Naked Art, A Step Too Far?

  • Thread starter Thread starter You
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Totally depends how the nudity is used. If you think The “David” by Michelangelo is offensive, it shows more how you view it than what it truly is. Same with the Venus De Milo. Same with the overwhelming majority of paintings. Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” is nude. Is that offensive? “Endless Love” by Gockel is also gorgeous as well.

It’s all in how the art is used. Can nudity be offensive? Of course it can. Can it also be a beautiful representation of the human condition? Yes!
 
There is nothing wrong with the human body, it’s what makes you someBODY!

And so there is nothing wrong with depicting the body via art in the way GOD presented it. Nude.

Nude art can of course be made to conform to prurient interests. But so can clothed art. Or, for that matter, art that does not represent the human form at all.

The nude, at least, represent s the sexual aspect as the small part (physically) of the full body that it is. Clothing, whether on a human being or an artistic form, can draw attention to that aspect and so be even more prurient than the nude.

On balance, I’d say that the artistic nude is morally neutral. Or somewhat better than that, since it represents what GOD has made as something very good.

ICXC NIKA
 
Nude fine art is not just OK, it’s a celebration of the creative talents God gave humans, some more talented than others, and the talent to others to appreciate the art.
Some people with the creative talent abuse the subject, or abuse the viewer. Also, there are viewers that abuse the art, by wilful or mistaken interpretation.
 
Amen. The human body is awesome, and to be able to do it justice artistically is a true gift of God.

ICXC NIKA
 
The problem is not with the art, the problem is with you. Don’t you know that to the pure, everything is pure?

I find nothing offensive about Michelangelo’s David or the picture you posted. Art in itself is not evil. But it’s a very complicated subject. We are prone to sin, and it’s my belief that any piece of art which doesn’t inspire a sense of sacredness should be done away with. Also, it depends on other factors also… for example, how finely detailed it is, etc. I don’t think it’s appropriate to be looking at detailed pictures of sexual organs, even for medical purposes. That’s why there should be female doctors for women and male doctors for men. In Jesus’ time, do you know that it was frowned upon for a man to even talk to a woman who was not his wife, and that just shows you how pitiful our society is. I digress, but like I said before, we are prone to sin, and have to place limitations on such things.
 
To the OP: I certainly hope not! I mean, don’t they appoint the pope under the nude paintings in the Sistine Chapel???

To Rocks:
Rocks_91 said:
The problem is not with the art, the problem is with you. Don’t you know that to the pure, everything is pure?
Click to expand...
(Emphasis Mine)

Who are you talking to? No one has condemned art which involves the nude human form in this thread…
We are prone to sin, and it’s my belief that any piece of art which doesn’t inspire a sense of sacredness should be done away with.
Click to expand...
That brings up two questions:
  1. what about art which sends a message that isn’t regarding “sacredness”? Should we torch the mona lisa? Smash the sphinx to bits? Spray paint crosses over the Native American cave drawings?
  2. Sacredness according to whom? I’m not particularly inspired by the pieta. I think it’s a rough carving. I’m sure jews aren’t particularly inspired by it either. Can we smash it? Can a muslim go and blow up buddhist statues that predate christianity? What about secular humanists… certainly their definition of sacred is different than ours… will they have license to do away with OUR art in favor of secular art?
If our definition of allowable art is “what inspires sacredness” and anything that doesn’t meet that criteria is done away with, we will rapidly travel the earth and destroy ALL art everywhere.
Also, it depends on other factors also… for example, how finely detailed it is, etc. I don’t think it’s appropriate to be looking at detailed pictures of sexual organs, even for medical purposes.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree that a level of detail determines a level of validity. Certainly a more detailed image is in more DANGER of being lust-provocing, but not necessarily so. One might draw a basic form drawing of two people, with no details, just sillhouhettes (sp?) of bodies, in the marital act… and this would be more gravely disordered than the sistine chapel, which shows much more detail than outlines.
That’s why there should be female doctors for women and male doctors for men.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is not practical. There are not enough women who are doctors to meet the needs of female society. In fact, America is facing a shortage of medical personnel altogether right now, and trying to segregate it as such is impossible at this time.
In Jesus’ time, do you know that it was frowned upon for a man to even talk to a woman who was not his wife, and that just shows you how pitiful our society is.
Click to expand...
May I ask for the source where you got this claim? I understand that it was (and IS) considered ill advised and scandal provoking to be in private with a woman who is not your wife… but to merely SPEAK to?
I digress, but like I said before, we are prone to sin, and have to place limitations on such things.
Click to expand...
Here we most certainly agree. Art does not inspire lust, except in those with extreme consupience on the matter. That which is designed to inspire lust would fall into the category of “unapprochable art” in my book. I don’t go to the museum to get “fired up” and I wish some artists would realize that.
 
promethius said:
Who are you talking to? No one has condemned art which involves the nude human form in this thread…
Click to expand...
You… as in us. The problem is with us. We are sinful creatures.
promethius said:
May I ask for the source where you got this claim? I understand that it was (and IS) considered ill advised and scandal provoking to be in private with a woman who is not your wife… but to merely SPEAK to?
Click to expand...
Certainly, you need to look no further than the Holy Writ. I refer you to the passage of the Samaritan woman at the well; it’s one example which gives us an idea of the customs during those times. Or speak in private, if you prefer it phrased that way.

Historically, even in churches, and I believe the Orthodox churches still follow that rule, men and women were segregated and made to sit in different sides. Why that was changed, I do not know, but I’m strongly opposed to such changes. I’m a fan of the maxim, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, but unfortunately there’s too much modernism in the world today. But people don’t realize the damage it does. Once you give people even a little liberty, they start believing they can do anything they like. Like the Jesuit priests at the local chapel here who let people receive communion by self-intinction. :rolleyes:
 
Rocks_91 said:
I don’t think it’s appropriate to be looking at detailed pictures of sexual organs, even for medical purposes. That’s why there should be female doctors for women and male doctors for men. In Jesus’ time, do you know that it was frowned upon for a man to even talk to a woman who was not his wife, and that just shows you how pitiful our society is. I digress, but like I said before, we are prone to sin, and have to place limitations on such things.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with studying the human body to learn how it works (ie. medical personnel).

Please cite your source for stating it was frowned upon for men to even talk with women.

Do you feel that was a good thing?

It would make functioning in our society today rather difficult, don’t you think? How could I, as a female teacher, have a parent/teacher conference with a student’s dad? How could I as a homeowner speak with male contractors about work on my home? Ridiculous.

Nude art is fine.
 
promethius said:
That brings up two questions:
  1. what about art which sends a message that isn’t regarding “sacredness”? Should we torch the mona lisa? Smash the sphinx to bits? Spray paint crosses over the Native American cave drawings?
  2. Sacredness according to whom? I’m not particularly inspired by the pieta. I think it’s a rough carving. I’m sure jews aren’t particularly inspired by it either. Can we smash it? Can a muslim go and blow up buddhist statues that predate christianity? What about secular humanists… certainly their definition of sacred is different than ours… will they have license to do away with OUR art in favor of secular art?
If our definition of allowable art is “what inspires sacredness” and anything that doesn’t meet that criteria is done away with, we will rapidly travel the earth and destroy ALL art everywhere.
Click to expand...
Sacredness… Well, an appropriate litmus test would be whether the particular piece of art would be appropriate to have at your parish church. (my opinion)

Now, I’m not suggesting that anyone should waste their time going around the world and destroying statues, but it’s best to avoid such in favour of better things. I’ll paraphrase some of what Paul the Apostle has to say on the matter, to support my point. Everything may be acceptable, but not everything builds you up. Is righteousness merely choosing that which is good in comparison to bad or that which is good, and even better, in comparison to good. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top