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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Balance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
I wonder if people would be so kind as to translate when they decide to randomly use a foreign (or in this case dead) language. It doesn’t bother me that you use it, it’s just nice to be able to follow the conversation.

Skeptictank
 
A thought to consider, what would Jesus or better yet what would Mary do or say about this.

Mary has already said that the Lord is angry with the provocative dress of some girls and women in this age.
When did she say this?
 
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.
I’ve never seen a better example of circular reasoning!
 
nude art is not sinful (if it is not made for sexual arousement), only you americans are such puritans.
I’d have to ask why we wear clothing at all then? I think the fig leaf was adorned for a reason. If we can take it off in front of a class room of people and call it art, why don’t we uncloth all of the students in the class room and be surrounded by art?
 
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.
To the extent that this is intended to include my prior posts, it is incorrect under my understanding of the common definition of “shows.”
 
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.
I am sorry, but please explain to me who these folks are that view pornography for pleasure but are not tempted to sexual sin? What is the pleasure then?
Also, do you draw no distinction whatsoever between a nude depiction (drawing, painting, photo, stained glass, etc, (or indeed a live nude although not in a “show”)) and pornography?
 
I’ve never seen a better example of circular reasoning!
This is called inference. I was inferring why the forum rules exist (namely, to prevent something negative from happening).

Really, why bother with such a pointless comment?
 
If we can take it off in front of a class room of people and call it art,
No, the model isn’t the art. The drawings that are made from the model are the art.

Without the model, the artists can’t make the drawings.
 
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. 😉
If I want to admire God’s creation represented in female body, I will happily frequent our nearby Go-Go bar. Trust me, some of the most beautiful examples of curves and surfaces are there. For some reason I dont believe that my pastor would like that though.
And you know why?
Because this issue is NOT about God’s creation at all. Most of you guys are completely missing the entire point…but should I be surprised?
 
If I want to admire God’s creation represented in female body, I will happily frequent our nearby Go-Go bar. Trust me, some of the most beautiful examples of curves and surfaces are there. For some reason I dont believe that my pastor would like that though.
And you know why?
Because this issue is NOT about God’s creation at all. Most of you guys are completely missing the entire point…but should I be surprised?
Two cents:

Just curious if the people who think the Holy See was wrong to embrace so much art depicting the nude form would also like doctors to wear blindfolds during examinations.
 
Most of you guys are completely missing the entire point…but should I be surprised?
No, I think it’s you, and everyone who thinks that “nude” = “come hither” who are missing the point.

Go-go girls and artists’ models have completely different jobs. Go-go girls are paid to cause men to fantasize about sex; artists’ models are there so that artists can learn to draw figures in an anatomically correct way.
 
I notice some folks think everyone else reacts the same way they do to naked bodies. Why?
 
I notice some folks think everyone else reacts the same way they do to naked bodies. Why?
Different strokes for different folks? How you’re raised has bearing on it along with it, cultural differences also. The Swedish have no issues about nudity in the Saunas where as I walked in mumified in towels! (So in that instance, my own insecurity was the problem, not theirs!)

You’re born naked and corrupted from there into thinking how God created you is to be ashamed of? Interesting that this is considered to be a “puritan” perspective!
 
Different strokes for different folks? How you’re raised has bearing on it along with it, cultural differences also. The Swedish have no issues about nudity in the Saunas where as I walked in mumified in towels! (So in that instance, my own insecurity was the problem, not theirs!)

You’re born naked and corrupted from there into thinking how God created you is to be ashamed of? Interesting that this is considered to be a “puritan” perspective!
I agree. I’d say there are a lot of people who fail to appreciate how much their views are shaped by their personal experience, culture, family, etc. Then they insist their experience should trump everyone else’s experience, and they demand everyone else mimic their reactions to the naked body. Maybe that’s what self esteem means.
 
If I want to admire God’s creation represented in female body, I will happily frequent our nearby Go-Go bar. Trust me, some of the most beautiful examples of curves and surfaces are there. For some reason I dont believe that my pastor would like that though.
And you know why?
Because this issue is NOT about God’s creation at all. Most of you guys are completely missing the entire point…but should I be surprised?
So the ages old huge oil painting of the Madonna breast feeding the baby Jesus with breast exposed and nipple showing is there for what reason?

Does this painting somehow bring go go girls to your mind or does it bring human beings into focus?

Nudity is art or nudity is pornography.

Pornography is created to deliberately create sexual arousal and is sociopathic.

Nudity in art is empathetic to the human condition.
 
Ban all nude modeling for good!!
So the ages old huge oil painting of the Madonna breast feeding the baby Jesus with breast exposed and nipple showing is there for what reason? We can ban this as well because the artist used a model.

All paintings of the Madonna of the Middle Ages and Renaissance and Baroque, etc. used live models.

We do not even know if the Mona Lisa model was dressed at the time. And Reuben well, his models rarely wore clothes.

so the bottom line is all anti nude models types want our religious depicted as stick figures.
 
Pornography is created to deliberately create sexual arousal and is sociopathic.
To borrow from Bill Hicks, that sounds like every commerical I’ve ever watched on TV!
Ban all nude modeling for good!!
I reckon it’s between the artist and the model? I wasn’t born wearing a dinner suit and the photo my Mother has of me from that moment is of me in the buck! I don’t think I gave written consent at the time though…! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top