested we use a mannequin instead. so all art ends up static?

 

[antimon]

The female form is a work of art in itself and when viewed as such one can indeed go either way. One ascends to a level of thanks and praise to God for the miracle of His creation while the other descends to the lower (and even diabolic) passions which objectify the lady in question.

Art is a way to channel those passions in a creative way that also allows us to use our God-given talents to in some way pay tribute to the glory of God.

at last! I wouldn’t say it better although male form can be beautiful too of course.

If only people ceased automatically associating nudity with sex…

 

[jmcrae]

If only people ceased automatically associating nudity with sex…

And with women. There are just as many male nudes as female - all of them represent God’s greatest creation.

 

[Church_Militant]

at last! I wouldn’t say it better although male form can be beautiful too of course.

If only people ceased automatically associating nudity with sex…

And with women

. There are just as many male nudes as female - all of them represent God’s greatest creation. Well said. I was taught that that the stregnth of a male is in the back…accross the shoulders.

Regardless of the gender of the model, it can be an object of art that draws the soul to worship and praise. “You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew; my bones were not hidden from you, When I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth.”
(Psalm 139:13-15)

As for models…the really amazing thing is that each brings something special and unique. I have seen truly beautiful nude portraits of pregnant women (Robert Farber shot a couple of his wife.) and then there are various other photos that come to mind. The Rubinesque pictures that I have seen have a unique character all their own. But then that is true of virtually every photo that I have ever seen and or taken.

Consider this: Can you imagine a series of nudes of one particular individual every year…or five, over the course of their life? What a fascinating study in the evolving beauty of the human creation.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Alterum]

Well, I’ve already made my case many times. I’ll just be going in circles if I repeat it again. Thus far, the people who have answered my question probing the lines between acceptable nudity in art all believe that, in some context, live nude shows are okay.

That’s pretty sick.

But, I have nothing else to contribute to this thread, and I’m tired of people implying that I’m full of sexual sin or that I have a dirty mind, or what have you.

So, if there’s nothing wrong with photographs whose primary theme is the naked human body, why doesn’t someone post an example?

Something tells me this won’t happen. I hope I’m right.

 

[Alterum]

I want to make one other point.

Something may be wrong and sinful even if it does not tempt the viewer. This is, indeed, what I am arguing in the case of nude modeling and artwork whose primary theme is a nude person.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that a piece of “artwork” is okay to consume if it does not cause temptation. This is wrong.

Case in point: Pornography. Most people I know are not tempted to sexual sin by pornography. However, the creation of pornography is wrong because it does grave harm to the participants. The consumption is wrong for the same reason. I do think it is always sinful to view pornography for pleasure, even if we are not tempted to sexual sin thereby.

The same is true regarding other artwork which involves as the primary theme a naked person. Even if we are not tempted to sexual sin, the creation and display of such artwork does grave harm to the participants. I’ve already argued that it objectifies a human person. By viewing it for pleasure – and that is usually why artwork is viewed – we are participating in a serious sin by supporting it.

Really, how much exploitation and impurity do you think is involved in the “nude model” industry, let alone the whole industry of modern art?

 

[Church_Militant]

So, if there’s nothing wrong with photographs whose primary theme

is the naked human body, why doesn’t someone post an example?

Something tells me this won’t happen. I hope I’m right.Oh so you’d like someone to violate the forum rules just to prove a point? Yeah, right…

The case has been made and I think most of the mature people here can understand it quite well without examples.
However…since this is about art.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
and then http://www.burningairlines.com/Feminism/fe011.gif. There…are you happy now? I feel pretty sure that these images do not violate the forum rules and quite adequately point out exactly what I was saying about the human body as art. If you find either of these erotic, well… I think your imagination is working harder than a normal one would.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Alterum]

I don’t find those erotic (why on earth do people keep thinking that I find this sort of thing erotic or tempting just because I’m opposed to it???).

However, those aren’t photographs.

Why do you think the forum rules exist in the first place? Precisely because there is something wrong with nude photographs. What’s wrong with them? They’re sinful.

 

[tequilamac]

I don’t find those erotic (why on earth do people keep thinking that I find this sort of thing erotic or tempting just because I’m opposed to it???).

However, those aren’t photographs.

Why do you think the forum rules exist in the first place? Precisely because there is something wrong with nude photographs. What’s wrong with them? They’re sinful.

Well, we are waiting. Are you going to alert the mods or not that Church Militant posted sinful photographs of nudes on the forum? So very Militant of you, Church.

 

[jmcrae]

AHHHH, my eyes!!!

Oh, wait, it’s Michelangelo and Rubens - whew!! For a second there, I thought some pesky artists had been painting and sculpting dreaded nudes.

And by the way, do you really believe the models for the above artworks were fully clothed at the time?

Good point - live nude models, right there in the studio, standing and/or reclining there for hours on end, with no clothes on.

 

[tequilamac]

AHHHH, my eyes!!!

Oh, wait, it’s Michelangelo and Rubens - whew!! For a second there, I thought some pesky artists had been painting and sculpting dreaded nudes.

Good point - live nude models, right there in the studio, standing and/or reclining there for hours on end, with no clothes on.

But you notice from Church Militant’s angle, there is really nothing objectionable to see. He is quite the modest one.

But if that statue was to turn around, well

Where in the world are my smelling salts? Where is my swooning couch. Oh help. The sin of it all.

 

[skeptictank]

A friend of mine and I were arguing with someone about the “morality” of my friend, a faithful Catholic with a healthy sexuality, modelling for an art class - modelling in the nude. I don’t see anything wrong with it - what do other people think?

I’m vaguely reminded of an instance in C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters” where the demon “Screwtape” instructs his nephew to (rather than trying to lead his subject directly into sin) have him squable within himself, and with others as to whether or not something is sinful, until he has convinced himself that something, which isn’t sinfull, is. Then, he instructs his nephew to procede to tempt his subject into performing this unsinfull act, which would not be sinfull, except that his subject now believes that it is.

The devil laughs, my friends. I’d apply a certain statement made by the apostle Paul to such a situation-

Rom 14:1 ¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

I would remind certain individuals that not only are we born naked, but both man and woman were created as such. It was for their shame that they covered themselves. If someone is not so shamefull to themselves, I see no reason to rebuke her. The above quotation is not in regard to this subject specifically, but it seems to apply. One that may apply more directly would be-

"1Cr 6:12 ¶ All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. "

"1Cr 10:23 ¶ All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. "

My friend being the person he is, it’s not going to lead him into any “near occasion of sin” and the artists are too busy concentrating on their drawing to be lead into any “near occasion” themselves - and my friend’s not responsible for what goes on in their heads anyway, right?

"1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: "

A lesson to be taken from this statment, among others, is that we are to avoid leading others into sin.

People have modelled nude for millenia

People have also sinned for millenia. I wouldn’t call this a valid argument for anything, unless we are arguing popularity.

• many great artworks depict nudes. Pope John Paul the Great’s famous line about the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, at the time of their restoration, to “remove their clothes” (that later artists had added to the nude figures at the behest of later Popes who objected to the nudes) is pertinent here.

As I think I hinted above, that kinda shows us that it depends upon the person. Though, I think carefull consideration into the consequences should be taken, and if any (and I mean any) doubt is in the person’s mind who is involved, I think that they most certainly should not do it.

I guess I’m making a point in this post about attitudes to the body, sex, and sexuality that some Catholics hold - attitudes I see as being prudish and unhealthy, attitudes that some people in here hold. But I’m open to other people’s opinion about this question (Nude Modelling: Put Your Clothes Back On vs. Go You Nude Thing) and don’t neccessarily believe that objecting to someone modelling nude is synonomous with prudishness, but can be.

As far as my own oppinion, there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself. Problem may arise however, when we deal with the consequences. The consequences, naturally, depend upon the situation.

Skeptictank