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

[Matt_Collins]

… 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.

This is a very important point. Art, by its very nature, involves a certain objectification of any person portrayed, whether clothed or not. The objectification that we can’t accept is one that reduces the person to a mere object, that treats a person as if they were not a person.

Nudity in art does not always do that. In fact, it can even enhance the viewer’s appreciation for the personhood of the person depicted. I can’t help but remember that famous photograph of the naked girl running down the street in Vietnam after a napalm attack. You’ve all seen it. I believe it won the Pulitzer Prize.

Here’s the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc

Now obviously the girl was not posing nude for an art class. That’s not my point. My point is that if she had been clothed in that picture it would have been much easier to see her as a mere object, just another refugee running away from violence. It was precisely her nakedness that made her a person in that photograph. It was her nakedness that made the world remember her as a real person, searing into our brains an understanding of the reality of what was happening. It was her nakedness that made us able to relate to her, and want to know who she is. So much so that 34 years later a Google search for “vietnam naked girl napalm” brings up hundreds of hits that directly relate to the photograph.

That photograph, for better or worse, was instrumental in turning public opinion against the war.

So my point is that nakedness does have a legitimate role to play in art. It can be done in a way that actually enhances the viewer’s understanding of the personhood of those depicted.

With that background, here’s a thought experiment to bring us directly to the OP’s original question: Would it be moral for a person to model in the nude for a work of art that depicted the horror of war, or of the holocaust?

I believe it would be moral. Perhaps even noble.

If there exist circumstances in which the depiction of a nude person in a work of art is justified, then it follows that modelling nude for such a work of art is justified. It further follows that modelling nude for a legitimate art class is justified as a remote preparation for the eventual creation of those works of art.

 

[Alterum]

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

I’m rather difficult to offend I don’t think your comment was “merely” suggesting that we’re all concupiscent, but so be it. God bless you too

 

[Alterum]

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.

No, the subject of this thread is whether it is right to model without clothing for an art class. I’ve given numerous reasons why this is not okay. Your contention seems to be that people need to learn how to draw the human form. Sure, I agree. It is not, however, essential that they learn how to draw genitals by studying naked people. Really.

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.

I didn’t actually say this because I don’t believe it. There is a big difference. If there is little difference then we must err on the side of caution and refrain from exhibiting artwork which might be pornographic. But, I think the line is very clear, and there really isn’t a grey area.

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.

If you believe that, can you answer – completely – the question I posed a few comments ago regarding the morality of paintings versus photographs versus live naked people?

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.

If we’re lucky. And they don’t need to practice drawing genitals to do it

 

[Alterum]

Now obviously the girl was not posing nude for an art class.

Quite right; this is only tangentally related to the topic. You’ll observe that I think nudity in artwork is allowable, the Sistine Chapel being a prime example. The paintings in the Sistine Chapel don’t objectify people. However I don’t think nude modeling for “art” is ever justified, so as regards your “thought experiment,” I would have to say that it would be immoral.

 

[steveandersen]

…

If we’re lucky. And they don’t need to practice drawing genitals to do it

not to jump in on someone else’s conversation BUT artists study the human form (all of it) for the same reasons they study anatomy, the skeleton, and musculature.

In order to realistically depict a clothed figure you have to know what the clothing is draped over and how that changes with different poses

It’s simple mechanics, there’s nothing prurient about it.

I’m not quite sure what all the fuss is over. If someone has that much of a problem that they can’t see a nude without getting carried away why would they even bother going to an art class? It seems like a waste of time and money. They could stay at home with the underwear section of the Sears catalogue.

While I haven’t taken a figure class I have attended other art classes. It is a lot of work. (at least for a no-talent like me) I can’t see anyone going through all that for a cheap thrill. It seems that they would serve their need better going to the local watering hole on Friday night.

 

[jmcrae]

And they don’t need to practice drawing genitals to do it

Wow. Genitals? No - sorry, someone who focused entirely on the genital area would receive an “F” in the class. The students are drawing the whole form; not only the genitals.

Maybe you should actually take a drawing class some time, so that you would actually know what you’re talking about.

 

[jmcrae]

If you believe that, can you answer – completely – the question I posed a few comments ago regarding the morality of paintings versus photographs versus live naked people?

If I didn’t already answer it, then I have no idea what you’re asking.

 

[Matt_Collins]

"Alterum:

… this is only tangentally related to the topic.

If you think it is only tangentially related to the topic then you’ve missed the point. The point is that it is possible for nudity in art to actually lessen the “objectification” of a person depicted in the work and enhance the viewer’s appreciation for their personhood. I gave an example to illustrate that point. To me, the painting of a naked Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel objectifies him far more than the photograph of the naked girl burned by napalm objectifies her.

However I don’t think nude modeling for “art” is ever justified, so as regards your “thought experiment,” I would have to say that it would be immoral.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently to focus on the real question I’m asking. Let’s try this: Would it be moral for an artist to paint a scene from war, which he has personally witnessed, if the scene contains a naked person? Assume the artist’s intent is to depict the horror of war.

I think the answer to the question is an obvious “yes, it would be moral to paint a naked person in such a picture”. Well if it would be moral to paint the person then it must be moral to model for the painting. And if it’s moral to model for the painting, then it’s moral to model for the purpose of preparing the artist to paint the picture.

 

[CuriousInIL]

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.

This is where I begin to fall off the boat so to speak. IMO naked does not equal a lack of modesty. Naked can be modest (or not) depending upon circumstances and context.

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.

I agree with the point and, to me, in the context that it has been being discussed, none of these is wrong. But again, context, context, context!

 

[antimon]

now, what is wrong with genitals? everyone has some. God created them. they are just another organ. Certainly that organ can be misused, but that is not case when portraying them in non-sexual matter (and genitals alone aren’t even sexy).

human body can be beautiful thing (with a little care). I find nothing wrong in showing that beauty in artistic manner.

 

[blessedstar]

While everyone is entitled to their point of view it is afterall their point of view and sometimes a point of view skewed by a temptation to a certain sin.

The Vatican is covered in pictures of the naked form, doesn’t that speak in and of itself. Somewhere in this thread buried under all of this lot there are some links that a poster provided with indication of the Catholic stance on nude forms in art. If anyone can be bothered they can trail through all of this and find that excellent post.

If you can’t look and not sin then don’t look. If you can look and not sin then look and draw the wonderful form that God created and declared good. It is only sin that corrupted the mind to perceive of the human form as bad or as to cause bad.

People always go too far…‘cover up the naked baby Jesus in the manger lest a paedophile look at it and go out and sin’, ‘cover up Jesus naked on the Cross lest anyone should look at it and go out and sin’, ‘Cover up half-naked pictures of the Virgin Mary breast-feeding Jesus lest someone go out and sin’…shouldn’t the debate be why people cannot look at these beautiful images with innocent eyes and appreciate the beauty before them.

It speaks more of a given person than it does of the artwork if they cannot view it without the urge to commit sexual sin.

Good luck with the debating.

 

[Alterum]

In order to realistically depict a clothed figure you have to know what the clothing is draped over and how that changes with different poses

I find this claim rather absurd. I do not need a naked model to realistically depict someone wearing clothing. No one needs to learn how to draw genitals unless he plans on drawing genitals. So, I simply disagree with you; your assertion is manifestly false.

I’m not quite sure what all the fuss is over. If someone has that much of a problem that they can’t see a nude without getting carried away why would they even bother going to an art class?

I haven’t said anything whatsoever about anyone getting “carried away.” My reasoning has nothing at all to do with temptation. This is a straw man; completely irrelevant.

 

[blessedstar]

I find this claim rather absurd. I do not need a naked model to realistically depict someone wearing clothing. No one needs to learn how to draw genitals unless he plans on drawing genitals. So, I simply disagree with you; your assertion is manifestly false.

I haven’t said anything whatsoever about anyone getting “carried away.” My reasoning has nothing at all to do with temptation. This is a straw man; completely irrelevant.

If there is no temptation and if the eyes are innocent what is the problem with the male genitals?

You can only tie knots so many times before you get stuck in them!

 

[Alterum]

Wow. Genitals? No - sorry, someone who focused entirely on the genital area would receive an “F” in the class. The students are drawing the whole form; not only the genitals.

I didn’t say “focused entirely on the genital area.” What are you talking about? I said that the person would be drawing genitals; and indeed, he would. I am claiming that there’s no justification for requiring a live naked model so that one can accurately draw genitals. It just doesn’t need to be done. And if the person isn’t drawing genitals, then why is the model naked? This is getting ridiculous.

Maybe you should actually take a drawing class some time, so that you would actually know what you’re talking about.

Not a chance in hell

If I didn’t already answer it, then I have no idea what you’re asking.

The question I asked was:

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.

You said something about pornography being problematic because of what it depicts; you hardly answered the question.

 

[blessedstar]

It is only the eyes that are not innocent that views the genitals as problematic from the arm say.

The arm is not offensive, the thigh is not offensive, the stomach is not offensive, but with all of the sexually loaded sinful nature of man the genitals or breasts become an area that such a man cannot look upon.

If the eye is innocent the eye can look upon it and not be corrupted by it because such eyes perceive it as good as God perceives it, God did not differentiate. It was Adam who clothed himself and not at the command of God, God knew that Adam had lost his innocence, he was sinful and corrupted and we can know this because of the fact he decided to cover himself up.

God said ‘How did you know that you were naked?’

Only the sinful eye cannot look upon what is good without committing sin. Period.

If people get in a flap over this it states more about their ‘spiritual’ nature and takes nothing away from the good nature of the human form.

 

[Alterum]

If you think it is only tangentially related to the topic then you’ve missed the point. The point is that it is possible for nudity in art to actually lessen the “objectification” of a person depicted in the work and enhance the viewer’s appreciation for their personhood

No, sir, you’re just getting off topic. I am not – and I have never – argued that nudity in artwork is necessarily wrong.

Would it be moral for an artist to paint a scene from war, which he has personally witnessed, if the scene contains a naked person? Assume the artist’s intent is to depict the horror of war.

It may be absolutely fine.

Well if it would be moral to paint the person then it must be moral to model for the painting. And if it’s moral to model for the painting, then it’s moral to model for the purpose of preparing the artist to paint the picture.

The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise. “If it’s okay to paint [x], then it’s okay for someone to model for [x].” That’s no argument, sorry. In this case, a naked model would be entirely unnecessary, if nothing else.

However, I’ve put forward a much more nuanced argument than you’d care to admit. Modeling naked isn’t just unnecessary; it’s wrong, contrary to chastity because it’s contrary to modesty.

Moreover, I have stated that it is okay to depict nude figures in artwork depending on the subject of the artwork. However, a piece of artwork which has as its primary focus the naked human body is always wrong because it is merely objectifying the human person.

It still shocks me why activities which are frowned upon as sinful suddenly become justifiable when they are done so in the name of “art”.

 

[blessedstar]

Those who do the frowning are those who themselves are tempted to abuse and sin against what is good and against God. If they were not tempted and looked with innocent eyes they would not see the guilt but because they see the guilt they are guilty of it. And for the guilty it is hard to perceive that any could be innocent.

 

[jmcrae]

I didn’t say “focused entirely on the genital area.” What are you talking about? I said that the person would be drawing genitals; and indeed, he would. I am claiming that there’s no justification for requiring a live naked model so that one can accurately draw genitals. It just doesn’t need to be done. And if the person isn’t drawing genitals, then why is the model naked? This is getting ridiculous.

The only person drawing the genitals along with everything else would be the person in the 12:00 position. Everyone else would be drawing at an angle, or from the back - the genitals aren’t normally visible from there.

Those not drawing the genitals are drawing the form of the body, and seeing how the knee is put together, the distance of the shoulder from the elbow, how the clavical fits, where exactly the hip bone is in relation to the base of the spine, the curve of the neck with the head in various different positions, and things like that, without the view being obscured by a covering.

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.

I have attended exhibitions that included all three, and I didn’t have a problem with them, so I would say that none of them are wrong. I’ve also seen movies and documentaries that had nudity in them that were not pornographic movies.

As I mentioned before, the issue is not the media; rather, what makes a nude to be pornographic is what he or she is portrayed as doing - not the simple fact of being nude.

If the nude in the image, on the screen, or on the stage is “come-hithering” - that is, if the* purpose* of the image or performance is to entice you to fantasize about having sex with that person/those people - then it’s pornography.

If not, then it’s perfectly innocent. Whether it’s a photograph, a painting, a stage performance, or a movie has nothing to do with it.

 

[CuriousInIL]

However, I’ve put forward a much more nuanced argument than you’d care to admit. Modeling naked isn’t just unnecessary; it’s wrong, contrary to chastity because it’s contrary to modesty.

While there may be even more that is wrong with your “logic,” at a minimum, this is simply not true. And, I have not even seen you try to justify it other than as your opinion.

 

[jmcrae]

The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise. “If it’s okay to paint [x], then it’s okay for someone to model for [x].” That’s no argument, sorry. In this case, a naked model would be entirely unnecessary, if nothing else.

Hello?? How do you imagine that works of art are created?

If there is no model of some kind (live model, photograph, or something - all of which you have forbidden, here), then there can be no artwork - an artist can’t just conjure something up in his mind (especially not something he’s never even seen before, which is the situation that would exist if the artist were never even taught how to draw from the nude, to begin with) and paint it from memory or from his imagination, with anything approaching accurate detail.