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

[Alterum]

blessedstar:

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…
…]
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.

I really don’t see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[blessedstar]

Alterum:

I really don’t see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

It is relevant because the body is being misjudged because of something within those who misjudge it and though people may say that that is not the case, in truth it is the case. Our perceptions are shaped by many things, but we are not static creatures and our perceptions can change and that is precisely what Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body calls the whole world to do…change their perceptions.

 

[manualman]

I got tired of reading, so I confess I skipped half of the responses. I just wanted to add that it is all about context.

A painted mural containing nudes in a cathedral is an unlikely context for promoting a degrading objectification of the human body. Put the SAME mural in Hugh Hefners mansion and it would probably constitute pornography. Only the context is different.

Nude art, IMO is much like theology in that it is highly subject to misuse/abuse by those who seek gain power/pleasure from it as opposed to those who intend to be changed by it. But just because it can be misused, doesn’t make it evil.

 

[Mijoy2]

just my opinion.

it is an excuse. An excuse for the model and an excuse for the “artists” suuuuuure.

 

[childofmary1143]

Judging from the many responses on this topic a lot of artists and those in favor of nude art make a distinction between nude and pornography or eroticism. I would really like them to explain what tasteful nude photograph of a person is versus a pornographic one in VERY SPECIFIC TERMS

 

[CuriousInIL]

How about this definition?

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Or do folks not like this because it implies that “simple” nudes are not pornography?

 

[jmcrae]

just my opinion.

it is an excuse. An excuse for the model and an excuse for the “artists” suuuuuure.

I am a female artist: are you accusing me of lesbianism when the model is female? Are you accusing male artists of homosexuality when the model happens to be male?

Also, the models don’t come from Hugh Hefner’s mansion, nor from the staff of some glossy magazine - they are ordinary people from the local community, of all different body types, and various ages.

In fact, I think the first thing most artists realize, upon entering their first drawing classes, is that the nude human form is not especially sexy.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

It’s immoral, regardless.

 

[Alterum]

Are we putting some new life into this old thread? I remember the debate well, and my opinions have not changed

Or do folks not like this because it implies that “simple” nudes are not pornography?

If we use only the definition you’ve provided from the CCC, then as long as “art” does not present a real or simulated sexual act, it is not pornographic.

That just strikes me as ludicrous, and I’m guessing you’ll agree.

Something doesn’t need to be “sexy” to be sexually impure; I’m sure most of us think that pornography is absolutely disgusting.

Now, the objectification of a human person by putting his naked body on display for the sake of “art” certainly “offends against chastity” and “does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense.”

There is no justification for this sort of trash. It is blindingly clear, it is self-evident, that this is wrong. It is prima facie sinful. You’d have to live in a perverse culture that glorifies sexual deviancy in its every form to think otherwise.

Oh, wait…

 

[The_Augustinian]

Now, the objectification of a human person by putting his naked body on display for the sake of “art” certainly “offends against chastity” and “does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense.”

Call me foolish, but what is this “objectification” you speak of? One of the definitions in the dictionary is “to make into an object”, which occurs in every work of art. A piece of fruit, a landscape, a person clothed or nude, etc. all become objects of the artist and his intended viewers. Or do you mean the more specific term “depersonalization” as in “pornography depersonalizes the sex act”? It seems to me that artists want to study the live nude body in order to infuse more personality into their works. Granted, I would agree that some art is pornographic, but such art is usually the work of deviants like Mapplethorpe. Good art has never frowned on the depiction of nude bodies if appropriate to the context. Only a totally depraved person would get sexual pleasure from the Venus de Milo or the nudes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I would agree that it’s wrong to walk around naked all the time in public, but that’s not the same thing as posing nude for the sake of art. Unfortunately, I guess people would prefer to paint over the Sistine Chapel with white paint.

 

[antimon]

nude art is not sinful (if it is not made for sexual arousement), only you americans are such puritans.

 

[shannyk]

A cheesecake sits on a table in front of me.

It looks so good to me that I sit down and devour the entire thing.

3 days later I step on the scale and start cursing the cheesecake.

I go on a full fledged “CHEESECAKE IS EVIL!!!” crusade.

Is the cheesecake really inherently evil? Or, is it the evil tendancies in ME that cause me to misuse the cheesecake.

Poor cheesecakes get blamed for everything…

 

[Alterum]

Call me foolish, but what is this “objectification” you speak of? One of the definitions in the dictionary is “to make into an object”, which occurs in every work of art. A piece of fruit, a landscape, a person clothed or nude, etc. all become objects of the artist and his intended viewers.

You know, you’re exactly right. In fact, they generally become objects on display in art galleries for visual pleasure.

I don’t think that’s wrong when the subject of the painting is a piece of fruit; after all, a piece of fruit is merely an object.

But to make a human person “into an object,” well, I see something seriously wrong with that.

I suppose I’m the only one who thinks treating the temple of the Holy Spirit like a piece of fruit – as far as art is concerned – is wrong?

EDIT: And I’ve addressed the Sistine Chapel and religious nudes countless times in this thread. There’s nothing wrong with the Sistine Chapel. I’m not going to repeat myself over and over again; you can read my prior posts if you’d like.

 

[Alterum]

Is the cheesecake really inherently evil? Or, is it the evil tendancies in ME that cause me to misuse the cheesecake.

Yes, as you’ll see, I’ve already been accused of having a dirty mind, and other terrible things, in this thread. It does nothing to refute what I’m saying; frankly, it only serves to insult me. Good work.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I suppose I’m the only one who thinks treating the temple of the Holy Spirit like a piece of fruit – as far as art is concerned – is wrong?

All right, perhaps I haven’t been clear enough. Whether a person is clothed or unclothed in a painting, he is an object of the viewer. Either way it is an objectification. So, if you think that *any *objectification of a human is wrong, then you’d have to include clothed subjects as well. And if you believe than no human being should appear in an artwork, then it’s time to become a Muslim.

And yes, I know you’re not against the Sistine Chapel, but I don’t know why you wouldn’t be, if you seem to think there’s no difference from nudes in art and a Playboy centerfold.

But back to modeling. I think the question is: “Is it morally right to be naked in front of people of the opposite sex who are not your spouse or relatives?” The answer is “Yes, depending on the circumstances” because it’s acceptable to be naked in front of a doctor. I think we would all agree that modesty is essential to human society. However, nudity in the doctor’s office and in an art school are not ordinary situations.

 

[jmcrae]

You know, you’re exactly right. In fact, they generally become objects on display in art galleries for visual pleasure.

The vast majority of the drawings made in a drawing class will never make it to an art gallery, unless a) the drawings are astoundingly good, and b) they happen to have a student gallery in which to show them.

Professional art galleries are not in the habit of displaying art school scribblings.

What will get to the galleries, though, and if you’re Catholic, you’ve probably even got some in your wallet, purse, or pocket, are accurate renderings of the human form, depicting historical events, Saints, street scenes, living room scenes, and so on.

Those human figures, including holy cards of the Saints, are beautiful to look at because the artist took the time and effort to attend drawing classes and learn to draw the human form from the nude model.

Indeed, any reasonably accurate depiction of the human form, other than an amateur photograph, began in a drawing class somewhere.

Banning drawing classes on the basis that all nude forms are evil and pornographic will only impoverish us all - and we’ve already got enough bad artists out there who haven’t bothered with drawing classes, for whatever reason. Unless you want to get rid of all good art entirely, including all church art, we do need to provide aspiring artists with drawing classes.

 

[antimon]

Should priests sketch nudes?

 

[shannyk]

Alterum,

I’m sorry if you were offended, as my comment wasn’t directed at you it was directed at everyone reading the thread.

Actually I hadn’t even read any of your posts before I decided to post my own thoughts on the OP’s topic.

I’m not sure why anyone would be insulted by what I said, as it was merely suggesting that we ALL have a tendency toward sinfulness,yet we often use any and every opportunity to find a scapegoat to carry the blame for our shortcomings.

God Bless

 

[Alterum]

All right, perhaps I haven’t been clear enough. Whether a person is clothed or unclothed in a painting, he is an object of the viewer.

That much goes without saying. Of course, you are equivocating. Any piece of artwork is an object, as you pointed out – because it’s a “thing,” a noun. This is scarcely worth mentioning unless your intent is to assert that any piece of artwork which includes a human form is objectifying the human person because the artwork is an object. And that, as far as I can tell, is precisely what you meant. Sounds rather absurd, doesn’t it? That’s because I’m not equivocating. You were just being ambiguous.

I’m certain most will agree that objectification of the human person is a bad thing in any context – so yes, I do think any objectification of a human person is wrong. You don’t, I take it?

Nevertheless, merely being featured in a piece of art does not necessarily amount to a person being *objectified *in that piece of art. And again, we certainly cannot say that because artwork is a noun, a person featured therein is objectified (as your earlier equivocation would have us believe). To take one example, a piece of artwork depicting Christ on the cross has as its primary theme an important religious event. Christ is not objectified; He is glorified and His suffering is illustrated, and as a result we are moved to sadness, repentance, or what have you.

The problem with artwork whose primary subject is the naked human body is that it does objectify a human person by, e.g., stripping him of his modesty. He becomes a piece of flesh to be admired or studied for the sake of “art,” no longer the dignified temple of the Holy Spirit which he is meant to be.

I’ve asked this question numerous times in this thread and I will ask it again, though I suspect, as before, that I will not receive an answer: If there is nothing wrong with staring at a realistic painting of a naked human person on a canvas, is there anything wrong with staring at a photograph in the same context? The two should look virtually the same. And if there’s nothing wrong with a photograph, is there anything wrong with “live” exhibits of naked people in various poses? Either they are all wrong, or none of them are wrong.

And yes, I know you’re not against the Sistine Chapel, but I don’t know why you wouldn’t be, if you seem to think there’s no difference from nudes in art and a Playboy centerfold.

I simply don’t believe that. Had you read my earlier posts regarding why I think nudes in the Sistine Chapel are fine, you would have known that.

But back to modeling. I think the question is: “Is it morally right to be naked in front of people of the opposite sex who are not your spouse or relatives?” The answer is “Yes, depending on the circumstances” because it’s acceptable to be naked in front of a doctor.

As you may note, I have not argued that being naked in front of a doctor is wrong.

God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

Nevertheless, merely being featured in a piece of art does not necessarily amount to a person being *objectified *in that piece of art. And again, we certainly cannot say that because artwork is a noun, a person featured therein is objectified (as your earlier equivocation would have us believe). To take one example, a piece of artwork depicting Christ on the cross has as its primary theme an important religious event. Christ is not objectified; He is glorified and His suffering is illustrated, and as a result we are moved to sadness, repentance, or what have you.

But the artist who made that picture had to be trained to draw the human figure - artists (contrary to popular mythology) are not born with the ability to draw. It takes years of drawing lessons, and years of practice in front of the living model.

The problem with artwork whose primary subject is the naked human body is that it does objectify a human person by, e.g., stripping him of his modesty. He becomes a piece of flesh to be admired or studied for the sake of “art,” no longer the dignified temple of the Holy Spirit which he is meant to be.

No one in this thread is talking about making pornographic pictures (which is what that would be). The subject of this thread is aspiring artists going to drawing class and learning to draw the human figure.

I’ve asked this question numerous times in this thread and I will ask it again, though I suspect, as before, that I will not receive an answer: If there is nothing wrong with staring at a realistic painting of a naked human person on a canvas, is there anything wrong with staring at a photograph in the same context?

Much would depend on both the painting and the photograph - either one could be pornographic, and either one could be artistic. As you say, there is little difference.

The problem with pornography is not that it consists of nude photographs; rather, the problem with it is what the nudes in the photographs are doing, or pretending to be doing.

In any case, as I’ve stated before, the pictures made in drawing classes are most likely never going to be exhibited - we are talking here about art students who are learning how to draw - not about dirty old men either creating or exhibiting pornographic pictures.

The artists who graduate from the drawing class will go on to create a variety of different pictures, including making Saint holy cards, and depictions of the Crucifixion, among other things.