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

[blessedstar]

wcknight:

I think any painting of Our Lady that is remotely suggestive would be an insult and outrage, even one in which she is “only” nursing Our Lord. It may be a completely innocent and natural thing for mothers to do, BUT such moments are and should be private.

Our Lady has always been the model for chastity and purity. To produce or display an image that is contrary to that would not only be highly provocative, but would in my opinion be sacriligious.

I would categorize such a thing as smut and trash, and place it on the same level as the image of the crucifix in a bed pan.

Why is it a private thing to feed a baby? It is the most natural thing in the world and there’s nothing smutty about it. God had no problem in placing His lips upon His Mother’s breast and feeding from her as millions of babies around the world do everyday with their mother’s.

Perhaps you would like to consider whether this is something the viewer is struggling with rather than the actual act of feeding a baby being smutty?

I’d like to see how the conversation goes if a sinner stands before God and they say, ‘A woman had her breast revealed feeding her baby and that caused me to sin, it’s just pure smut’

If a woman flirts with a married man not knowing he is married and he responds and they end up having sex, then calls his wife and says ‘It wasn’t my fault, she threw herself at me!’…please! It was his fault.

I think there is alot of displaced blame here. I think people should own their own sins instead of looking to the human body to blame that for all the things they may do. It’s so much easier to blame someone else isn’t it?

 

[snoopy]

blessedstar:

Why is it a private thing to feed a baby? It is the most natural thing in the world and there’s nothing smutty about it. God had no problem in placing His lips upon His Mother’s breast and feeding from her as millions of babies around the world do everyday with their mother’s.

Perhaps you would like to consider whether this is something the viewer is struggling with rather than the actual act of feeding a baby being smutty?

I’d like to see how the conversation goes if a sinner stands before God and they say, ‘A woman had her breast revealed feeding her baby and that caused me to sin, it’s just pure smut’

If a woman flirts with a married man not knowing he is married and he responds and they end up having sex, then calls his wife and says ‘It wasn’t my fault, she threw herself at me!’…please! It was his fault.

I think there is alot of displaced blame here. I think people should own their own sins instead of looking to the human body to blame that for all the things they may do. It’s so much easier to blame someone else isn’t it?

Bravo, Well said!!!

 

[Ham1]

wcknight:

I think any painting of Our Lady that is remotely suggestive would be an insult and outrage, even one in which she is “only” nursing Our Lord. It may be a completely innocent and natural thing for mothers to do, BUT such moments are and should be private.

Our Lady has always been the model for chastity and purity. To produce or display an image that is contrary to that would not only be highly provocative, but would in my opinion be sacriligious.

I would categorize such a thing as smut and trash, and place it on the same level as the image of the crucifix in a bed pan.

Wow. Not a fan of breastfeeding, huh? This definitely cements my theory posted above that people are strongly influenced by American Puritanism and it’s view of the human body. Ironically, your attitude toward nursing is a modern development that has gone hand in hand with the sexual revolution. For thousands of years people all over the world nursed their babies…even in public! It was only recently in the last century that women’s breast became primarily viewed as sexual.

I suppose you would advocate the destruction of icons and painting of the Blessed Mother going back to the first centuries because they do not conform with your modern 20th century view of modesty.

 

[wcknight]

No paintings or icons I know of have the Blessed Mother revealing anything. I have no problems with folks breast feeding. I would prefer that they do so discreetly. Most people do.

In art, you can paint them as you please, BUT please refrain from “art” with the Madonna and Jesus from these images. As far as I know it has not been done before, and I think most Catholics would prefer that it remain that way.

 

[Ham1]

wcknight:

No paintings or icons I know of have the Blessed Mother revealing anything. I have no problems with folks breast feeding. I would prefer that they do so discreetly. Most people do.

In art, you can paint them as you please, BUT please refrain from “art” with the Madonna and Jesus from these images. As far as I know it has not been done before, and I think most Catholics would prefer that it remain that way.

Actually, it has been done that way and for a long long time.

Here are some links to icons and painting of the Blessed Virgin with a partially or fully exposed breast. Not all of these are Our Lady. As you’ll see most of these works are from before the 18th century so their not exactly modern. Many are also quite beautiful and symbolic of the Mother who gives life to us all.

breastfeeding.com/art_gallery/art_gallery_index.html

 

[wcknight]

Ham1:

Actually, it has been done that way and for a long long time.

Here are some links to icons and painting of the Blessed Virgin with a partially or fully exposed breast. Not all of these are Our Lady. As you’ll see most of these works are from before the 18th century so their not exactly modern. Many are also quite beautiful and symbolic of the Mother who gives life to us all.

breastfeeding.com/art_gallery/art_gallery_index.html

Too bad, sorry to hear folks back then were just as sacriligious as they are today. That’s unfortunate, I think it’s disrespectful and borderline obscene if not outright obscene.

No matter how “beautiful” it may appear to be, I think it is inappropriate. You would think folks would be a bit more reverent toward “the Mother who gives life to us all”.

But that’s just me, I’m old fashioned in that sort of way.

 

[blessedstar]

wcknight:

Too bad, sorry to hear folks back then were just as sacriligious as they are today. That’s unfortunate, I think it’s disrespectful and borderline obscene if not outright obscene.

No matter how “beautiful” it may appear to be, I think it is inappropriate. You would think folks would be a bit more reverent toward “the Mother who gives life to us all”.

But that’s just me, I’m old fashioned in that sort of way.

Why is breast-feeding obscene? Why is the Blessed Mother feeding Jesus obscene or sacrilegious? Why is it irreverent?

Your view isn’t ‘old-fashioned’, I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t old fashioned. My grandfather praised me for breastfeeding my child. He is 98 years old faithful Catholic, he said in his day as a young man it was the norm to see women breast-feeding their babies not like today feeding them on cows milk that doesn’t provide everything they need.

I don’t know why you have formed the opinion you have but seeing as you have expressed it you might like to explain it and back it up with some Church teaching as I am at a loss to understand you and I’d really like to understand you.

The safest place in the world is at the Mother’s breast. The love exchanged between mother and child and the increase in bond between mother and child because of breast-feeding is not only emotional but also a scientific fact, the mother releases a hormone only released when breast-feeding that creates a greater feeling of love and attachment to the child. God didn’t design women’s breasts as a sexual object, He made them produce milk for women to feed their babies and I don’t see why anyone should be ashamed of feeding their baby wherever they are. The people who should be ashamed are those that objectify the female breast as purely an object that they blame for their lack of control of their desires and passions.

The blame lies with the sinner.

 

[Ham1]

wcknight:

Too bad, sorry to hear folks back then were just as sacriligious as they are today. That’s unfortunate, I think it’s disrespectful and borderline obscene if not outright obscene.

No matter how “beautiful” it may appear to be, I think it is inappropriate. You would think folks would be a bit more reverent toward “the Mother who gives life to us all”.

But that’s just me, I’m old fashioned in that sort of way.

Well, I guess you just don’t agree with the artistic tradition of the Church.

But I wouldn’t call that old-fashioned, it’s really quite a modern attitude with more in common with 1950’s America than the traditions of Christianity. For most of the last 5,000 years the female breast was first and foremost for a mother to feed her child. Somewhere in the mixed up 20th century, it became a sexual object to be hidden away - not a very healthy attitude if you ask me.

 

[Alterum]

Ham1:

This is exactly what I mean by puritan influence. Our Lady nursing the Child Jesus is inappropriate. Our Lady feeding and nurturing Our Lord as God the Father designed??? It seems you have been tainted by a warped American culture that decided back in the 1930’s that nursing was gross and inappropriate and that the female breast is only a sexual object and therefore dirty.

Why would you think that such art would be inappropriate?

Well, I hardly think I’ve been “tainted.” Ham, I would request that we focus on the points I raised rather than criticizing my personal taste in art. Yes, I think the Blessed Virgin with a breast exposed would not be appropriate to hang on a wall. That’s not the issue here, however, and I would love it if SOMEONE at least tried to address my points.

 

[Alterum]

FOLKS –

Paintings of the Blessed Virgin with her breast exposed are not the major issue here. wcknight and I both think these sorts of paintings would be on some level inappropriate today. Bathing is a natural thing too, you know, as is sex. It doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to go ahead and paint people doing either. I absolutely RESENT this implication that we’re dirty-minded or that we think the body is dirty because we think such paintings are inappropriate. Neither of us believes that the body is “dirty” and I am FED UP with this notion being continually thrust upon us. PLEASE STOP.

Deep breath.

What is at issue – oh how I hope against hope that this will be addressed – is that nude portraits objectify the human person. Objectifying someone is unequivocally wrong. By “nude portrait,” I mean a painting whose subject is the naked adult human body, NOT – I repeat, NOT – a painting that contains nudes but whose subject is religious (or something else) in nature. I have stated and restated my reasoning and I’m not going to do it again.

Now, to simplify this, let me make just one statement to start: There is morally no difference at all between looking at a realist painting of a naked person and looking at a photograph of that naked person in the exact same context (the two should look virtually identical according to the artist’s abilities). Does everyone agree with this?

 

[vz71]

There are many functions of our body that I simply do not want to see in public.
That does not make them evil, or immoral.
It just means that there are some things I would rather not watch.
How about waste removal? Once we finish telling everyone that breastfeeding is natural therefore there should be nothing wrong with doing it in public, are we going to move on to that?
The same logic would seem to apply.

Considering the points concerning breatfeeding.
There is taste, and then there is the deranged woman swinging her breast around in public screaming ‘its natural’ and daring others to avert their eyes.
Come on guys. I know very few people that want to watch breatfeeding. Just because someone would rather not watch does not make them the criminal.

I am sure that art can be tastefully done with nudity, but they had better respect the rights of those that do not want to look at it. And there is a very fine line between tastefully done art and pinup girls. Let’s all try not to cross it.

 

[timcath]

I think this boils down to three concepts :
situation, context and portrayal/subject.

Situation:
Nude person on a stage in a bar - wrong
Nude person running down a street - wrong
Nude person on a stage in a classroom of adult art students- okay
Nude in a gang shower - okay
Semi nude on a beach - okay
Semi nude on a street/in a church - wrong

Context:
Nude person in front of an art class of adults - okay
Nude person in front of an art class of teenagers - wrong
Nude person for a medical photo - okay
Nude person for an art photo - okay
Nude person for an advertisement - wrong
Nude person for pornography - wrong
Nude person portraying a religious figure in a photo - wrong
Semi - Nude person used as model to portray Christ in art - okay

Portrayal / subject
Nude person photographed in darkened sillhouette (female!) - okay
Nude person shown from front with legs spread in closeup - wrong
Woman shown with breast exposed for fashion shoot - wrong
Woman with partial breast exposed photographed breastfeeding her child - okay
Art class only interested in young person in frontal pose to show sex organs - wrong
Art class drawing models of any age, sex, body type and different body positions (except sexual positions) - okay

etc

 

[wcknight]

My wife breast fed my 3 kids too, that was a wonderful loving and intimate thing to do. BUT I do NOT display photos of such intimate moments in my living room and I certainly do not want to have any such images of them in a public setting.

I do not think it is good art to display such things, and to display Our Blessed Mother in such art is dispicable.

There are many perfectly human and natural things that people do, that do NOT belong on public display. Images of Our Lord and Mary above all else should be in appropriate attire. Paint nudes of whomever and whoever you want, but please show a little respect for Our Lord and Our Lady.

Some so called artists paint things simply to be provocative, I call such things trash. This is exactly how I would characterize such images.

 

[Ham1]

wcknight:

Some so called artists paint things simply to be provocative, I call such things trash. This is exactly how I would characterize such images.

I seriously doubt that the artists - many who were commissioned by the Church - were attempting to be provocative in their portrayal of Our Lady.

 

[Ham1]

Alterum:

FOLKS –

Paintings of the Blessed Virgin with her breast exposed are not the major issue here. wcknight and I both think these sorts of paintings would be on some level inappropriate today. Bathing is a natural thing too, you know, as is sex. It doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to go ahead and paint people doing either. I absolutely RESENT this implication that we’re dirty-minded or that we think the body is dirty because we think such paintings are inappropriate. Neither of us believes that the body is “dirty” and I am FED UP with this notion being continually thrust upon us. PLEASE STOP.

Deep breath.

What is at issue – oh how I hope against hope that this will be addressed – is that nude portraits objectify the human person. Objectifying someone is unequivocally wrong. By “nude portrait,” I mean a painting whose subject is the naked adult human body, NOT – I repeat, NOT – a painting that contains nudes but whose subject is religious (or something else) in nature. I have stated and restated my reasoning and I’m not going to do it again.

Now, to simplify this, let me make just one statement to start: There is morally no difference at all between looking at a realist painting of a naked person and looking at a photograph of that naked person in the exact same context (the two should look virtually identical according to the artist’s abilities). Does everyone agree with this?

Okay. Point taken.

I agree that art that treats the human person as an object is unnatural and bad art. Art needs to portray reality and the reality is that teh human person is body and soul made in the image and likeness of God and therefore has inherent worth.

Now, is it possible that art can contain nudity and still reflect the reality and dignity of the human person? I think so. So I would say that we should not declare all nudity in art moral nor should we declare it immoral.

I think and hope that we are all in agreement here.

 

[blessedstar]

timcath:

I think this boils down to three concepts :
situation, context and portrayal/subject.

Situation:

etc

I think more than once I’ve stated that once nude art becomes ‘rude’ it is no longer art but pornography.

It must have taken you some time to post what you did, thank you for that. It supports the point that nude figures within art is acceptable and once it becomes ‘tasteless’ then it is no longer a work of art but pornography

 

[blessedstar]

Ham1:

Now, is it possible that art can contain nudity and still reflect the reality and dignity of the human person? I think so. So I would say that we should not declare all nudity in art moral nor should we declare it immoral.

I think and hope that we are all in agreement here.

I agree with what you have said.

Art that strays dangerously into eroticism is pornography and for me ceases to be art, not simply bad art, but work that has degraded the human into a pornographic image.

 

[Alterum]

Ham1:

Now, is it possible that art can contain nudity and still reflect the reality and dignity of the human person? I think so. So I would say that we should not declare all nudity in art moral nor should we declare it immoral.

I think and hope that we are all in agreement here.

I think we’re in agreement here. Where we disagree (I think) is on the topic of modeling nude for an art class – which is the subject of this thread. I don’t think modeling nude for an art class is appropriate. Nor is painting a “portrait nude” appropriate. The same reasoning applies to both: the human person is objectified and the subject of the artwork becomes the naked human body.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

wcknight:

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.

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.

The sin is in the eye of the beholder doesn’t really hold true. I have seen statistics showing that certain demographics (and heard anecdotal evidence first hand) like women, for example, are not sexually aroused when viewing pornography. (certainly this is a broad brush and not meant to be…)

So the barometer is now, “does this incite lust?”

That doesn’t seem to hold in most of these cases. I know a number of guys in my fraternity in college who could have cared less about Playboy. They found it boring, and needed something more “hardcore” to incite lust. Yet I doubt you’d get much support for Playboy in Christian circles.

 

[blessedstar]

Alterum:

I think we’re in agreement here. Where we disagree (I think) is on the topic of modeling nude for an art class – which is the subject of this thread. I don’t think modeling nude for an art class is appropriate. Nor is painting a “portrait nude” appropriate. The same reasoning applies to both: the human person is objectified and the subject of the artwork becomes the naked human body.

Any subject that is exposed to the artists brush/pencil etc is in some way an object of their talent, to not see this as an artist is to shirk responsibility as an artist.

When a composition is made concerning any subject, it is classed as ‘subject material’. What is your subject? What is your ideal? What is your brief?

The artist knows their responsibility to their subject matter, now we get into matters of culpability, I will say in so far as the artist has a duty of care towards their subject they cannot also account for every interpretation of their subject matter as depicted in their works, so many are the perversions of humanity.

As such no person can ask another to be responsible for the perverse. Myself as an artist do not invest myself in the perverse, not forgetting an artist gives of themself when the create, and for someone to interpret my work as such would in itself be a perversion of my work.

We forget our Lord was condemned to death upon a perversion of the law, He was misunderstood, misinterpreted.

It doesn’t surprise me therefore that the artist who is a creator gifted as such by the Divine Creator, should therefore be misunderstood, misinterpreted and perverted by those who do not see the subject they have re-created in their works as a reflection of the gift God has so generously gifted to them in their artistic talent.

I can truly relate to the words our Lord said ’ How long must I bare with you!’ No pun intended on the ‘bare’

You sinners admit your faults and sins and stop looking to blame everything but yourselves!!!

We say in Mass do we not, the Mea Culpa…

Mea culpa, mea cupla, mea maxima culpa…through my fault, through my fault, through my own exceeding fault…
or I confess to you Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters **that I have sinned through my own fault, in my words and in my deeds, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do ** etc…Do these words mean nothing upon the lips of those who say them at Mass, I sincerely pray every word we say at Mass is sincere as is every word of our lives?

Do we not love our brother’s and sister’s enough to not blame them for our own failings?

If we enter the confessional and blame anyone but ourselves this is not true repentance.