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

[Sean.McKenzie]

blessedstar:

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.

I do not care how you dress it up!! This is wrong. you should not be seeing someone nude without either, you being a doctor or the naked person is your wife/husband etc, you can’t justify it. You referred to the person being “offended” “if” they were looked upon in a less than “professional” way.

 

[Alterum]

blessedstar –

It is fine to disagree – and indeed we do – but you continually misrepresent my position. I don’t want to keep stating the same thing over and over again. Let me just quote my earlier post:

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.

I have no problem discussing this but it’s impossible for me to address your refutations because you’re refuting imaginary points. I certainly don’t think these things should be removed from churches, and again, I have not used as justification for removing nudity from art the fact that it will cause temptation. I don’t think the human body is bad at all. Really, this is rather frustrating; I hardly believe any of what you portrayed me as believing. I think you have a general conception of the beliefs of people who want to remove nudity from art, and you’re projecting that onto me with only minimal consideration for the points I actually bring up in my posts. Since I seemingly don’t hold views that you consider puritanical, you have given no reason to call what I beleive "puritanical.: I can only assume that you don’t understand what I believe with regard to nudity in art.

MeaCulpa –

The naked body is itself a sexual thing; there is no way to detach that aspect of humanity that we call sexuality from the human person.

Narcissa –

You too, please read my entire post, and what I’m responding to. My problem was with the entire art class disrobing “for no other purpose,” which is precisely what happened. Also, the implications of the statement, “You people have dirty minds” are not very pleasant. Do I think a group of people stripping in front of each other (nevermind the model) for the sake of “art” is generally a dirty affair? Yes I do; I don’t see how this implies that I have a dirty mind.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Alterum:

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.)

THANK YOU!!!

 

[blessedstar]

The naked body is a sexual ‘thing’ (and I don’t like the use of that word, ‘thing’) if it is viewed that way by the viewer. Personally I don’t think the naked human body is a sexual ‘thing’.

This all comes down to how people perceive nudity and the possible occassion of sin it may be for some people and as I’ve already stated a person who finds the sight of the naked human form an occassion for sin had better avoid that, but no way should one persons problems with viewing naked humans, in the course of creating art, be the norm for everyone who does not find this an occassion for sin. I have not stated everyone should view the naked human body, I have stated avoid doing that if it is an occassion of sin for** you**.

I am afraid no person can think for another in this manner if the occassion for sin is not present for another.

 

[Alterum]

blessedstar –

Again, my point is not that nude artwork is an occasion of sin (although I think it certainly can be); it’s that it objectifies a human person by presenting his body, quite literally, as an object in an art gallery.

As you said earlier, we will respectfully agree to disagree. May your work as an artist continue to be fruitful

 

[ExMotuAquinas]

Sean.McKenzie:

I do not care how you dress it up!! This is wrong. you should not be seeing someone nude without either, you being a doctor or the naked person is your wife/husband etc, you can’t justify it. You referred to the person being “offended” “if” they were looked upon in a less than “professional” way.

What about gang showers for PE class, organized sports, or certain living situations? I was a Benedictine monk for a short time and the shower in the Novitiate was a “gang shower” (six shower heads in one room with no dividers). Often myself, the socius of novices, and the novice master would happen to be in the shower at the same time. The socius used to clean the shower without any clothes on and I did the same. We always cleaned the shower last in the whole novitate so that we could take a shower when we were done with the cleaning. I see nothing wrong with any of that.

The late Pope John Paul II after he had the Sistene Chapel renovated (and the loin cloths, fig leaves removed from most of the nudes) said that we shouldn’t be so prudish regarding the human body: “the great humility of the body must be expressed so that what is divine can be revealed,” and “God is the source of the integral beauty of the body.” (quoted by G. Weigel in WITNESS TO HOPE p. 714.) The late Pope was speaking about this wonderful work of art and it is very difficult to learn to draw the human body very realistically without using a live model.

 

[Coder]

m134e5:

The human body is indeed a beautiful creation and if the intent of the art is to appreciate that- but not lust…

Yes, but why must it be nude to be appreciated? Why couldn’t it be just as well appreciated with a bathing suit on for example? I’m not presuming the answer, I ask the question sincerely.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

blessedstar:

The naked body is a sexual ‘thing’ (and I don’t like the use of that word, ‘thing’) if it is viewed that way by the viewer. Personally I don’t think the naked human body is a sexual ‘thing’.

This all comes down to how people perceive nudity and the possible occassion of sin it may be for some people and as I’ve already stated a person who finds the sight of the naked human form an occassion for sin had better avoid that, but no way should one persons problems with viewing naked humans, in the course of creating art, be the norm for everyone who does not find this an occassion for sin. I have not stated everyone should view the naked human body, I have stated avoid doing that if it is an occassion of sin for** you**.

I am afraid no person can think for another in this manner if the occassion for sin is not present for another.

You are starting to stray into realitivism! It may be that there might be 1 out of a million that it does not put into their minds any thoughts that are impure. The way we are speaking about it of course, via"art"

 

[Alterum]

ExMotuAquinas:

What about gang showers for PE class, organized sports, or certain living situations?

I’m pretty sure that the gentleman meant that you shouldn’t be seeing someone of the opposite sex nude, save for some exceptions. There’s nothing wrong with single-sex gang showers.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

Balance:

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 would say that the individual you were arguing with was in the wrong to be arguing with you about “Your friend is immoral.” At least that is the impression I was given on it. It sounds a bit like gossipping. If that individual is concerned about your friend’s behavior, that person should express their concerns, if appropriate, to the person engaging in the questionable behavior.

We should concern ourselves with other people’s sins only if it is done in general concern for that individual’s spiritual well-being.

In my opinion, I find the area questionable and I would not be comfortable doing it. It would make me feel vulnerable and I would feel at fault for any man’s lustful look at me regardless that the purpose of it was for art. For me, nudity means volunerability and it is an aspect of myself I leave hidden and unexplored except to perhaps my spouse (of which I have none and so it remains hidden).

However, claiming that your friend is completely chaste is likely wrong. None of us are completely chaste. Chastity is a virtue, not a behavior and there is a constant battle in our hearts between the virtue of chastity and the vice of lust.

I did have a friend who took part in a nude painting glass. He told me that one of his friend’s posed nude and that at first, because our society has sexualized the body so much, he had difficulty moving beyond it for the first day or so. After awhile, he did get used to it and learned to not view her body as a sexual object. I’d say to do this you’d have to be very cautious and would have to pray about it only because our society has a tendency to associate almost all nudity with the sexual act (and mainly with abuses of the sexual act). It is difficult to remove that from our mind.

But it is true that other historical cultures did not have a problem with this. For instance, it used to be a tradition that when adults were baptised that they were stripped of their clothing first, symbolizing the stripping of sin from themselves. They were then baptised in a large pool of water and afterward clothed in white garmets. No one associated the nudity with sex, and so it was not a problem. But in our culture and in this day and age, so much has been associated with sex that we often have to be overcautous with people that one simple gesture might be taken as a sexual advance.

 

[blessedstar]

Sean.McKenzie:

You are starting to stray into realitivism! It may be that there might be 1 out of a million that it does not put into their minds any thoughts that are impure. The way we are speaking about it of course, via"art"

I’m not being relativist. That is not the correct interpretation of relativism, the way people use relativism is to condone their sin once committed and remember a sin is not a sin unless a soul knows it to be so and still commits the sin plus the other two conditions to have committed mortal sin. However what I was speaking of was the occassion of sin and if it is not an occassion of sin for someone then they need not avoid drawing from life models or viewing pieces of artwork that celebrate the beauty of the human form, however if it would be an occassion of sin for them then** they ** had better avoid it.

As for the rest of the thread it is apparent that there is a great struggle between a healthy view of the human body and seeing it as a temptation to sin or indeed in some cases has been called the cause of sin. This is an excuse, no-one makes another person sin! We all have the choice whether to sin or not and we choose.

Somewhere in Sacred Scripture (Corinthians I think) we are advised to run from sexual sin. We are not told to blame the human body for it nor the person to whom the body belongs, we personally are told to run from it, so that is what those must do who suffer from temptations like this, but those who do suffer this way cannot think for those who do not suffer from such temptations.

However you can be gladly reassured that every soul suffers temptation and all have a particular weakness but not all suffer as to be tempted by the human body or tempted to sin by viewing a piece of artwork containing the human body and this must not be compared to ‘pornography’ because I have stated before if it is not tasteful nude artwork then it ceases to be artwork and is pornography.

The human body is not reduced to an ‘object’ by the fact the body is painted, sculpted etc, this could be said of Christ as depicted on the Crucifix if this were the case, it could be said then that Christ had been reduced to an object. I haven’t heard anyone ever refer to Christ’s Image on the Cross as an object. Seeing as we are the Body of Christ in His Church how then are we too reduced to objects painted or not? How does the recording of the human body in the 2D or 3D media cause it to become an object? It is that the human mind causes it to be as such and this is where the sin resides, in the human mind that attributes such a degrading status as ‘object’ upon drawn/sculped etc human body which is the Tabernacle of the Holy Trinity.

This is seriously disturbing for me to consider and makes me wonder what we are allowing to take place in the world when people cannot look upon the human form without seeing such beauty and the height of God’s creation and thus turn from that and call it an ‘object’!!!

People need to re-address the human body and the use of the human body in order to appreciate it and I suggest that all people read Pope John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the Body’ in order to appreciate it and stop looking upon it as purely a vessel of sin and view it as God’s creation to house our spiritual souls and His indwelling.

The sin resides in the mind of the sinner and if not brushed aside and avoided then manifests and no-one is to blame but the sinner, or should we all be like Adam and Eve and blame each other for our sins instead of accepting that we are weak and it is our own fault that caused us to sin and no-one else’s?

We are all sinners and we all have a responsibility to avoid sin. The planet cannot be stripped of everything that may be an occassion of sin for some people, so we must learn to deal with our weaknesses by fixing our will upon doing God’s will and pray for God’s grace so that we may do His will.

This thread is about modelling for an art class and it has strayed off topic a bit, but nonetheless the discussion has been interesting and I am glad our late Pontiff broke into new ground and addressed the human body as one of his major works of his pontificate as I believe that Catholics have avoided this topic for many centuries and have preffered to call the body shameful and bad, truly it isn’t, it is the thoughts of mankind about the body that are shameful and have misrepresented the human body. God Himself said ‘It is good’

 

[Ham1]

In answer to those who object to the puritanism label…

It seems that some here believe that nudity has some inherent “evil” qualities. A couple of poster have stated that nudity in the study of medicine is moral because the doctor has a moral purpose and that somehow the same act in the pursuit of art is morally evil.

In order for this to be true in the case of the doctor, then “study of the naked human form” must be a morally good or at the very least morally neutral act. In the case of the doctor there is a morally good intention as well. Put the 2 together and as long as there are no evil circumstances in the mix, then the act of studying the naked form for medicine is clearly a morally good act.

If we use the same analysis with an artist, we can arrive at the same conclusion. 1. “study of the naked human form” is morally good/neutral. 2. The intention of the artist is good i.e. learn the human form in order to create art which gives glory to God. Again, so long as there are no evil circumstances (sexually suggestive pose, etc.) then we can conclude that just like with the doctor, this is a morally good act.

Where puritanism comes in is this…in order to posit that the actions of the doctor are moral and the artist immoral, one has to assume that the state of being naked carries some type of evil along with it and that the only way that such evil can be tolerated is for a sufficient reason. This is problematic because it presumes that one can tolerate something evil for a good reason.

I think it’s worth noting that this country has always been fairly intolerant of nudity whereas in Europe there is a long artistic tradition that accepts nudity in a non-sexual way. I think it’s interesting to note that given the identification of nudity with sexuality in America, there are probably works of art that would be considered morally problematic here that would not be an issue in Europe. This is not to be relativistic but just to note that when dealing with a culture certain things could be considered sexual in one culture and non-sexual in another. Certainly, we can see that int the development of bathing suits over the years.

 

[Alterum]

blessedstar:

The human body is not reduced to an ‘object’ by the fact the body is painted, sculpted etc, this could be said of Christ as depicted on the Crucifix if this were the case, it could be said then that Christ had been reduced to an object. I haven’t heard anyone ever refer to Christ’s Image on the Cross as an object. Seeing as we are the Body of Christ in His Church how then are we too reduced to objects painted or not? How does the recording of the human body in the 2D or 3D media cause it to become an object? It is that the human mind causes it to be as such and this is where the sin resides, in the human mind that attributes such a degrading status as ‘object’ upon drawn/sculped etc human body which is the Tabernacle of the Holy Trinity.

You continually fail to see my point. Of course a crucifix does not present Jesus’ body as an object because the purpose of a crucifix – as art – is to see our Lord suffering for our sins. The crucifix does not present as its theme a naked human body. Again (and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to repeat these words), any art whose object is the naked human body is, by definition, objectifying the human person. The object of a crucifix is the suffering of Christ (at least), not a naked human body. Seeing Christ suffering in artwork is not objectifying Christ; it’s presenting a full religious reality of the person of Christ. Seeing a piece of artwork whose purpose is merely to present a naked person is doing nothing more than objectifying that person by putting his/her body on display for the rest of the world to admire.

Since I’ve seen no refutation of this point so far, I still maintain it forcefully.

 

[blessedstar]

Alterum:

You continually fail to see my point. Of course a crucifix does not present Jesus’ body as an object because the purpose of a crucifix – as art – is to see our Lord suffering for our sins. The crucifix does not present as its theme a naked human body. Again (and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to repeat these words), any art whose object is the naked human body is, by definition, objectifying the human person. The object of a crucifix is the suffering of Christ (at least), not a naked human body. Seeing Christ suffering in artwork is not objectifying Christ; it’s presenting a full religious reality of the person of Christ. Seeing a piece of artwork whose purpose is merely to present a naked person is doing nothing more than objectifying that person by putting his/her body on display for the rest of the world to admire.

Since I’ve seen no refutation of this point so far, I still maintain it forcefully.

You maintain that point because that is the way **you ** see a drawing of a naked human body. Not all share your interpretation. By the way Christ is almost naked on the Cross. If you do not see Christ as an ‘object’ upon a Crucifix I would like you to further explain the mental leap of seeing another human being who bears the face of Christ (made in His image and likeness) as an ‘object’.

 

[Celeste88]

As a former art student who drew from live models I don’t see anything wrong with it. The models are in natural poses and not in any “lewd” poses. Models of both sexes (although I noticed most often female) all ages and shapes and sizes are used so that the student recognizes the diversity of the human body. At one point I thought of making some extra money doing art modeling but decided against it as I am too shy. The intent of the modeling is for educational purposes and not for sinful purposes.

 

[Alterum]

Ham1:

If we use the same analysis with an artist, we can arrive at the same conclusion. 1. “study of the naked human form” is morally good/neutral. 2. The intention of the artist is good i.e. learn the human form in order to create art which gives glory to God. Again, so long as there are no evil circumstances (sexually suggestive pose, etc.) then we can conclude that just like with the doctor, this is a morally good act.

I would argue, as I’ve been doing, that the art does not give glory to God. Let me make this even simpler, however:

1. The mere act of seeing someone naked is morally neutral.
2. The act of objectifying someone is morally evil.

 

[Alterum]

blessedstar:

You maintain that point because that is the way **you **see a drawing of a naked human body. Not all share your interpretation. By the way Christ is almost naked on the Cross. If you do not see Christ as an ‘object’ upon a Crucifix I would like you to further explain the mental leap of seeing another human being who bears the face of Christ (made in His image and likeness) as an ‘object’.

I maintain that, by definition, any art whose primary object is the naked human body is objectifying the human person.

I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere. Let’s agree to disagree

 

[blessedstar]

Alterum:

Let’s agree to disagree

ok

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

blessedstar:

I’m not being relativist. That is not the correct interpretation of relativism, the way people use relativism is to condone their sin once committed and remember a sin is not a sin unless a soul knows it to be so and still commits the sin plus the other two conditions to have committed mortal sin. However what I was speaking of was the occassion of sin and if it is not an occassion of sin for someone then they need not avoid drawing from life models or viewing pieces of artwork that celebrate the beauty of the human form, however if it would be an occassion of sin for them

then** they **had better avoid it…

Nec laudibus, nec timore!

Do you believe that there is absolutely no way that you could be tempted when viewing a nude person from the opposite sex, who is not your spouse? If you say yes then I say you should be free to do this nude “art” but if not then you have already answered for yourself the morality or nude “art” Since we are human, we are born with concupiscence, therefore this situation should be considered a near occasion of sin for anyone including yourself. No one here is perfect, if that were the case then I would say nude “art” should be encouraged, however since this is not the case, and we are imperfect then you must keep away from it.

Furthermore, I have not read anywhere in this thread where people are saying that the naked body is bad, I have rather seen people making excellent points about it being a great thing given the proper context. Be careful about becoming prideful, in thinking you are exempt form near occasions of sin, please stop misrepresenting the rest of the posters on this side of the debate including mine. We are not “prudes” but rather prudent, we ared not puritans or followers of angelism (read Christopher West’s “”Good news about sex and marriage”) but rather we are admitting or shortcoming and our imperfect nature. God Bless you

The issue for modeling nude for “art” is immoral case closed!!

 

[Benedictus]

Sean.McKenzie:

The issue for modeling nude for “art” is immoral case closed!!

[sarcasm]
Thanks for settling the issue. We needed someone to step in and pronounce the matter resolved.
[/sarcasm]