T
Thursday1
Guest
35 posts - 1 OP = 34 replies.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
- Status
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
V
Viki59
Guest
My dad was a well known pin up artist – I was going to include a link but decided it might be too much for some of the audience – you can google search the art of Bill Randall if you choose.
He painted beautiful young women – “slightly goofy” at times, kind of like Gracie Burns mentally – and used live models. He had them model in bathing suits, at least the ones I saw, but he also learned to draw at the Chicago Art Institute and I’m sure used nude models there.
He was a good Catholic and trying hard to provide for his family.His art just seems charming to me.
I see nothing wrong with learning musculature, shading, etc from live nude models.
He painted beautiful young women – “slightly goofy” at times, kind of like Gracie Burns mentally – and used live models. He had them model in bathing suits, at least the ones I saw, but he also learned to draw at the Chicago Art Institute and I’m sure used nude models there.
He was a good Catholic and trying hard to provide for his family.His art just seems charming to me.
I see nothing wrong with learning musculature, shading, etc from live nude models.
L
Lorarose
Guest
There’s a first for everything I suppose.
Is it possible for a person to pose nude and be a saint? or become a saint?
sure it is.
Many saints were not perfect people and had their own weaknesses they struggled against.
I for one am more disturbed by the tendency for some saints to whip themselves into bloody pulps than I am about someone posing for an art class.
Think of all the great art our Church would be missing out on if someone somewhere hadn’t stripped it all off.
B
BlestOne
Guest
I posed when I was in college. The art major asked me to pose naked but I didn’t feel comfortable with that so I wore my typical fare… a leotard(I was a dancer-non stripping type). After he drew the pictures, he asked me to go into the ladies room and assume the same pose in front of a mirror and look at myself, specifically my breasts and help him to get the “hang” just right. There was nothing sexual about it, just that the leotard impeded the free movement of my breasts. It was actually comical, but I got an understanding of why it is important to the artist to see how the body flows naturally.
Do I think it is sinful…no, God created our bodies and they are beautiful
Do I think a married person should pose nude…This is different because I do believe that once you are married you belong to another as they belong to you, so I would have to say it would be up to the couple in that case.
Would I as a married woman? Nope, I couldn’t do it as a single, so I know I couldn’t now that I am married.
Do I see just reason for an artist to draw, study etc nudes…you bet!
Do I think it is sinful…no, God created our bodies and they are beautiful
Do I think a married person should pose nude…This is different because I do believe that once you are married you belong to another as they belong to you, so I would have to say it would be up to the couple in that case.
Would I as a married woman? Nope, I couldn’t do it as a single, so I know I couldn’t now that I am married.
Do I see just reason for an artist to draw, study etc nudes…you bet!
L
LilyM
Guest
Well I absolutely agree with you - not all nudity in art is necessarily wrong, of course, but then neither is all nudity (in art or life) equally valid either. Obviously there’s a huge difference in form, function, purpose and psychological impact between different representations of the body. As Christians we have to be aware not just of art or nudity as a possible occasion of sin for us but also as a possible occasion of scandal for others.
Good art, nude or otherwise, is certainly, as you put it, a good experience. I think it’s stretching a little to say that such experiences of nudity in art ‘edify us and make us better Christians and better people’. Surely the same effects could be achieved without it. The world might be a somewhat poorer place without David or with him covered with a figleaf, but it would still turn quite well, I should imagine. I certainly don’t think we’d be worse as Christians or as people if he wasn’t nude.
W
wcknight
Guest
Thursday1 said:
Whew !, and I was thinking, you were objecting to my post (one of the more prudest opinions). I like great art like most folks, nudes included, but in my younger days, they could very easily be a source for great temptation.
When you’re a teenager and easily tempted, nude art may be the last thing that you should be exposed to (pardon the pun).
As far as nude modeling goes that’s certainly not for me (and hopefully not for anyone I know aka family members). as someone else previously said except maybe for comedy or comical hysterics.
I’m no artist so I would have no business being in a room with a nude women other than my spouse. It might fulfill one of my fantasies, but it would most definitely be a sinful situation or a near occasion for sin (at least for me). Having grown a bit older and maybe a wee bit wiser, I would not put myself in that situation.
Personally, I would not buy a nude painting or poster. In a museum or historic building that is fine, but I would not put one up in my home or at work even if it were given to me or even if it was quite valuable. I would more likely give it away or sell it.
IF someone wants to pose for an art class, that’s their business, It’s not for me and I would not want anyone I know to do it.
S
Sean.McKenzie
Guest
There is going to be in every generation people, who because they are human have this sense of concupiscence, i don’t care if you are 14 or 90 you are not free from it because we are imperfect, i don’t think anyone here can say that they are free from it. Being publicly nude for ANY reason can be a near occasion of sin for ANYBODY male of female 14 years old to 90 years. I do not think it is morally permissable.
B
blessedstar
Guest
Has anyone looked at their Crucifixes (with Corpus) lately? Jesus is half naked upon the Cross. Alot of Catholics wear one around their neck and alot display them in their homes, there is a Crucifix on every Altar (or at least there chould be) and in every Catholic Church (can’t speak for other denominations).
For portraits, statues and Crucifixes themselves someone studied the human form in order to recreate this Sacred Image. It is no argument to say artists used cadava’s because the human body is as sacred in death as it is in life.
Like I said it is the ‘fetid’ (sorry for my phrases
) or as another poster rightly used the word ‘putrid’ minds of people that construe something conducted in an innocent manner to create art as something sinful.
It’s all in the intent.
For portraits, statues and Crucifixes themselves someone studied the human form in order to recreate this Sacred Image. It is no argument to say artists used cadava’s because the human body is as sacred in death as it is in life.
Like I said it is the ‘fetid’ (sorry for my phrases
) or as another poster rightly used the word ‘putrid’ minds of people that construe something conducted in an innocent manner to create art as something sinful.It’s all in the intent.
W
wcknight
Guest
Yes, sin IS in the eye of the beholder, BUT if I’m the beholder, and your innocent exposure is causing me to sin then just maybe you have some culpability in my sin.Has anyone looked at their Crucifixes (with Corpus) lately? Jesus is half naked upon the Cross. Alot of Catholics wear one around their neck and alot display them in their homes, there is a Crucifix on every Altar (or at least there chould be) and in every Catholic Church (can’t speak for other denominations).
For portraits, statues and Crucifixes themselves someone studied the human form in order to recreate this Sacred Image. It is no argument to say artists used cadava’s because the human body is as sacred in death as it is in life.
Like I said it is the ‘fetid’ (sorry for my phrases
It’s all in the intent.
Or even worse if your innocent exposure causes a young innocent person to sin, then I think you definitely have some culpability in contributing to their sin.
Remember Jesus tells us that IF we lead young innocent children to sin, it would be better for a millstone to be tied around our neck and having us cast into the sea.
B
blessedstar
Guest
I’m wondering when a person makes comments like this if they have ever attended a university of art and studied art at all or if it is their said profession.
Being an artist is a PROFESSION which means you have to be professional.
You are loaded up with work, you’re drawing whether the inspiration to create comes to you or not (artists can suffer from very dry periods in inspiration and motivation), you have the competition factor, you have a critical tutor, you’re trying to draw the most difficult form on the planet which is the human body, later on you have the pressure of clients waiting for commissions and all people can say is that artists are having unpure thoughts…well there was never any time for that for me and beyond that it would be highly unprofessional! The only thing I was frustrated about was drawing the human form over and over again every friday for three years and not seeing anything I did as innovative nor ‘perfect’ (as all artists strive to be innovative and create the ‘perfect’ image) Ending up with piles and piles of works of art which in retrospect I could see a definite development in my skills. Practise makes perfect!
You are thinking as a person who has not studied art and seeing as artist’s like myself actually work with nude models I can tell you we were not sitting about making rude comments and thinking the whole thing was a joke and ‘getting off on it’, just as a Doctor should not view a patient as a sexual object even if in the course of their profession they may see members of the opposite sex nude or with little clothes on.
It is part of the artists profession to study the human anatomy, skeleton structure and naked form. The skeleton is first drawn for a good few terms over and over and over before even the muscle structure is studied, then muscle structure is studied and drawn over and over for months and months and then after sufficient development in skills and understanding of the interior human form, the naked form is studied and the tutor first instructs his students, we were not just let loose with a human model, the dignity of the model is discussed and finally after nearly two years of drawing we study the naked human form. Anyone who studies art to a higher degree and takes any form of unprofessional view of life drawing shouldn’t be studying it at all!
Those models sit for up to three hours in one pose, they get up and can hardly stand from being in the same statue like position, it is their professional living and they know they are working with professionals. I know they would be highly insulted if they thought for one minute they were being ‘desired’ in any way by the artists.
Beyond that, in the course of my studies I must have seen dozens of life models, it’s not a novelty to get excited over it is a necessary method of working and I can assure you an artists cannot avoid drawing the human form especially whilst in training.
The layman or non-artist may see it all as seedy, but this is the same mind-set that stops folks from going to the Doctor because they have a ‘private’ problem.
I’m going to be direct and say this is a perfectly acceptable practise conducted by all artists of every era and every art school trained professional artist HAS to study life drawing or they fail their degree and if it would be an occassion of sin for you imparticular then you personally had better avoid it, but for those who can be professional then there IS no sin. The practise of studying the human form is not sinful as a means to re-creating it in an artistic manner, infact to be creative is a very close reflection of our Creator and a gift to be treasured.
I am sure God has no shame over the human form seeing as He Himself created it in the first place and became incarnate in the very flesh you are saying tempts others to sin, however the body is good, what tempts people is their broken nature and the gross misuse of the human body, this cannot be said of life-modelling in comparison with girls going out in the street wearing next to nothing looking for sex, but I’m not going to judge girls who do that as who am I to judge them?
The temptation lies with the sinner and it is their demon to exorcise but it cannot be blamed upon the Tabernacle of the human body.
The sin most definitely is within the intent of the individual and it is up to the individual to avoid that occasion of sin particular to them not to say being highly unprofessional.
W
wcknight
Guest
AS I said, I am NOT an artist, so I do avoid getting into these situations.
You are looking at it from the artist and models point of view. I am looking at it from the potential audiences view.
Your painting and their posing may not be sinful to either of you at the time, but it can potentially cause someone else to sin down the road.
IF a nude portrait gets sold to a mature individual and it never causes anyone sin against chastity then it is not a problem. BUT if it goes to a public place or even a private home where adolescents or young teenagers commit sins because of it, then that is a different story.
Not all paintings or scuptures is good art, and I think you would agree that some images can be considered pornographic. If anyone paints or sculpt an image than closely resembles a picture out of a pornographic magazine, then that image would certainly be considered pornographic as well.
Some adults can handle that and some can’t, but kids certainly should not be around such things. So if these things causes others to sin, does the so called artist or poser for such images not have some culpability for this ? I think they do. Maybe not as much as the person who makes such things available to them.
I take pornography as the extreme case. Clearly art from an art class will not fall into that category. BUT if a child or teenager sins from seeing a seemingly more innocent nude image, your intent was not for this to happen. But your work still led another person to sin.
There are “professional pornographers” as well, and clearly they are very culpable for the sins that they invoke in others.
You are looking at it from the artist and models point of view. I am looking at it from the potential audiences view.
Your painting and their posing may not be sinful to either of you at the time, but it can potentially cause someone else to sin down the road.
IF a nude portrait gets sold to a mature individual and it never causes anyone sin against chastity then it is not a problem. BUT if it goes to a public place or even a private home where adolescents or young teenagers commit sins because of it, then that is a different story.
Not all paintings or scuptures is good art, and I think you would agree that some images can be considered pornographic. If anyone paints or sculpt an image than closely resembles a picture out of a pornographic magazine, then that image would certainly be considered pornographic as well.
Some adults can handle that and some can’t, but kids certainly should not be around such things. So if these things causes others to sin, does the so called artist or poser for such images not have some culpability for this ? I think they do. Maybe not as much as the person who makes such things available to them.
I take pornography as the extreme case. Clearly art from an art class will not fall into that category. BUT if a child or teenager sins from seeing a seemingly more innocent nude image, your intent was not for this to happen. But your work still led another person to sin.
There are “professional pornographers” as well, and clearly they are very culpable for the sins that they invoke in others.
H
Ham1
Guest
Aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnd…You nailed it. Well done. This post is right on.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the study and drawing of the naked human form is essential to being able to create beautiful non-nude art. I am sure that many here would love it if liturgical artists of today could begin sculpting pieces like Michelangelo (I know I would). Well in order for them to create art on that level they first must develop a thorough understanding of the human form including studying and drawing naked models.
H
Ham1
Guest
I understand that artists are responsible for their art. But in this post you seem to be saying that because of the possible risk of misuse artists should not produce nude art. Isn’t this inconsistent with the artistic tradition of our Church. I mean, if it was okay for Michelangelo to paint nudes across the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but it would not be okay for a modern artist to do the same in an American cathedral?
W
wcknight
Guest
Actually I am not suggesting that nude art be stopped. I’m saying that artists need to be cognizant their art could cause some one else to sin and so they need to be aware of who gets access to their art especially if their art is on the more risque side.
H
Ham1
Guest
I agree. If their art contains nudity it should certainly be tasteful and not erotic.
B
blessedstar
Guest
What you are now saying here is a perfectly acceptable point of view and I agree with you on this point. Art shouldn’t degrade the human body or it’s dignity nor be sexually explicit. I can assure you I do not produce any works that is ‘pornographic’ in any manner or even art that is ‘risque’. Having said this art is open to the viewers interpretation of it and what was intially intended by the artist may not be how some view a particular work, for example ‘the kiss’ this work shows a young couple kissing, it is not erotic, but beautiful and a human display of acceptable affection but for some it may be interpreted as erotic and as such may be that terrible occassion of sin for them. It is impossible to ‘vet’ peoples minds and the sin most definitely lies with the sinner as it does in any case.
The original posters worry was over nude modelling being sinful and the question of the art content produced wasn’t raised initially. Thank you for raising it as I think it is very valid and there have been many offensives works of art made and the choice here is not to support them by boycotting exhibitions that contain such content and choosing not to purchase such work. To some extent art is a supply and demand game, artists are reduced to painting what people want to buy rather than what they are inspired to paint, very few artists have the luxury of painting purely for their own pleasure and suceeding in making a living out of it.
I would also say that artists must exercise scruples when considering commissions. During my studies we had to consider just what sort of companies and work we would allow to employ our skills for example, tobacco companies etc. Similarly artists must exercise their conscience when considering the nature of the work they are being sort out for by commission.
I’d ask people not to buy works of art that are ‘risque’
B
Balance
Guest
just to clarify - I was never worried about nude modelling being sinful - I don’t believe it is. I was just wanting to start a conversation, see what other people thought.
B
blessedstar
Guest
I am sorry to have misunderstood you. Thank you for the conversation.
A
Arrowood
Guest
Nudity in art is a good thing as long as it shows the beauty of the human person, and does not separate the body from the person (in other words as long as it does not portray the body as a sex object). Our tendency toward lust whenever we view a naked body is a twisted (fallen) sexuality that must be corrected. However, nudity in art must be done with great care.
Nudists forget the other end of the nudity issue. We wear clothes in order to protect ourselves from the lust of others - to protect our dignity as human persons. This protection is not necessary because the body is evil or dirty, but because fallen human beings tend to see each other as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved. To walk around naked in front of strangers is to make ourselves vulnerable to the lust of others, to being objectified. To not be bothered by that means that we have come to see our bodies as separate from our personhood.
Nudists forget the other end of the nudity issue. We wear clothes in order to protect ourselves from the lust of others - to protect our dignity as human persons. This protection is not necessary because the body is evil or dirty, but because fallen human beings tend to see each other as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved. To walk around naked in front of strangers is to make ourselves vulnerable to the lust of others, to being objectified. To not be bothered by that means that we have come to see our bodies as separate from our personhood.
A
Alterum
Guest
I think it’s completely inappropriate. But perhaps you can change my mind…
What is the point of getting someone to remove every article of clothing and model naked in front of you for hours on end so that you can accurately reproduce genitals on a canvas? What is the point of drawing naked people in general? I’ve usually just viewed this as socially-acceptable pornography; after all the moment you go calling something “art” it suddenly ceases to be profane. I don’t want to hijack the thread or anything, but what’s the difference between a nude painting and a nude photograph? Are they both okay/good?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to the artists here who take their nude drawings seriously; it’s fine to have a difference of opinion. I just see no point whatsoever in paintings of naked people, and I think they’re morally equivalent to meticulously-arranged photographs of naked people (when they’re good enough, that’s what they look like). And I certainly wouldn’t look at those.
What is the point of getting someone to remove every article of clothing and model naked in front of you for hours on end so that you can accurately reproduce genitals on a canvas? What is the point of drawing naked people in general? I’ve usually just viewed this as socially-acceptable pornography; after all the moment you go calling something “art” it suddenly ceases to be profane. I don’t want to hijack the thread or anything, but what’s the difference between a nude painting and a nude photograph? Are they both okay/good?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to the artists here who take their nude drawings seriously; it’s fine to have a difference of opinion. I just see no point whatsoever in paintings of naked people, and I think they’re morally equivalent to meticulously-arranged photographs of naked people (when they’re good enough, that’s what they look like). And I certainly wouldn’t look at those.
- Status