Nude Modeling (yes, again)

[edwest2]

That’s the issue. Women are to be viewed as whole persons, not as a collection of parts or sex objects.

Do women want to be objectified like that? I think that’s where self-respect and respect for others comes into play. That’s where having common boundaries in a society, as in, the West, comes into play. Even in Africa, a nun will not show her breasts but dress according to what her order requires.

Peace,
Ed

 

[KEP1983]

The Old Masters drew, painted, and sculpted from nude models. This includes the paintings and sculptures that are in our Churches, including St Peter’s Basilica.

Artists were trained in guilds, and you couldn’t become a professional artist without having studied the nude model. You have to be able to draw a nude figure before you can draw a clothed figure.

In fact, the Old Masters usually drew the model nude first, and then had a mannequin in a similar pose in order to draw the drapery. Drapery has a problem of moving every time the model moves.

Here are some drawings from nude models that are used in Church artwork:

Raphael: britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pd/r/raphael,_nude_man_with_raised.aspx

Da Vinci:
drawingsofleonardo.org/images/manwithstaff.jpg

Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo,_ignudo_06.jpg

I’ve drawn from nude models-- young and old, skinny and fat, etc-- and can say it’s not erotic. No more so than going to the doctors. I have no idea what it’s like to be a model though.

That being said, the schools I went to were traditional art schools that train people like the Old Masters (most university art programs today are “modern” and have no real focus on skill and technique). In all the traditional schools I’ve studied at, I’ve only heard of one model who seemed to take the posing as an erotic display. A male model showed up for his first ever modeling session. Apparently he went into his changing room in order to change into his robe. He was stuck in there for a while. The teacher kept asking if he was alright. Eventually the model stepped out from the room, came to the model stand to take a pose, and was all oiled up. The teacher thought this was weird, but thought maybe he didn’t understand that he shouldn’t be oiled. Right after taking the pose he… got excited. He was immediately taken down from the model stand and banned from the school.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

A Professional Nude Model Photographer or Artist see’s nothing sexual ,but a person of beauty…

From some of the conversations I’ve had with artists, I wouldn’t fully agree with that statement. It depends on the artist, their motivation and their message. I once sat next to an art photographer on a train and he showed me some of his pictures and talked about them at length and whereas the pictures themselves looked fairly innocent to me and perfectly artistic, the way he talked about his models made him sound like some sort of sexual pervert.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

My two cents:

I took a life drawing class in college; it met in the winter first thing in the morning in a kind of chilly art room.

In other words, I was pretty bleary eyed and working caffeine into my system.

It was TOUGH. I thought I was a good drawer, but the challenge of the lines of the human body were substantial for me.

I thought it was good practice. As a sketcher/student, it was hard/impossible to get turned on by the model, and one was at least not bad looking.

I think a model wearing shorts would give students just as much challenge: for me, the tough thing were the lines outlining arms and legs proportionately.

I don’t call myself an artist and never took art lessons but I bought several books on sketching and drawing humans and these all start off by looking at the skeleton, then add the flesh to that, and finally add clothes over the top. So I’m assuming when drawing a person an artist is always thinking first, what is the skeleton doing, second how dows the flesh fit around the skeleton, and third how do the clothes drape over that. If you can’t figure it in your head, it helps to actually start by drawing in the bones first (lightly in pencil so you can rub them out after), then the fat and muscles (similarly lightly in pencil) and then the clothes. Before getting that insight I always woked the other way and started off by drawing the clothes and features. That is why my people looked so unrealistic. Well, they’re still unrealistic but as I said i’m no artist.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The teacher thought this was weird, but thought maybe he didn’t understand that he shouldn’t be oiled. Right after taking the pose he… got excited. He was immediately taken down from the model stand and banned from the school.

That sounds excessively harsh to me.

When I was younger I sometimes “got excited” for no apparent reason and I was sometîmes worried about people noticing, but the more I tried to control and not be excited, the less it would go away. Maybe it was just as embarrassing for this guy as it was for everybody else.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

It is the conservatives who got any nudity on the television banned and liberals who pushed for legalization of abortion. Not hypocritical in reality.

Was it just the conservatives that pushed for it? I thought feminsits etc had a part to play in that too? Whenever people with diametrically opposed opinions unite for a common cause, you know something is seriously wrong.

 

[markomalley]

If someone were to depict Mary nude, there is a 99% probability that it would have been done for shock value, to be offensive, etc.

You ought to do a Google search on the term “Maria Lactans”

 

[KEP1983]

I can’t believe what I am reading here.

If someone painted a naked picture of our blessed mother Mary, or made a naked scupltur of her, would any of you be offended? would any of you think it disrespectful/degrading? or would you all be praising it as art?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Uhh, perhaps you’re unaware, but the Church commissioned tons of art showing Mary’s breasts; particularly of her breastfeeding Jesus.

examiner.com/slideshow/artwork-showing-the-virgin-mary-breastfeeding-jesus#slide=1

The sexuality of nudity depends upon the context that it’s in. In Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam it is perfectly fitting, since the context of the image calls for nudity in the scene. If you put a naked woman in the middle of a contemporary crowd or something like that, then it could be pornographic.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The answer to “what is pornography” is actually in the question.

Pornography comes from the Greek and means “depiction of prostitutes”, porn meaning prostitue and graph meaning depiction.

Of course nowadays that is understood more in the metaphoric sense as the model need not actually be a prostitute in the normal sense, but she is nevertheless selling her sexuality for money. So as Jesus says “if a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already commited adultery with her in his heart”. If a woman portrays herself in such a manner as to encourage that looking with lust, then she is also part to that adultery.

If however, neither the intention nor the manner of the portrayal is meant to stoke carnal desires, then it’s not pornography.

So even non nude (but clearly immodest) depictions as we see in advertising all the time are pornogrpahic in my understanding, but a nude portrayal with artistic intent is not.

 

[mikekle]

Has anyone else thought maybe many of these people wish to make this kind of thing illegal or wrong is because they do not want to give credit to God for his ‘handy work’?

They may say it is due to their morals, but I have a feeling the real reason they dont like the nude body is because it gives glory to God…Id love to hear what these people are going to say when they are standing in front of the judge of judges regarding this issue!

The will have to explain why they consider his work to be nasty and dirty, and why so many fight to keep images of it banned or censored!

 

[dshix]

Has anyone else thought maybe many of these people wish to make this kind of thing illegal or wrong is because they do not want to give credit to God for his ‘handy work’?

They may say it is due to their morals, but I have a feeling the real reason they dont like the nude body is because it gives glory to God…Id love to hear what these people are going to say when they are standing in front of the judge of judges regarding this issue!

The will have to explain why they consider his work to be nasty and dirty, and why so many fight to keep images of it banned or censored!

You’ve got it exactly backwards. The reason we wish to cover and veil the human body is because of its glory. It is not something to just show to the world for little reason. The evil of pornography is that it strips a human body of its sacredness and destroys its dignity.

The problem with nude modeling in this day and age is the fact that there is no outlet for “artistic nudes”. There is no existing way that the naked human body can be used in a dignified, artful way to give glory to God. The world will take it and misuse it for its own purposes: sin.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Frankly, it sounds as if Mikel may easily be right. Obviously, this isn’t necessarily the reason, at least consciously. But it may be true of many people.

Dshix, you use the term, “pornography”, when that obviously isn’t what we are discussing. Condemning all nudity made today as pornography, using no standard but the time in which it is made, is clearly illogical.

You say nude art today has no place, because it will be misused. Then isn’t that true of art of the past too? Is there something about art of the past that somehow forbids lust? Do you suppose not one single person has ever looked at nudes from the past and felt lust? Likely, there is not a single nude portrayal that can ban lust entirely. For that matter, there is no way one can dress that entirely banishes lust either.

So, how does what you say only apply to the art of today, not of the past? To say we must shun all nude art that may incite lust is to say we ought to paint over the Sistine Chapel.

Obviously, you have gone wrong somewhere. And that is in assuming you know the hearts of humankind so thoroughly, that you know no nude has, today, any place. Do you?

 

[dshix]

Frankly, it sounds as if Mikel may easily be right. Obviously, this isn’t necessarily the reason, at least consciously. But it may be true of many people.

Dshix, you use the term, “pornography”, when that obviously isn’t what we are discussing. Condemning all nudity made today as pornography, using no standard but the time in which it is made, is clearly illogical.

You say nude art today has no place, because it will be misused. Then isn’t that true of art of the past too? Is there something about art of the past that somehow forbids lust? Do you suppose not one single person has ever looked at nudes from the past and felt lust? Likely, there is not a single nude portrayal that can ban lust entirely. For that matter, there is no way one can dress that entirely banishes lust either.

So, how does what you say only apply to the art of today, not of the past? To say we must shun all nude art that may incite lust is to say we ought to paint over the Sistine Chapel.

Obviously, you have gone wrong somewhere. And that is in assuming you know the hearts of humankind so thoroughly, that you know no nude has, today, any place. Do you?

You speak as if you think you are being logical. I challenge you to see yourself from outside yourself, because what I see is that you are putting words into my mouth and attributing meaning to what I say beyond anything I intended to say.

I never said that the time in which a nude art is made is what dictates whether the art is good or bad. I said that in this day and age there is no good outlet for nude art. I don’t see anymore Sistine Chapels being built.

Your next mistake was in assuming that I believe that “all nude art that may incite lust” must be destroyed. Please stop building strawmen.

Art that is made for the purpose of inciting lust is evil. Not art that incites lust. A man can feel lust when he sees a rock, or an animal, if he causes that lust in himself. It is when the art itself is ordered towards lust that it is evil art.

And now we come to the pivotal question: is there any art that has been made in this generation that contained nudity and was not made to incite lust? The answer is, I hope, yes (of course at least one piece of artworks has been made in this manner) but the fact is that the vast, vast majority of nude art is NOT made for such a purpose. The outlet for clean, good nude art is currently so, so small, that it is ridiculous to assume that supplying even more art into the system is pointless. The chances that the nude modeling you do will contribute to good, wholesome, *holy *art is very small because the outlet for such art is so small.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

My apologies, but as you were speaking against the art of the present and not the past, it seemed a good assumption.

I did not assume you think it must be destroyed. That was merely an example. At any rate, if you think that all nude art made today is liable to generally incite lust, whether you think it ought to be destroyed or not, you presumably do not think it should be displayed in art shows.

I have seen plenty of lovely nudes done recently, yes. In fact, I know a lady artist who draws and paints nude portraits, and they are gorgeous.

 

[dshix]

My apologies, but as you were speaking against the art of the present and not the past, it seemed a good assumption.

I did not assume you think it must be destroyed. That was merely an example. At any rate, if you think that all nude art made today is liable to generally incite lust, whether you think it ought to be destroyed or not, you presumably do not think it should be displayed in art shows.

Thank you; I see now that you did not intend to misinterpret me.

I have seen plenty of lovely nudes done recently, yes. In fact, I know a lady artist who draws and paints nude portraits, and they are gorgeous.

Well, I don’t deny that the art can be beautiful, but does that make it good? As in, morally good? Who does she sell these paintings to? For what purpose are they made?

Even good art can be used in a bad way. Consider robwar’s example up earlier in the thread in which a restaurant owner obtained a nude painting of his sister and put it in his place.

I guess the big question is: what is the outlet for such art? Who will appreciate it for what it should be, instead of use it as a way to incite lust? Furthermore, don’t you think that society in general has been rather perverted to the degree that perhaps now is not the time to make more nude art? I suggest that perhaps the obsessiveness with sexual objects in the culture need to rectified before that same culture can appreciate nude art.

 

[KEP1983]

Thank you; I see now that you did not intend to misinterpret me.

Well, I don’t deny that the art can be beautiful, but does that make it good? As in, morally good? Who does she sell these paintings to? For what purpose are they made?

I know a lot of artists who make a living selling figurative art-- both portraiture and nudes. Usually a person who paints portraits also studied painting nudes-- in fact, I can’t think of a single professional artist I know who HASN’T studied the nude, even though 99% of artists I know NEVER paint nudes in their professional work-- and as a professional artist who is classically trained, many of us simply draw or paint from the nude model because it’s the best way to improve skill.

I know multiple famous illustrators who never paints nudes in their professional work, but draw from the nude model at least once a week in order to keep up their skills. The illustrators I know have worked on projects ranging from Halo to the newest Superman movie to the Lord of the Rings. You don’t get to that level without having studied the figure, even if you NEVER paint a nude in your professional career.

My ex girlfriend is a professional animator who draws kids cartoons for TV-- everyone on this forum has seen her work. But you’ve never seen her nudes though. She learned to draw kids cartoons by studying the nude figure.

Every time you walk through a museum and see an artist who specialized in still life, portrait, or Sacred art-- even if you never see a single nude from them-- know that they LEARNED to draw, paint, and sculpt by studying from the nude model.

The same can be said of all the great realist artists of the past. Go back all the way to the Renaissance and you’ll see that the nude figure was the #1 most important subject taught in the guilds; and the guilds were supported by the Church.

You couldn’t even get a license to be an artist from a guild without having studied the nude figure. And again, the guilds were supported by the Church.

Studying from nude models is just that-- studying. 99% of the work done from a nude model is not art made for galleries to be sold. Some is. But the vast vast vast majority is just for studying.

As far as the 1% of artists who actually sell their nude paintings in galleries; the people buying the paintings are wealthy collectors who love traditional art. They don’t care about the content of old master paintings, but they appreciate the skill and beauty of a well crafted figurative painting.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

As far as the 1% of artists who actually sell their nude paintings in galleries; the people buying the paintings are wealthy collectors who love traditional art. They don’t care about the content of old master paintings, but they appreciate the skill and beauty of a well crafted figurative painting.

Not everybody who buys art is wealthy. I’m not rich by any stretch but I have several pieces by famous artists (not nudes mind you) and people often overestzimate how expensive these are. They’re actually far easier and cheaper to get hold of than you think, if they aren’t exactly famous or icomic pieces. The most I ever payed was 500$, and the others were all below $200. So such pieces are well within the budget of an average earner. The artists are all well known in artist circles, and did work for Lord of the Rings and such productions, or illustrated famous book covers.

Now my next point. The purpose of art is to be seen and enjoyed. I like to position my artwork in places in my house where I get to see it and can enjoy it. Collectors stashing stuff away in bank vaults is a travesty in my view. Artists who produce stuff to order especially for such purposes are not serving art but serving money. So if people are buying nudes only to disappear them into some bank vault, that’s not exactly something I feel happy about. If a nude is legitimately artistic and not lewd, there is no reason you shouldn’t hang it in your house. But how many people genuinely do that? I think that a significant proportion of nudes being painted to be sold are either disappearing into dark bank vaults, or a re being bought by people who see lewd things in them, even if that was not the artist’s intention. Maybe a good artists should not sell to the highest bidder but take some responsibility in assuring his or her works pass into responsible hands.

 

[edwest2]

As someone who watches the media on an almost daily basis, I can say with certainty that “standards” - whatever that means - are declining. And it is happening on purpose. In my Advanced Painting Class in college, I noticed many young artists just doing what they were told by their “nothing means something” instructors. Throwing paint against the canvas or treating nudity as if it were nothing. No standards meant no standards. At a nearby ‘prestigious’ art school, I went to several showings in the Illustration exhibit. Many people obviously drew from photos. In fact, one artist who worked for us did this exclusively.

There is no legitimate reason to own a contemporary painting that includes or features a nude. None. The only possible exception is sacred art. Some decades ago, a few artists walked the fine line between nudity in art and proper standards, and a few might have fallen into the ‘proper respect for the dignity of the human body’ category, but most didn’t. Those standards, have, in 99.999999% of the recent art I’ve seen, disappeared. The human body is not treated with the dignity it requires. It falls into the semi-pornographic category at best.

My company has access to the finest artists and studios out there. Would we turn down such art? Yes. And for Catholics, this is not a private matter. God knows your heart and discernment as given by the world is worthless by the same percentage I gave above.

No, the nude human body is not dirty or sinful, but intention is everything. Presentation must follow standards that some artists today, either never knew existed or they were never taught about them as it applies to the nude human body.

That is why nudes in pornography are viewed as entirely acceptable. If a celebrity does it somewhere, it’s, “Yeah? What’s the big deal?” Is IS a big deal and if Christians are going to reform the culture and drag it out of the gutter, it means boundaries need to be set. That means “anything goes” has got to go.

We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our neighbor. We owe it to God.

May God have mercy,

Ed

 

[josh987654321]

.

.

May I ask you two some questions.

If either of you are married, How would you feel about your wife/husband deciding to do nude modelling? he/she assures you it’s just for ‘art’ and it’s practically harmless, they are just going stand naked infront of a group of strangers for a couple hours while they are objectified and painted.

How would you feel about meeting someone down the street who was in that art class and had watched your wife/husband naked for a couple hours while painting them? They probably still have the image tucked away in their draw and offer you a copy of their drawing of your husband/wife naked. (personally I would be deeply offended by them for taking advantage of my wife while she was naive and vulnerable enough to be persuaded into doing nude modeling to staisfy their ‘art’).

How would you feel discovering a naked picture/painting of your spouse or future spouse on the internet? How about your children, when one of the other kids at school gets his hands on this naked picture of his/her mother/father and it’s sent around the playground?

May I ask, KEP1983 what do you hope to gain by encouraging Pound Coolish to do ‘nude modelling’?

And May I ask you Pound Coolish, what you hope to gain by doing nude modeling? by objectifying yourself like that? Don’t you deserve more respect that that? I think you do. May I ask why don’t you think so?

These ‘artists’ are not going to see ‘you’ Pound Coolish, they are going to objectify you and view you as nothing more than some object to practise their ‘art’ on, are you nothing more than some object to be used and disposed of at their whim or fancy? why are you not outraged, disgusted and offended at these people who want you to stand naked before them while they treat you as some mere object to be used for their art? I for one believe you are worth more than that, why don’t you? please, respect yourself enough to tell these people who are trying to encourage you to do this that you are worth more than that, that you are worthy of dignity and respect as all women should be.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Thank you; I see now that you did not intend to misinterpret me.

Well, I don’t deny that the art can be beautiful, but does that make it good? As in, morally good? Who does she sell these paintings to? For what purpose are they made?

Even good art can be used in a bad way. Consider robwar’s example up earlier in the thread in which a restaurant owner obtained a nude painting of his sister and put it in his place.

I guess the big question is: what is the outlet for such art? Who will appreciate it for what it should be, instead of use it as a way to incite lust? Furthermore, don’t you think that society in general has been rather perverted to the degree that perhaps now is not the time to make more nude art? I suggest that perhaps the obsessiveness with sexual objects in the culture need to rectified before that same culture can appreciate nude art.

For what purpose are they made? Partially for her own pleasure, and occasionally she sells one. Nothing unusual. Why do you ask? Do they have to have some kind of special purpose in order to be moral?

What precisely is wrong with displaying a painting in a restaurant? It’s fine a ceiling but not in a restaurant? Again, if it was displayed against the woman’s wishes, that is dreadful, but if with them, then what is wrong with that, provided the painting wasn’t overtly erotic?

No, today’s society is not necessarily overtly erotic. Movies, magazines, and books sometimes are. (Generally not.)

Besides, all this talk, as if the past was pure and innocent, is unfounded. Arguably, past society’s had more sexual integrity than that of today. But they were far from being sexually pure overall. This is hardly a novel thought. Haven’t you ever payed close attention to a Shakespeare?

Edwest2

With all due respect to your experience in the media, saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it any more true.

You say repeatedly nudity of today is consistently bad. That goes entirely against my personal experience. Further, these vague statements are unhelpful. It’s not convincing to say all nudity you’ve com across is immoral, no matter how many times you say so. What makes it immoral? And please keep in mind, this is not a black and white area. The church’s doctrine does not say clearly and absolutely, “This nudity is alright, this is bad.” Apart, that is, from porn, which it describes as taking intimacy from the privacy of the partners and putting it on display, not even as nudity. If I am not mistaken.

josh987654321

I am unmarried. In theory, I would be fine with it. Nudity for a pure purpose is not be objected to. It’s not as if someone else would be having sex with the hypothetical spouse. There would be no call for childish jealousy.

That would likely be dreadful for the child, but it seems you are just, “imagining the worst that could happen.” Is not this scenario unlikely?

As to why I am interested in this… Well, I’ve explained that many times on here. But as I keep being asked, I’ll try and go into more depth, though really, I hardly know myself.

I would be helping to make something I think beautiful, and it would be an unusual experience. Further, it would be… An experience. It might make me look at things differently to be a part of the creative process, rather than appreciating the results. And it would be interesting to be on the vulnerable, less talked of side of things rather than on the side of the artist. (I have never experienced either, but modelling appeals to me more.) In every day life, people talk about covering yourself up and how if you show skin, look at porn, or what have you, you’re being sinful. (I’m not saying porn isn’t dreadfully, tragically sinful and twisted, it is.) So, to be nude in front of others, and not have the purpose be sex would be almost like being in another, better, more complex world.