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

[Ham1]

Alterum:

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.

For thousands of years artists have studied the human form. A painter needs to know the precise way that the body is put together so that he can accurately portray even clothed characters in his art. A doctor can’t really learn anatomy without studying a naked body and neither can the artist.

As for nudes in art, if it is done appropriately how could it be wrong. We have thousands of nudes in beautiful Churches throughout the world.

I would say that the difference between a painting and a photograph is that one is an interpretation of reality and the other is stark reality there on the page. That being said, I am not sure that I would say that ALL photographs containing nudity are immoral. Imagine a well done photograph of a mother nursing her child. Would it automatically be considered immoral if her breast was exposed???

 

[soccerDad]

I love these sorts of arguments. They draw a clear distinction between those who have been indocrtinated by liberal art programs and maintstream art thinking, and those who have not.

I am an artist, and I’ve got news for you. The assertion that you must draw nude bodies in order to draw clothed ones well is simply wrong. A good artist draws what they see, without having to know what lies beneath. Many great artist never did nudes, nor even went to drawing or painting classes for that matter.

We do not live in the ancient Greek culture, where we do lots of other activities in the nude, and it would only make sense for our art to reflect that. Nudity was not the only Greek contribution to art, nor the most valuable. (Realism, simplicity, elegance…)

We do not live in old paris before the hayday photography, where we can shock the salons by displaying the beauties of our mistressess, and stun the art world by giving them a new and ancient subject.

We live in today’s culture, where nudity is not the norm, and is in fact sexual, or medical. That is why nudity in art is a fun topic. It is titillating and contraversial. “Arteests” will tell you it is essential. And if you buy that, there are thousands of -isms they can sell you too, not to mention too strongly the exhibitionists and homosexuals that seem to gravitate toward the visual arts. But ultimately, it only harms the art community, as the rest of the world bites their lip, and does not consider art to be a serious subject for study.

 

[Alterum]

Ham1:

For thousands of years artists have studied the human form. A painter needs to know the precise way that the body is put together so that he can accurately portray even clothed characters in his art. A doctor can’t really learn anatomy without studying a naked body and neither can the artist.

A painter isn’t a doctor, and as soccerDad pointed out (the post above this one), you are incorrect. Studying human anatomy for a moral purpose – like being a doctor – is fine. I likened painting nudes to photographing nudes because I think both usually serve no moral purpose.

As for nudes in art, if it is done appropriately how could it be wrong. We have thousands of nudes in beautiful Churches throughout the world.

While I don’t necessarily think it’s immoral to have paintings that include nudity in churches, one has to remember that most of these paintings were done long ago, feature as their subjects some religious event, and include nudity only incidentally. I assume that the artists of these sorts of religious paintings did not require nude models standing in the middle of a half-finished church. I think there is quite a large difference, then, between something like this and a painting that features as its subject a naked human body. Such art is just carnal, and modeling nude for it is immoral. Again, it’s just like taking a picture of a naked person posing in front of a camera; the feature is nakedness. Consider as a contrast taking a picture of Adam and Eve (if such a thing were possible); this is the subject of the religious paintings that include a naked Adam and Eve, and I think it’s more morally permissible. Again, the nudity is incidental. Of course, if I were to build a Church today I would avoid nudity in any of the artwork.

I would say that the difference between a painting and a photograph is that one is an interpretation of reality and the other is stark reality there on the page. That being said, I am not sure that I would say that ALL photographs containing nudity are immoral. Imagine a well done photograph of a mother nursing her child. Would it automatically be considered immoral if her breast was exposed???

It probably would not be considered immoral; the purpose is not to exhibit the naked human body, but rather to exhibit the beauty of a mother nursing her child. That said, I must confess that I would see absolutely no point in taking such a picture; the nudity can be easily concealed.

I also just want to make my case again, in slightly more defined terms, that featuring as the subject of artwork a naked human body is generally wrong. Doing so divorces the spirit from the body and sends the message that it is acceptable to view the naked human form for pleasure. That is, after all, why people look at paintings: visual pleasure. I think this is morally harmful because it objectifies a human being. It literally features the naked body as an object in an art gallery. This is ultimately why I think such artwork is pornographic. The naked human body should not be featured in an art gallery; the body is sacred and is part of the entire human person, who is himself the temple of the Holy Spirit. The body should be dignified as such, not diminished to the level of an object in an art gallery.

 

[1281]

To be perfectly honest, if I were married I would not be supportive at all with my wife modelling nude and would be kind of upset if she were okay with me doing it. Marriage is sacred and that means that we should be willing to give some things up for the rest of our lives in order to be married.

Certain ‘liberties’ we might otherwise have with our bodies no longer exist - if they did in the first place.

The rest of this topic seems very complex. The only thing I can definitely say is that if a nude model gets married, I think that it’s wrong for he or she to continue posing - even if the spouse is ‘supportive’ of it. Though painting and sketching might be more anachronistic, there’s ultimately little difference between a married individual modeling in the nude for an artist capturing your image the old-fashioned way and doing a photo shoot. It has to be seen as wrong every time, I think.

Something that you may want to consider in this debate…

If I see a picture (painting, sketch, or photograph) of an attractive naked woman, there will be a part of me that enjoys it. I might be able to consciously combat that aspect of me, but it exists none the less. I think a great majority of other men (and women, regarding their counterpart gender) would admit the same if they were being entirely honest with themselves. While this might be natural I don’t know that it should be wantonly cultivated by art.

I’m not prepared to say that creating fictionalized (i.e. non-photographic) images of a naked man or woman for some specific reasons (like religious iconography from Genesis for example) is inherently evil. But I don’t think that is what we’re dealing with in regards to the issue of a man or woman posing with no clothes on.

-George

 

[blessedstar]

Well strip the Vatican of all it’s nude and semi-nude art work plus do the same at other Churches that house works such as the Pieta; then clothe Jesus Who is half-naked on every Crucifix and then proclaim the naked human body evil and anyone who studies it and draws it the worst of sinners…

 

[Ham1]

A painter isn’t a doctor, and as soccerDad pointed out (the post above this one), you are incorrect. Studying human anatomy for a moral purpose – like being a doctor – is fine. I likened painting nudes to photographing nudes because I think both usually serve no moral purpose.

I’m not saying a painter is a doctor. Studying a nude human figure for the purpose of learning to draw can be a moral purpose just like being a doctor. Viewing of a naked person is not in itself evil. It is a neutral moral act and in order to evaluate it we most examine the intention and circumstance surrounding such a viewing.

It probably would not be considered immoral; the purpose is not to exhibit the naked human body, but rather to exhibit the beauty of a mother nursing her child. That said, I must confess that I would see absolutely no point in taking such a picture; the nudity can be easily concealed.

And we could easily go back and paint leaves on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in order to conceal the nudity.

It seems that there is a good bit of American puritanism creeping into our attitudes here. I say if tasteful non-erotic nudity in art was good enough throughout the history of the Church, then it’s good enough for today as well. Maybe we all need to learn to appreciate the pure beauty of God’s greatest creation rather than always avoiding any glimpse of the human form lest temptation occur. After all, we could advocate that the no part of the human body ever be drawn of painted except the face and hands. We could advocate that clothing be drawn in such a way as to cloak the shape of the body. If we did this, I am sure that such art would necessarily lead to fewer temptations, but at what cost?

 

[Benedictus]

Ham1:

It seems that there is a good bit of American puritanism creeping into our attitudes here. I say if tasteful non-erotic nudity in art was good enough throughout the history of the Church, then it’s good enough for today as well. Maybe we all need to learn to appreciate the pure beauty of God’s greatest creation rather than always avoiding any glimpse of the human form lest temptation occur.

When the Sistine Chapel was being restored, didn’t Pope John Paul order the removal of “coverings” that had been added by prudes after the original frescos were completed?

Nudity in works of art can be a good thing, whether they be paintings, statues, or photographs. I believe it can promote a healthy view of the body.

After all, we could advocate that the no part of the human body ever be drawn of painted except the face and hands. We could advocate that clothing be drawn in such a way as to cloak the shape of the body.

But, as pornographers learned long ago, the face is one of the most alluring parts of the body. Clearly faces must be covered too!

 

[soccerDad]

Anyone listen to Paul Harvey today?

There is a night club in Boisy Idaho with naked dancers. Dancing naked is illegal there, but the owner stands at the front door and hands out paper and pencils. He says the girls are not dancers, and it is not a nightclub. They are models, and he holds art classes every night.

 

[blessedstar]

Ham1:

It seems that there is a good bit of American puritanism creeping into our attitudes here.

Well said to all of your post, but the one part that has stood out to me is that part quoted above, I have noticed on many threads an unsettling trend in some terms used and it does appear that quite a few opinions on many topics are as you say ‘puritanical’. I’m all for people being zealous about their faith, but people can go to extremes and I don’t make this comment only about some of the comments in this thread but in a high percentage of threads on the entire forum.

I find this quite alarming.

 

[blessedstar]

soccerDad:

Anyone listen to Paul Harvey today?

There is a night club in Boisy Idaho with naked dancers. Dancing naked is illegal there, but the owner stands at the front door and hands out paper and pencils. He says the girls are not dancers, and it is not a nightclub. They are models, and he holds art classes every night.

So what’s your point?

This has nothing to do with a legitemate study of the human form, it doesn’t take a genius to know those folks aren’t interested in drawing.

 

[MeaCulpa]

The only art class that would pick me to model nekkid would be one for comedic cartoonists I am a walking poster child for the effects of gravity on the human body.

DaveBj

Many, many, many years ago I was taking art classes at college. One weekend we went to a workshop by a famous sculpter who specialized in life sized bronzes of nudes, some of which appear in the courtyards of city buildings here.

Well there were about 18 of us in the class, of all ages, and I was the oldest and had had four children by then. One of his classes was life drawing which I really wanted to take. But there was a condition. Not just the model was nude we all had to be nude. I struggled with this and then taking my largest sketch pad in front of me, I went in to participate, figured I could hide some of me most of the time.

The class was excellent - our model was an overweight young women and I tell you the most fun one can sketch - skinny ones have no shadows or folds or light and dark contrasts to make it interesting.

All through the class the instructor reinforced how beautiful ALL human bodies were and that they were ALL God’s creations and not man’s and that we should not be trying to model them after any image that man is projecting on us as perfection as we are all perfect in God’s eyes. Wow.

Then at the end, he lined us up, tallest in the center, and descending on each side, everyone, and before the class I would have laughed at each of us because stripped of our clothing, none of us looked the same but by this time we all felt beautiful and he kept telling us how we were. Then he did a bas relief of us, cast it in Bronze and it appears over the door of a courthouse in a small town in this state.

So I don’t see obscenity in nudity. What is obscene is that false ideal that the media and hollywood and playboy magazine, etc. etc. has tried to foist on us that we must all look like that to be beautiful - that we must make every effort in diet and exercise and plastic surgery to change into something else. God created us in HIS image and we are all perfect as we are in his sight and that is what really matters.

 

[Alterum]

blessedstar:

Well strip the Vatican of all it’s nude and semi-nude art work plus do the same at other Churches that house works such as the Pieta; then clothe Jesus Who is half-naked on every Crucifix and then proclaim the naked human body evil and anyone who studies it and draws it the worst of sinners…

Come, that’s hardly what I was suggesting. I would leave those paintings how they are; however, if I were building a church I would refrain from using nudity in any of the paintings. Nor have I called anyone a sinner. Let’s return to the discussion instead of setting up these sort of ad hominem straw men. For the reasons I’ve already stated, I think modeling nude is wrong.

 

[Alterum]

Ham1:

I’m not saying a painter is a doctor. Studying a nude human figure for the purpose of learning to draw can be a moral purpose just like being a doctor. Viewing of a naked person is not in itself evil. It is a neutral moral act and in order to evaluate it we most examine the intention and circumstance surrounding such a viewing.

A doctor studies human anatomy to save lives. That’s an ostensibly moral purpose. What is the moral purpose of a painter staring at naked people? So that he can draw better naked people? That’s not a moral purpose.

And we could easily go back and paint leaves on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in order to conceal the nudity.

Again, this is not something I would advocate.

It seems that there is a good bit of American puritanism creeping into our attitudes here. I say if tasteful non-erotic nudity in art was good enough throughout the history of the Church, then it’s good enough for today as well. Maybe we all need to learn to appreciate the pure beauty of God’s greatest creation rather than always avoiding any glimpse of the human form lest temptation occur. After all, we could advocate that the no part of the human body ever be drawn of painted except the face and hands. We could advocate that clothing be drawn in such a way as to cloak the shape of the body. If we did this, I am sure that such art would necessarily lead to fewer temptations, but at what cost?

Sigh, I devoted quite a bit of time to trying to make it clear that the nudity in Church art is very different from nudity in secular art, in general.

I really have a problem with this view being called “puritanical.” Nowhere did I justify the removal of nudity in art because it is a temptation (although I think this is fine justification in many instances). I said it objectifies the human person when the purpose of an artwork is merely to put the naked human body on display. No one has yet addressed this argument, which I think is quite valid.

 

[Alterum]

Benedictus:

Nudity in works of art can be a good thing, whether they be paintings, statues, or photographs. I believe it can promote a healthy view of the body.

How does it promote a healthy view of the body? Proper catechesis promotes a healthy view of the human body, not pictures of naked people.

 

[Alterum]

blessedstar:

I’m all for people being zealous about their faith, but people can go to extremes and I don’t make this comment only about some of the comments in this thread but in a high percentage of threads on the entire forum.

I find this quite alarming.

I find the reverse alarming: a lax attitude toward modesty and sin in our culture.

In any event, how are we going to extremes? My main position is that artwork – whether it’s video, photographic, sculpture, or paint – which features as its subject the naked human body is inappropriate.

 

[Alterum]

MeaCulpa:

Well there were about 18 of us in the class, of all ages, and I was the oldest and had had four children by then. One of his classes was life drawing which I really wanted to take. But there was a condition. Not just the model was nude we all had to be nude. I struggled with this and then taking my largest sketch pad in front of me, I went in to participate, figured I could hide some of me most of the time.

Well I just think that shouldn’t have been done. Maybe I’m alone in this. Does anyone else think people of all ages gathering in a room and stripping for no other purpose is wrong? Anyone? (And I don’t care that what your instructor was saying was good; what he was doing was not good, in my opinion.)

 

[blessedstar]

Alterum:

I find the reverse alarming: a lax attitude toward modesty and sin in our culture.

In any event, how are we going to extremes? My main position is that artwork – whether it’s video, photographic, sculpture, or paint – which features as its subject the naked human body is inappropriate.

From the way you tell it nudity in any artistic form is offensive, that to my mind is extremist. I would say some nude artwork is offensive, but for me then it ceases to be art and is pornography.

The way you tell it the sight of the naked human body is bad and will turn others bad by seeing it and the connotations of this is that therefore the human body is bad. The human body is not bad and if the finer lines of decency within naked art cannot be perceived by yourself then there is nothing further for you and I personally to discuss. You have drawn your line and never should a naked body be represented in art work. That’s your opinion, you are entitled to it, but to my mind it is puritanical and misses the beauty of the human form altogether.

There is not a parent alive who has not taken a picture of their child having fun splashing in the bath, by your reckoning that is inappropriate. I say it is innocent because the intent is innocent.

If you feel so strongly about it perhaps you would request that naked human images be withdrawn from your Church, that’s every Crucifix, every Pieta, every Cherub, every image of Adam and Eve etc etc removed immediately and if you desire to clarify the Churches teaching on displaying such images I suggest you ask a Priest.

They say art work tells more about the viewer than it does about the subject matter as every piece of art is personally interpreted and I think that this has been clearly demonstrated in this thread.

In a friendly manner we will just have to agree to disagree

 

[MeaCulpa]

Well I just think that shouldn’t have been done. Maybe I’m alone in this. Does anyone else think people of all ages gathering in a room and stripping for no other purpose is wrong? Anyone? (And I don’t care that what your instructor was saying was good; what he was doing was not good, in my opinion.)

Well you are indeed intitled to your opinion - all were adults and no one was forced to particpate - unless you are an artist, you have no way of identifying with the way we view the body - it is detached from any sensual or sexual connotations. If it were otherwise, then I would say refrain from life drawing or painting.

When I go to Mass, I am modestly dressed and disgusted by some of the fashions of today - that that is not what art is about. The poses are not pornographic and in some instances are not even revealing because posture can hide more than some of today’s clothing does.

 

[Narcissa]

Your ignorance of the process is showing.

People don’t just walk naked into a room and/or stand there and start stripping. The model enters the studio, usually wearing a robe, assumes the post the artist instructs them to assume, then disrobes.

You people have dirty minds.

 

[blessedstar]

Narcissa:

People don’t just walk naked into a room and/or stand there and start stripping. The model enters the studio, usually wearing a robe, assumes the post the artist instructs them to assume, then disrobes.

You are right in what you say and I don’t think people understand the professionalism under which life drawing is undertaken and as for the ‘dirty minds’ part of your post I agree; a person’s sins begin in their own minds not anyone else’s. Thank you for your post.